Report on the living conditions of Roma households in Slovakia 2010

europeandcis.undp.orgUNDP, 2012

Report on the Living Conditions of Roma householdsin Slovakia 2010

UNDP Europe and the CIS,Bratislava Regional Centre

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) expresses its gratitudeto the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic for financial supportand collaboration in implementation of this project

© UNDP 2012ISBN: 978-80-89263-11-0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in all forms by any emans, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise prior permission.

Cover and layout design:Valeur, s. r. o., Slovak Republic

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the UNDP Executive Board.

The main authors of the report are Jarmila Filadelfiováand Daniel Gerbery, who analysed the data files,worked up the text of the report and prepared thegraphs and tables.

Ján Vittek provided invaluable statistical help to theauthors. Daniel Škobla took part in the final editing of thetext and in preparing the introduction and conclusion.The report’s recommendations were prepared by a teamof experts from the United Nations Development Pro-gramme in Bratislava.

The final form of the text profited from knowl-edgeable comments and feedback from the following ex-perts: Igor André, Christian Brueggemann, RichardFilčák, Eben Friedman, James Grellier, Jakob Hurrle, Ju-raj Kuruc, Martin Kahanec, Sándor Karácsony, MartinaKubánová, Zuzana Kusá, Jarmila Lajčáková, KatarínaMathernová and Michal Vašečka.

Key methodological questions both in the processof data collection and analysis of the data sets were an-swered by experts: Andrey Ivanov, Jaroslav Kling, Joostde Laat, Tadas Leončikas and Alojz Ritomský. Themethodology for data collection came from the modeldeveloped by a team of experts at the World Bank un-der the leadership of Valerie Evans. Anton Marcinčin pro-vided valuable feedback regarding the analyses of eco-

nomic activity. Jarmila Filadelfiová played a role inpreparation of the questionnaire for the field survey.

This publication would not be possible without thesupport of senior managers at the UN Development Pro-gramme Regional Centre in Bratislava, specifically: JensWandel, Balázs Horváth, Andrey Ivanov, Nato Alhazashvili,Daniela Gašparíková and Daniel Hanšpach. The projectleader was Daniel Škobla.

The framework for successful implementation of theproject, within which this report originated, was createdby the project council, which included: Martina Baťová(Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the SlovakRepublic), Peter Guráň (UN Committee on the Rights of theChild), Ľudmila Ivančíková (Statistical Office of the SlovakRepublic) and Katarína Muszková, Mária Nádaždyová, Mar-tin Vavrinčík and Nadežda Šebová, all from the Ministry ofLabour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic.For support and consultation on certain questions it is nec-essary to thank the employees from the Office of thePlenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic Government forRoma Communities: Miroslav Pollák, Zuzana Kumanováand Alexander Mušinka. The agency TNS Slovakia was re-sponsible for the coordination of data collection in the fieldand the creation of the database, specifically employees:Ľubica Szviteková, Soňa Tomešová and Iveta Šottníková.

3

Authors and expert support

The report you are holding in your hands is one of thekey outputs of an extensive research project focused onan analysis of the living conditions of the marginalisedRoma population in Slovakia and carried out by theBratislava Regional Centre of the United Nations Devel-opment Programme (UNDP) for Europe and the Com-monwealth of Independent States, in cooperation withthe Ministry of Work, Social Affairs and Family of the Slo-vak Republic. The UNDP Regional Centre has been op-erating in Bratislava since 1998, and during this time ithas carried out, and as a partner has shared in, many proj-ects devoted to the integration of socially excludedgroups of citizens. These projects have been focused onsupport for community development, employment,social services and social economics, as well as on researchactivities and the monitoring of the living conditions ofsocially excluded groups of citizens, with the goal of com-piling data for responsible public policies based on rel-evant knowledge and information. All of these activitieshave been carried out in accordance with the UNDP man-date, which consists of providing help for national gov-ernments with the resolution of development questions.

The fight against poverty and social exclusion is oneof the long-term priorities of the UNDP. At the Millen-nium Summit in the year 2000, UN Member States ob-ligated themselves to devote priority attention on per-manently sustainable development and combatingpoverty. The result of the initiative was acceptance of theMillennium Development Goals, which are connectedto an agreement and a resolution of the UN from the pre-vious decade. Significant regional differences continueto persist in Slovakia in measures of poverty, unem-ployment and average wages, as well as in education andhealth status indicators. In some regions it is possible toeven speak of islands of deep poverty. Aside from re-gional disparities, there exist in Slovakia vulnerable, ex-cluded and marginalised groups of citizens who do nothave the opportunity for equal participation in economicand social development. In some groups this exclusionhas a long-term character, while others have fallen intopoverty as a consequence of transformational societalshifts. Research data suggests that at present these is-lands of poverty in Slovakia for the most part overlapwith those regions and locations having a predominanceof Roma residents.

A number of UN agencies have consulted on, sup-ported and in practice carried out the collection of sta-tistical and research data on the living conditions of ex-cluded Roma communities over the past decade. TheUNDP itself has since the year 2002 carried out a num-ber of large international comparative studies on the so-cioeconomic conditions of the marginalised Roma pop-ulation in Central Europe and the Balkans. The report youare currently holding is another continuation of the ac-tivities of the UNDP focused on the collection of data andthe quantification of information about the social ex-clusion of Roma households and their comparison withnon-Roma households living in the same geographic ar-eas. The report was prepared on the basis of data froman extensive questionnaire survey of Roma householdsconducted in Slovakia in the year 2010.

The UNDP sees this publication as a step which cre-ates a space for understanding the complicated situationthat excluded communities find themselves living in, andwhich enables the making of adequate and urgent po-litical decisions for creating the framework for a digni-fied life. The report can help reveal through its policy rec-ommendations how it is both suitable and necessary inenvironments of socially excluded Roma communitiesto set parameters for the labour market, social protec-tion and help, and the conditions for education and hous-ing, particularly in association with the current economiccrisis and budget problems which states and their citi-zens are experiencing. The report is intended for the de-cision-making sphere, institutions and individuals whodeal with improving the conditions for marginalisedgroups of population and for the Roma in particular. Webelieve that the knowledge, conclusions and recom-mendations of this publication will contribute to furthereffective steps of state administration and of all peopleinterested in their efforts to erase islands of poverty andsocial exclusion from the map of Slovakia.

Balázs HorváthDirector of the Poverty Reduction SectionRegional Centre of the UN Development Programme

5

Forward

Content

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................................................................................5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................11

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................19

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SAMPLE......................23

2.1. RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND DATA COLLECTION...........................................................................................23

2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SAMPLE.........................................................................................................24

2.2.1. The frequency of the researched sets of households, families and individuals......................24

2.2.2. Composition of the research sets according to selected quantitative characteristics .........24

2.2.3. A comparison of sets of households by cohabiting generations.................................................29

Chapter 3: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMA POPULATION IN COMPARISONS...........................31

3.1. STRUCTURE BY GENDER AND FAMILY STATUS .................................................................................................31

3.2. AGE STRUCTURE..........................................................................................................................................................35

3.3. STRUCTURE ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................37

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................39

Chapter 4: MOTHER TONGUE AND LANGUAGE USED IN DAILY LIFE IN THE ROMA POPULATION .......................41

4.1. NATIVE LANGUAGE.....................................................................................................................................................41

4.2 LANGUAGE OF DAILY USE IN THE ROMA POPULATION ................................................................................42

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................46

Chapter 5: MIGRATION AND EXCLUSION RELATING TO HOUSING .....................................................................................47

5.1. MOBILITY TO PLACE OF CURRENT RESIDENCE AND WITHIN IT ..................................................................47

5.1.1. Continuity of residence in the present municipality versus migration......................................47

5.1.2. Changes of place of residence within a municipality .......................................................................48

5.1.3. Migrations by geographic position of the municipality of previous residence .....................49

5.2. PREVIOUS VERSUS PRESENT RESIDENCE BY LEVEL OF SEGREGATION ....................................................51

5.3. REASONS FOR MOVING AND MIGRATING..........................................................................................................54

5.4. MOBILITY FROM PLACE OF PRESENT RESIDENCE ..........................................................................................60

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................63

Chapter 6: MATERIAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE: HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS.......................................65

6.1. TYPE OF DWELLING....................................................................................................................................................65

6.2. SIZE CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS.............................................................................................................67

6.3. OWNERSHIP RELATIONS TO HOUSE/FLAT AND PROPERTY .........................................................................69

6.4. ACCESS TO WATER AND ITS QUALITY ..................................................................................................................71 7

6.5. WASTE AND METHOD OF ITS REMOVAL .............................................................................................................74

6.6. HOUSEHOLD GOODS ...............................................................................................................................................76

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................80

Chapter 7: HEALTH STATUS AND ACCESSIBILITY OF HEALTH CARE ...................................................................................81

7.1. OCCURRENCE OF CHRONIC ILLNESSES AND INVALIDITY.............................................................................81

7.2. COMMON ILLNESSES, SEEING A DOCTOR, PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE .....................................................85

7.3. EVALUATION OF HEALTH STATUS ..........................................................................................................................89

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................90

Chapter 8: EDUCATION AND EXPENDITURES ON EDUCATION .............................................................................................95

8.1. EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PERSONS WHO ARE NO LONGER IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ...........95

8.2. PERSONS IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM: ATTENDING SCHOOL,

CONDITIONS OF EDUCATION...............................................................................................................................101

8.3. LITERACY......................................................................................................................................................................107

8.4. ATTENDING NURSERY SCHOOL BEFORE ENTRY INTO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.....................................108

8.5. EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION........................................................................................................................110

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................................113

Chapter 9: EXCLUSION FROM THE LABOUR MARKET.............................................................................................................117

9.1. DECLARED ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AND EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................117

9.1.1. Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status ...................................117

9.1.2. Differences in declared economic activities of Roma men and women .................................122

9.1.3. Work activities of the Roma population by type and economic activity in total .................126

9.1.4. Comparison of declared economic activities by age and education128

9.2. GENERAL WORK EXPERIENCE OF THE ROMA POPULATION .....................................................................133

9.2.1. Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with more permanent work ...............134

9.2.2. Experience with more permanent work by current economic status......................................135

9.2.3. Work experience during a lifetime by age and education ...........................................................138

9.2.4. Average age of first entry into the labour market ..........................................................................142

9.3. THE ROMA POPULATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET BY LABOUR FORCE SURVEY

METHODOLOGY: STANDING AND DEPENDENCIES .....................................................................................143

9.3.1. Performing at least one hour of work per week...............................................................................143

9.3.2. The measure of employment, unemployment and economic activity using

the Labour Force Survey (VZPS) methodology ................................................................................146

9.3.3. Employment and unemployment: influential factors....................................................................151

9.3.4. Quality and stability of work activities of the Roma population ...............................................155

9.3.5. Characteristics of unemployment of the Roma population

and experience with institutions ...........................................................................................................158

9.3.6. Impacts of exclusion from the labour market on the situation of households ....................163

9.4. PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVATION PROGRAMMES ............................................................................................165

9.4.1. Total experience with work in an activation programme.............................................................1668

9.4.2. Current participation in an activation programme.........................................................................169

9.4.3. Further education of the Roma population with finished vocational training.....................171

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................................173

Chapter 10: STANDARD OF LIVING OF ROMA HOUSEHOLDS –

INCOMES, FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND DEPRIVATION IN CONSUMPTION.........................................181

10.1. TOTAL WORK INCOMES ........................................................................................................................................181

10.2. TOTAL SOCIAL INCOMES......................................................................................................................................182

10.3. THE DRAWING OF SOCIAL TRANSFERS...........................................................................................................186

10.3.1. The benefit in material need and allowances associated with it .............................................186

10.3.2. Pensions .......................................................................................................................................................188

10.3.3. Family benefits...........................................................................................................................................189

10.3.4. Unemployment benefits ........................................................................................................................190

10.4. TOTAL INCOMES......................................................................................................................................................191

10.5. DEPRIVATION IN THE FIELD OF CONSUMPTION AND THE OCCURRENCE OF ARREARS................194

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................................197

Chapter 11: EXTREME DEPRIVATION AND SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE LIVING SITUATION

VERSUS WORK AND INCOME......................................................................................................................................199

11.1. EXTREME DEPRIVATION: FOOD FOR CHILDREN, COOKING AND HEATING .......................................199

11.2. SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT FINANCIAL SITUATION AND EVALUATION

OF CHANGES TO IT OVER TIME..........................................................................................................................211

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................................223

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................225

LITERATURE ...................................................................................................................................................................................................231

9

This report was written on the basis of data from com-prehensive sample survey of the living conditions ofRoma households in Slovakia in 2010. Report is prima-rily focused on comparison of different Roma living en-vironments (segregated, separated, diffused) and on com-parison of average values between Roma households andindividuals on the one hand and households and indi-viduals from the general population living in closeproximity to Roma, on the other hand. When it is possi-ble and reasonable, report compares situation in year2010 with the situation in year 2005. The report was di-vided into 11 chapters according to the thematic areas.In addition to the introduction and methodological parts,substance of the report are chapters No. 3 to 11.

Methodological information anda description of the research sample

Research framework for this research derive from the so-called sociographic mapping of Roma communities inSlovakia (Atlas of Roma Communities in Slovakia 2004),which were based on the assumption that the margin-alised Roma population lives in certain spatial enclaves.Such a method of mapping provided detailed informa-tion about Roma settlements, on the basis of which it waspossible for UNDP sample survey to divide Roma set-tlements into three basic classes according to the degreeof integration with the majority population – segregat-ed, separated and diffused. An equal number of districts(of various numbers – containing approximately between40 and 120 households) were created for each of theseclasses, from which 30 sites in each class were selectedfor data collection using random proportional selection.After a check and final revision, a total of 1,083 house-holds were included in the analyses and statistical pro-cessing. The set of Roma households totalled 723 units,and each subset defined by the type of living was rep-resented by approximately an equal number of house-holds – individually this was about 240 households fromthe groups living segregated, separated and diffused. Rel-atively speaking, then, each subset represented one-thirdof the total. The control set of spatially close general pop-ulation was made up of 360 households. Three types ofdata were collected in each selected household. Thesewere data related to the household as a whole, additionaldata related to families making up the household, andfinally data about the individual members of the house-hold. Thus, three mutually related research sets were cre-ated – in addition to the set for households, these wasa set for families and a set for individuals.

The majority of selected households were identicalwith a nuclear family; they were not made up of sever-al family units. In regard to the set of individuals, whichwas formed by all of the members of the selectedhouseholds, a total of 3,614 persons were representedin the research sample for the Roma population, of whichsegregated communities represented 1,277 persons (a35 % share), separated 1,232 persons (34 %) and livingdiffused 1,105 persons (31 %). The size of the research setof individuals for the spatially close general populationin the end totalled 1,060 respondents.

While not quite 3% of total Roma households weremade up of single-member households, this number wasnearly 17% from general households from the nearbyvicinity. On the other hand, households with eight ormore members represented nearly 15% of the Roma setbut only 0.3% of the general set.

The Roma sets were in structure not only larger inoverall household membership but also in the repre-sentation of children of different age categories; on theother hand, they also had a significantly smaller share ofhouseholds and individuals in relation to the number ofworking members. Thus, the basic makeup of the sur-veyed sets already strongly indicates the different social,life and work situation of both compared sets of house-holds and their members, which the results of theanalyses subsequently confirmed.

Thus, on the basis of biological as well as by pro-ductive age, the structure of the Roma population is sig-nificantly more abundant in the younger age groups;on the other hand its older generation is dispropor-tionately weaker than that of the general population.And with the growth of geographic exclusion thisgenerational disproportion is still deepening. While thehigh share of the youngest generation of pre-produc-tive age confirms an assumption about reproductive be-haviour, for which a higher birth rate and higher fertilityis characteristic, the low share of older age groups andpost-production individuals reflects, aside from the dif-ferent reproduction behaviour, also the worst health sta-tus and living conditions of many groups of the Romapopulation, which contributes to the growth of mortalityand its shifting to a lower age, than is typical for the Slo-vak Republic.

The very small share of older age groups and old-agepensioners in the Roma population indicates that theydo not represent a great burden for the pension system.This fact, however, is not emphasised and is neglectedin discourse about the relations of the Roma populationand the social system; the connection with poverty ben-efits is more typically pointed out. 11

Executive Summary

Mother tongue and language usedin daily life in the roma population

In terms of language used, the Roma population in Slovakiacan be identified as heterogeneous, or multicultural. Thisis already evident in the question of the mother tongue.Exactly one-third of the surveyed Roma population gaveSlovak as their mother tongue and an additional 12% gaveHungarian. However, the highest representation was,naturally enough, in the Romani language, which more thanhalf of the entire set declared as their mother tongue (55%). And a comparison with the situation five years ago didnot reveal any significant shifts in this regard.

Empirical data suggest that the spatial segregationof the Roma population probably also has an impact onlanguage segregation, because in the surveyed segre-gated settlements the dominant language of dailyhousehold use was predominately Romani – unlike theother two types of settlements. In comparison with Romaliving diffused, those in the segregated settlements de-clared Romani as their first language of daily use threetimes more often. At the same time segregated settle-ments most often also cited a second language of com-mon communication, with the Roma in comparison withthe geographically close general population, a secondlanguage was listed a great deal more often.

The data also show that groups of population existwhich utilise two languages in daily household use, how-ever neither of them is Slovak. Many Roma children fromsegregated (and separated) settlements thus can haveproblems in education due to the lack of opportunity tohear Slovak in common use at home. The mothertongue and the language of daily household use shouldtherefore be very carefully considered when selectinga specific school (according to the language used forteaching), but also when testing prior to entry to primaryschool or deciding about being assigned to a specialschool. Children can fail when testing because of the lan-guage used, not because of mental disability or insuffi-cient general foundations and skills. At the same time itis necessary to emphasise that also in connection withknowledge of languages, an adapted and an availablesystem of nursery schools appears to be a very impor-tant component of preparation for school attendance formany groups of Roma children.

Migration and exclusion relatingto housing

On the basis empirical data regarding relocation it is pos-sible in conclusion to state that the spatial mobility of theRoma population connected with a change of place ofresidence is in no way particularly high in an overall view.

More the opposite, as the majority of Roma remain in theirmunicipality of origin, meaning that Roma living seg-regated and separated are still more “attached” to theplace of their birth. But let’s remember that even the ge-ographically close general population did not havea high share of relocation within the municipality and mi-gration to the municipality.

If the Roma population does relocate, this is mostoften only one time and within the municipality itself– in connection with independence or for other reasons.At the same time Roma recorded, in comparison withthe geographically close general population, morerepeated relocations within a municipality and more mi-grations to a municipality. In regard to migration to thecurrent place of residence, this predominately in-volved migration from another municipality in the samedistrict or directly from a neighbouring municipality;even another district in the same region was found a lotless in responses and another region or from abroad wascompletely rare.

Reasons for relocating are predominately associatedwith family and the stages of family life, such as getting mar-ried or commencing cohabitation with a partner, relocat-ing with parents, gaining independence from parents orfor other family reasons, such as, for example, divorce ofloss of parents, etc. Reasons for relocating other than fam-ily had about a one-third prevalence, and among these wereloss of a flat or eviction, obtaining a flat from a municipalityor for better living conditions.

From a number of comparisons of the type of pre-vious and present settlement a stronger tendency towardspatial exclusion was evident over integration of theRoma, particularly in the post-revolution years and in-volving reasons other than family reasons for moving. Butfor more strongly worded statements it would be nec-essary to conduct special empirical research.

The tracking of current migration indicates a relativelybroad experience among Roma households with workabroad; it was shown to have minimally an equal or ahigher range of work experience abroad than generalhouseholds from neighbouring Roma communities.

Material conditions of life: housing and household furnishings

In this chapter attention was focused on dwellings, theirsize, questions of ownership and type of building ma-terials used. Along with the characteristics of thedwelling itself, the level of its furnishings was also mon-itored, as well as access to water, method of waste dis-posal and sources of hot water used. On the basis of thedata, it can be stated that more than half of all Romahouseholds lived in free-standing brick houses. An ad-ditional 11% of households lived in brick houses with two

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N S O F R O M A H O U S E H O L D S I N S L O V A K I A 2 0 1 0

12

or three flats. More than 20% of households lived in flatsin residential homes, and the majority of them lived inresidential blocks with more than ten flats. Some 16% ofRoma households lived in non-standard forms ofdwelling, as in a house from wood or an abode from var-ious materials. Although in comparison with 2005 ratherfewer households were recorded as living in shacks andwooden houses (which could indicate the runningprocess of building of municipal rental flats within Pro-grammes for the development of housing), in the courseof five years no dramatic changes occurred from the view-point of structure of Roma households by type ofdwelling. The significant lack of space for living and crowd-ed conditions is a part of the life of no small part of theRoma population in all types of settlements. In terms ofthe number of rooms, it’s possible to say that in 2010 sur-veyed Roma households lived on average in smallerdwelling than five years ago.

The majority of Roma households (more than70%) in 2010 lived in dwellings which belonged toa member of the household or a member of the fami-ly. The dominant position of separated households fromthe viewpoint of share of dwellings in public ownershipin 2010 was confirmation of the situation in 2005, whenthe share of such flats and houses was likely wellhigher. This fact again can point to the running processof construction of so-called flats of lower standard andrelative progress in the solution of the housing prob-lem of the marginalised Roma population.

New data repeatedly confirmed the existence of lin-gering problems from the viewpoint of access of Romacommunities to drinking water. First and foremost,a higher measure of diversification of sources of waterin Roma communities was again found in comparisonwith the geographically close general population. Lessthan half of Roma households had water from publicwater mains in their dwelling. The problematic approachto water signifies the fact that external sources of wa-ter were not always found near Roma dwellings, and42% of Roma households which drew water fromsources outside of their own dwelling had to go morethan 50 metres for it (in comparison with 2005 this shareof households increased).

Analysis of data also showed deficiencies in the fieldof waste management, which can originate either dueto a lack of financial resources of Roma households or thedifferent approach of local administration to Roma set-tlements. Organised collection of waste, whether in theform of collection directly in the residential building orin its proximity, collection from a household containeror from a common container for households was reportedby up to 100% of general households in the geograph-ic proximity, but only 85% of Roma households.

In the great majority of Roma households (92%) elec-tric energy was the main source of lighting, with the most

often used in households living diffused and the least insegregated settlements. Access to electrical energy,however, was often interrupted and also for longertime periods: nearly 30% of them did not have electric-ity for two months, 12% had to live without electricity forthree months, more than a third of Roma householdswith an interrupted supply remained without electrici-ty for four or more months.

In the study the furnishings of households were alsomonitored through the presence, or absence, of a set oflong-term consumer goods. More than two-thirds ofRoma households could not afford the Internet and acomputer, half could not afford to acquire an automat-ic washing machine, 23% did not have a telephone avail-able due to insufficient finances, and approximately 14%did not have a refrigerator. On the basis of these data it’spossible to state that Roma households are often locatedin unfavourable living conditions defined by the absenceof necessary furnishings.

Health status and accessibilityof health care

On the basis of the subjective opinions of respondents(the occurrence of chronic illnesses and its implicationwere ascertained on the basis of self-evaluation of re-spondents; that is, no expert assessment was involved)the occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma popu-lation age 6+ years was higher in 2010 than in 2005, andwas so on the level of the entire set of surveyed persons,as well as on the level of the individual groups definedaccording to spatial integration of the households inwhich they lived. The gap between the Roma and thegeographically close general population, however, re-mained more or less unchanged – the occurrence ofchronic illnesses was higher for the general population.

But with comparisons through individual generationsdifferences did appear: in the youngest generationchronic illnesses were approximately the same for theRoma and the general population, but for the middle gen-eration they were higher in the Roma population and forthose older than age 55 years chronic illnesses were sig-nificantly higher among the Roma. Such a result signi-fies the faster growth and earlier occurrence of chronicand long-term illnesses in the Roma population. This isalso similar for a comparison of the three Roma settle-ment types – in the oldest generation chronic illnessesoccur most often among those living segregated and sep-arated. The poor living conditions in segregated settle-ments, probably also supported by a less consistent ap-proach to personal health and worse access to health care,is expressed at a higher age in the significantly higher oc-currence of chronic illness of their residents.


13

Common illnesses or health problems which are notof a chronic character occurred more often than chron-ic problems in the Roma population: they related to morethan half of the surveyed set (53%), similarly as in the setof the geographically close general population (52%).These most commonly occurred among individuals liv-ing in segregated settlements (55%), least among thoseliving in diffused households (49%). Half of the Roma pop-ulation (51%) reported that they had to interrupt theirdaily activities as a consequence of common health prob-lems – they had to stop going to work, school or had tostop performing other common daily activities.

Approximately only half of the Roma population sawa doctor with each medical problem. The most commonreason in the Roma population for not seeing a doctorwas the conviction that the given medical problem didnot require one. Such an opinion was found in one-thirdof those who saw a doctor only occasionally or never(33%). Approximately one-fifth (22%) opted to wait forthe spontaneous improvement of health status. The thirdmost common reason was insufficient finances, whichpertained to 18%. The unfavourable financial situationas a barrier to seeing a doctor upon the occurrence ofa medical problem is found most often in separated set-tlements (20%), and it played the smaller role amongRoma living diffused (14%).

In the case of seeing a doctor, a great majority (85%)were prescribed medicines which had to be bought ata pharmacy. Among those who saw a doctor in 2010were 23% who didn’t acquire the prescribed medicinesat all or who acquired only some of them. This relatedto one-quarter of those surveyed in segregated set-tlements. The most common reason for such an ap-proach was a lack of money. The reply “I couldn’t affordso much money for medicine” was selected by morethan half (57%) of those who were prescribed medicinebut didn’t acquire them (all or none).

Expenditures associated with seeing a doctor thusrepresented a burden for a household, either as paymentfor transport in the case of having to travel a large dis-tance or payments for medicines and the like. From thesurveyed Roma population 20% reported that theypaid nothing for medicines. On the other hand, one-fifthpaid from EUR 4 to EUR 6 and one-third reported thattheir expenditures were around EUR 10 or more. Lowerexpenditures most often occurred with people from seg-regated settlements. A sum of EUR 10 or more was paidin particular by Roma living in households which are dif-fused in majority environments – the share of those per-sons here was significantly higher than among personsfrom separated and segregated settlements.

Education and expenditureson education

In the part of the Roma population which at the time ofthe study no longer attended any school in the educa-tional system, low education predominated. Nearlyone-fifth of Roma (19%) ended their education withoutfinishing a standard primary school, and nearly three-fifthsof them had finished standard primary school (60%). Atotal of 17% of the relevant Roma population success-fully continued in further study at a secondary school.The most abundant category here was made up of in-dividuals with finished secondary school or vocationalschool (15%) and those with finished secondary schoolwith a school-leaving certificate added only a small share(2%), similarly as with holders of a university education(0.3%). The remaining nearly 5% of the surveyed subsetattended in their preparation for a profession some typeof special school. Men and women showed certain dif-ferences in terms of degree of achieved education.Those who did not continue on to secondary school intheir studies occurred significantly more often amongRoma women. Differences are also evident in the rep-resentations of the higher degrees of education: the gen-der difference in the share of persons with a finished sec-ondary education was more than 9 percentage points tothe disadvantage of Roma women. The educational struc-ture of the surveyed Roma women can as a whole be eval-uated as moderately lagging behind the educationalstructure of men.

Pupils from common primary schools predominat-ed (72%) among the part of the Roma populationwhich at the time of the study had not yet finished theeducational process; 15% of Roma pupils and studentsattended a special primary school and 3.6% a special class.In other words, nearly 19% of Roma children were at theprimary school level of education in a “special educationprogramme”. Among the higher levels of education, themost represented from among the Roma population stillin the school system were those attending a secondaryvocational school (5%), while secondary school with aschool-leaving certificate had half that share (2.6%).

A comparison of literacy in the Roma population, forall age groups, with the geographically close general pop-ulation reveals an alarming disparity in the results of theeducational process. Special schools and classes at theprimary level were most often attended by Roma chil-dren from segregated settlements; on the other hand,among children from households living diffuse, this shareonly half as high.

On the basis of the study data nursery school atten-dance was significantly smaller for Roma children versuschildren from the geographically close general population.Some groups of children were lagging 3-4-times behind,as for example, in a comparison with current preschoolers


14

age 3-4 years or age 5-6 years. Less than one-third of Romachildren age 5-6 years attended nursery school, while fromthe general population this was nearly four-fifths. Theschooling of Roma children decreased with a growth in spa-tial segregation. On the whole, according to the study data,it’s as if the very group of children who most need nurs-ery school prior to entry to primary school actually utiliseit the least. Reasons for non-attendance of nursery schoolwere a lack of finances, the conviction that the child wastoo immature for nursery school, but also – particularly insegregated environments – the absence of such a facilityin the surroundings and the unwillingness of parents tosend a child to a school.

With school attendance there are always associatedcertain costs for households whose amount derives fromthe number of children in the household, the type ofschool attended, its distance from the home, etc. The fi-nancial demand of items associated with compulsoryschool attendance and other forms of study strongly res-onate among Roma households. It was shown that theaverage monthly sum of costs for education in Romahouseholds thus represented EUR 23, and the median val-ue was EUR 14. The highest average monthly expendi-tures were in separated settlements (EUR 27), the low-est in segregated settlements (EUR 19). Half of householdswith children at primary school stated in the survey thatthey are capable of covering the expenditures for the ed-ucation of their children only with difficulties or with greatdifficulties. The highest share of households with suchproblems came from segregated settlements, where upto 65% of households said that they experienced suchdifficulties or great difficulties.

Exclusion from the labour market

Study data from the field of characteristic standing of theRoma population on the labour market brought a num-ber of general conclusions. The measured level of un-employment of the Roma population is significantly high-er (up to seven times higher) than in the surveyed geo-graphically close general population; on the basis of self-declaration of unemployment this even more.

Higher unemployment and lower employment in thecase of subjective self-reporting as values calculated by themethodology of selected survey of the labour force indi-cates that for part of the Roma population the absence ofemployment is synonymous with unemployment. But thiscould also indicate the broader connection of the Romapopulation to informal segments of the labour market.

Employment of the Roma population in a relative-ly large volume takes place outside of the official labourmarket and also in the framework of the official is madeup of a large part outside of standard forms of employ-ment (short duties, seasonal or casual work, self-em-

ployment and the like). The share of classic full-time em-ployment was significantly lower as in the geographicallyclose general population. Within the scope of classic em-ployment, less qualified work predominated in which itcan be assumed that also with low wages. If Roma alsoobtain a job, this predominately involves low quality workand weak social and job protections.

Upon determining the vast and deep exclusion of theRoma population from the labour market the mainreason expressed was insufficient employment oppor-tunities, which for a great part follow from the lack of qual-ifications for the needs of the labour market, and couldalso be the result of discrimination and unequal treat-ment. Ethnic membership was repeatedly shown to bea strong differentiating agent – the differences versus thegeneral population were huge in many indicators despitethe geographically nearby environment. Among otherdifferentiating agents it is necessary to mention sex andto a certain measure type of settlement; to a certain meas-ure because indicators worsened with the level of spa-tial exclusion, unfavourable values (high unemploy-ment and low employment), however, were found in allthree compare Roma environments.

Large differences were also recorded on the basis ofeducation and age; age, however, did not play sucha strong role with employment or unemployment of theRoma population as in the case of the general popula-tion. A comparison of unemployment of the youngestand the adult population came out for the general settwo-times higher on the side of the youngest and withthe Roma population the measure of unemployment wasapproximately the same level from entry to the labourmarket throughout an adult lifetime.

Education emerged from the analysis as a strong dif-ferentiation agent. But the “benefit” of higher educationwhich is reflected in the resulting standing on thelabour market, played a less significant role as with thegeneral population. The Roma probably face significantdifficulties with searching for qualified work also withachieving higher education; unemployment of theRoma is very high also with higher degrees of education.

And in terms of gender, the unemployment ofwomen was lower than with the general than in the Romapopulation, but for the Roma set for both sexes the meas-ure of unemployment was well higher than the averagefor the general population. Despite the high share ofRoma women outside of the labour market (and recip-rocally the smaller measure of economic activity), theyalso predominately and more often end up in the cate-gory of the unemployed as a labour force (and com-parisons with Roma men and women from the generalpopulation). This is the opposite with employment – thisis for women of both compared populations lowerthan for men, but in the case of Roma women the lag be-hind men is much greater (up to half ).


15

The recorded differences in the overall economic ac-tivities are in comparison with five years age only verysmall; the share of working further remained only verysmall in the surveyed Roma population, and converse-ly, the share of unemployed again very high, despite thenumber of programmes declared as support for Romaemployment. The year-on-year changes are for the sur-veyed part of the Roma community only very small, tes-timony of which is the ineffective existing programmesin relation to the given goal.

A comparison of the living conditions of Romahouseholds with a working member and without sucha member pointed to a more favourable situation forhouseholds which have one or more members working.At the same time nearly all of the monitored indicatorshad a better result for households with two or more work-ing members versus those in which only one memberworked. The study data clearly confirmed that exclusionfrom the labour market increases the probability of suchhouseholds falling into the risk of poverty, increases thedanger of material deprivation and lowers the quality oflife of their members. Roma households are in this regard,in comparison with the geographically close general pop-ulation, significantly worse, and in the end even a work-ing wage in Roma households is not enough to overcomethis huge lag in level of living.

Standard of living of roma households– incomes, financial difficultiesand deprivation in consumption

In this chapter we offered a look at three selected aspectsof standard of living – the income situation, deprivationin the area of consumption and the occurrence of arrears.Total incomes of Roma households are on a significant-ly lowerlevel than the incomes of the geographically closegeneral population. The highest incomes were in house-holds living diffused, the lowest in households from seg-regated settlements. Differences in total incomes betweenthe individual subsets, however, were not significant –in comparison with differences between Roma and thegeographically close general population. It was confirmedthat the total income per capita in Roma households issignificantly differentiated by the number of workingmembers (a higher number working leads to a higher in-come). Another differentiating factor is the number ofchildren to age 6 years and to age 18 years, wherea growth in the number of children meant a decline inper capita income.

The benefit in material need, which is drawn byevery other Roma household, played an important roleamong social transfers. For a comparison – in the set of thegeographically close general population this was 4% ofhouseholds. The housing allowance, which represents an

important supplement to the minimal income, wasdrawn by 58% of households on the benefit in materialneed. This share strongly varied in the individual types ofsettlements – the highest was in diffused settlements(77%), the lowest in segregated settlements (48%). The ac-tivation allowance, to which citizens living in material needand those appraised along with them have a claim, hasan important function in the system of minimum income.A total of 30% of Roma in the productive age of 16-54 years(inclusive) who lived in households drawing the benefitin material need received this allowance. Most of themwere among Roma from segregated settlements (37%).The protection allowance is drawn by 3% of Roma age 16-54 years who lived in households on the benefit in materialneed. It appears that only a portion of the entitled pop-ulation uses the possibility of supplementing the minimumsocial income. Among the family benefits the most com-monly used are the child bonus (26% of Roma age 18 yearsand more) and the parental allowance (12% of Roma age18 years and older).

A significant portion of Roma households is exposedto the risk of deprivation in the field of consumption. Onlynot quite one-fifth could afford meat (or the vegetarianequivalent) every other day, and not quite one-tenthcould afford new seasonal clothing. The possibility of ac-cumulating savings of EUR 300 occurred only veryrarely in Roma households (not quite 6%). Data on theoccurrence of arrears for regular purchases or servicesassociated with housing indicate a great vulnerability. Thegeographically close general population showed in thegiven indicators a significantly lower danger of depri-vation and financial difficulties.

Extreme deprivation and subjectiveevaluation of the living situationversus work and income

Data regarding both subjects which formed the contentsof this chapter devoted to the subjective opinionsabout the actual situations likewise indicated the bad liv-ing conditions of a broad group of Roma households whoin many ways lag behind the situation of the geo-graphically close general households and rapidly growsworse with spatial exclusion. With all of the monitoredcharacteristics a very close connection was expressed withincomes which a household has available and with thework intensity of the household.

In relation to extreme deprivation in the form of thedefined situation when a household really does not havefood for children, more than half of the surveyed Romahouseholds had experienced this in reality, and for an ab-solute majority it occurred repeatedly. In contrast to theresult from geographically close general households, thistype of deprivation occurred sometimes in one-tenth, and16


7% experienced it repeatedly. According to the analysiscarried out, it seems as if an income lower than EUR 100per household member was threatening for the feedingof children. At the same time, households experiencingthis situation repeatedly belonged predominately to thecategory of those who did not have any work income oronly a very low income. These households were there-fore strongly dependent on social benefits, and if suchbenefits are not adjusted to a sufficient amount, the dan-ger increases that children will go hungry. In relation topublic policies, the facts obtained urge at least two prin-ciple recommendations. Primarily, there is a need in theinterest of eliminating poverty to promote accessibilityof the more quality involvement of members of deprivedfamilies in the official labour market; if the state is not ca-pable of providing this, then social benefits must be setat a level which doesn’t mean an increased risk of chil-dren going hungry.

Large differences in the real and the estimatedneeded income appear with a comparison between theRoma and the geographically close general house-holds, and do so in all three groups by experience withthe situation of lack of food for children. Real income wasfor the general households on average two to three timeshigher, with estimated income deeded for normal sur-vival the difference was in the given sums calculated perhousehold member on the level of EUR 200 to EUR 300.Specifically, Roma households without the experienceof a lack of food for children estimated the needed in-come per member in the amount of EUR 236, and for thesame general households this was EUR 520; on the oth-er hand Roma households with repeated occurrence ofthe situation of not having enough food for children gavethe needed income per member as EUR 178, and geo-graphically close general households gave EUR 372. De-mands of Roma households for income emerged fromthe study as significantly more modest than the demandsof general households (they also evaluated the situationmore positively even with lower incomes). Whetherthis is a consequence of the lower expenditures for lifeor the more modest needs of Roma households, possi-

bly still other reasons; for this the quantitative study car-ried out is unable to offer any answer.

The same associations as with a shortage of food forchildren also appeared with the remaining two situationsof deprivation, when a household has no way to warm upfood or to heat the dwelling. The share of households whichrepeatedly experienced all three monitored situations wasin the surveyed Roma households significantly higher thanin the general households. It was nearly 30% (even up to40% among residents of segregated settlements), and fromthe geographically close general households this was lessthan 5%. In contrast, households which had not experi-enced even once any of the extreme deprived situationsformed on average 38% of Roma households and nearly89% of the general households. While geographically closegeneral households were from the viewpoint of extremedeprivation relatively homogeneous (they experienced itonly marginally) Roma households were divided into ap-proximately three equal groups. One part didn’t know anyof the three monitored situations; a second part met re-peatedly with all three shortage situations, and a third partmoved somewhere in between.

With assessment of the development of the financialsituation for the past three years a more favourable resultwas obtained in 2010 than in 2005, even despite the fi-nancial crisis, which peaked right at this time in Slovakia.Behind the more negative evaluation of the period 2002to 2005 versus the period 2007 to 2010 with great prob-ability was probably the slashing in social benefits whichoccurred at the start of 2004 and which in a principle waychanged the financial situation of many households in deeppoverty. In the context of the real amount of social incomes(with many groups of households ultimately calculated asunder EUR 100 per member) it appears as essential to de-rive each proposed change in the system of benefits froma detailed analysis of the living situation of threatenedgroups and the potential impacts of such changes on thefunctioning and security of those households and theirmembers. In the opposite case, changes could in the endconsequence mean a violation of the basic rights of chil-dren, among which is the right to sufficient nourishment.

17


19

01 Introduction

The transformation of society during the past twodecades has not meant an improvement in the qualityof life for all groups of citizens in Slovakia. On the con-trary, measures aimed at stabilisation and restructural-isation of the economy have been reflected in the de-terioration of many standard of living indicators ina number of groups, even during times of economicgrowth. Marginalised Roma communities in particularhave had to face specific problems and barriers in the fieldof human development.

The so-called Roma question has become during thepast two decades one of the key subjects of political de-bate in Slovakia, a subject of public policy interventions,and has also become a subject of great interest to the Eu-ropean Union and others abroad. A number of studies(e.g. Vašečka – Repová – Džambazovič, 2000; Poverty ofthe Roma, 2002; UNDP, 2006) have identified the Romaas a group that is endangered by poverty and social ex-clusion. Strategic government documents, for example,the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion (NAPs/INCL)2004 – 2006, National Report on Strategies for Social Pro-tection and Social Inclusion for the years 2006 – 2008, Na-tional Report on Strategies for Social Protection and SocialInclusion for the years 2008 – 2010, have also characterisedthe Roma as the group most threatened by poverty andsocial exclusion. These documents point out that in ad-dition to regional disparities in measures of poverty, un-employment, average income, as well as indicators of ed-ucation and health status, inequalities between thestanding of the majority population and socially excludedand marginalised groups of the Roma population are alsomanifested in Slovakia. Members of these groups, formany reasons (both objective and subjective), do nothave sufficient conditions and opportunities for full par-ticipation in the economic and cultural life of the soci-ety. In the last decade, in reaction to the worsening sit-uation of the Roma minority and not inconsiderable pres-sure from abroad requiring Slovakia to undertake tar-geted pro-Roma measures (originally in view of the pre-accession process and the unprecedented exodus ofRoma abroad), group-targeted support supplementinguniversal social measures also began gradually being ap-plied in the framework of public policies. In this periodthe expression “marginalised Roma communities” (de-noting a group of poor and marginalised Roma) was in-troduced in the scope of public policies and was appliedas a priority for the use of EU funds (the so-called hori-zontal priority MRC). Many projects financed (though notexclusively) from pre-accession and post-accession EUstructural funds were also carried out in this period. Be-

sides social work, these were focused primarily on train-ing activities, on the retrieval of “lost” work habits for long-term unemployed Roma, and the like. Projects with themost tangible results in this period were carried out par-ticularly in the area of housing development, but a greatdeal of attention was also devoted to a wide spectrumof activities intended as support for employment and em-ployability through the form of active policies on thelabour market.

Many projects in the scope of EU structural fundswere focused on the creation of transitional jobs pro-grammes, protected workshops or social and active en-terprises which employed and should have “activated”long-term unemployed Roma. The results, however,could not in a broader measure meet the expectationsfor the existing bad socioeconomic situation of many re-gions and for the overall neo-liberal restructuralisa-tion, which significantly influenced regions of Slovakiacharacterised by a strongly segmented labour market.One of the most limiting factors of the successes of suchenterprises were, according to some analysts, the struc-tural conditions of the individual regions of Slovakia, thecountry’s socio-historical heritage and the group ethno-cultural relationships.

Although empirical facts about persisting Romapoverty and exclusion are accepted almost generallyamong experts and the professional public, no agreementexists about the reasons for this situation. Culture as thecausal variable of Roma problems is often found in twoalternating forms. One of them is the concept of the “tra-ditional Roma culture,” in the scope of which it is assumedthat the Roma as an ethnic group have a different, pre-modern value system, as well as customs and institutionsdistinct from the majority. This value system is then con-sidered as the reason for Roma “inadaptability” to mod-ern society, which causes their exclusion and poverty. This“traditional Roma culture” often alternates with theconcept of the “culture of poverty”. This also derives fromthe assumption that the residents of socially excludedlocalities are bearers of a specific cultural model whichoriginated in the process of adaptation to long-termpoverty and to social and spatial exclusion, and as a re-action to these realities is reproduced from generationto generation, creating a specific “system”.

Various critics of argumentation of this type, how-ever, point out that the “culture of poverty” does nothave sufficient analytical validity, because the individ-ual characteristics ascribed to the “culture of poverty”of the Roma are themselves almost incompatible.Mixed within them are structural reasons (e.g. unem-

ployment) with socio-pathological phenomena (e.g.drugs and alcohol) and with momentary responses toan emerging situation (e.g. migration for work). Also un-clear is the fact that the attributes of this concept arethus created by observed empirical facts of a materialcharacter (e.g. lack of means), as well as cognitive-psy-chological traits like the herd-mentality, orientation onthe present and the inability to save and to plan (AbuGhosh, 2008). That’s why it seems that the concept ofa “culture of poverty”, even though on an empirical lev-el it characterises relatively exactly the current state ofexclusion (not only) of Roma marginalised communi-ties, has only limited significance for the purposes of pol-icy and measures of social inclusion.

Social exclusion is thus technically the key concept forEU policies as well as for domestic policy cohesion. In theEU approach, social exclusion is perceived as a multidi-mensional phenomenon which in itself includes incomepoverty as well as unemployment, access to education, in-formation and day care and health care facilities, living con-ditions and social participation. The definition of social ex-clusion is based on the “inability to utilise the level of par-ticipation in society which the majority society has guar-anteed”. Exclusion is defined as a process through whichcertain individuals or groups are pushed to the marginsof society and away from full participation in the life of thesociety due to their poverty, lack of fundamental com-petencies, opportunities for life-long education or as a re-sult of some other form of discrimination (COM(2008) 0412final). It thus distances them from work, earnings and ed-ucational opportunities as well as from social and com-munity networks and activities.

The reasons for exclusion can at the same time reston the level of the society as a whole or on the level of thecommunity, household or even the individual. A prereq-uisite for the elimination of poverty and social exclusionis ensuring access for all people to the resources, rights and

services needed for participation in society and wipingaway all forms of discrimination which lead to exclusion.

The publication An EU Framework for National RomaIntegration Strategies up to 2020 from 6 April 2011 creat-ed a new framework and opportunity for the preventionof social exclusion and integration of the Roma popula-tion (on the basis of the Communication from the Com-mission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Euro-pean Economic and Social Committee and the Committeeof the Regions). National strategies should create a frame-work which combines the question of fundamental hu-man rights with the question of human development. Insuch a framework, specific interventions which would helpimprove the situation of the Roma should then be im-plemented on the regional and local levels. The documentstates that “Many of the estimated 10-12 million Roma inEurope face prejudice, intolerance, discrimination and so-cial exclusion in their daily lives. They are marginalised andlive in very poor socio-economic conditions.” The Com-munication further states that: “Determined action, in ac-tive dialogue with the Roma, is needed both at nationaland EU level. The primary responsibility for that action restswith public authorities.” The document perceives the so-cial and economic integration of the Roma as a two-wayprocess, “which requires a change of mindsets of the ma-jority of the people as well as of members of the Romacommunities. First of all, Member States need to ensurethat Roma are not discriminated against but treated likeany other EU citizens with equal access to all fundamen-tal rights as enshrined in the EU Charter of FundamentalRights”. In addition, it postulates that it is “needed to breakthe vicious cycle of poverty which is carried from one gen-eration to the next” (EU, 2011).

The empirical UNDP survey mapping the living con-ditions of Roma households in Slovakia, carried out in 2010and from whose final report you now have the opportu-nity to read, emerged from an understanding of social ex-


20

The Treaty of Roma from 1957, upon the creation of the EC, focused on a set of policies falling under the heading of social cohesion. Specif-ically, this involved policies aimed at the free movement of migrating workers, social security and the creation of the European Social Fund.The first program focused on the social sphere was ratified by the EU Council in 1974 and concentrated on improving the living and work-ing conditions of vulnerable groups. Twelve years later, with the revision of the Treaty of Rome (Single European Act, 1986) the importanceof strengthening social cohesion within the European Community was emphasised (new articles 158-161). The Community Charter of Fun-damental Social Rights was approved in 1989. Subsequently, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) also included an obligation regarding social pol-icy and a chapter on employment. The Lisbon Strategy from March 2000 also listed increasing social cohesion in society among its goals forthe coming 10 years. The European Council also returned to the social agenda in 2008, when it accepted proposals for renewal of the so-cial agenda and specified goals and priorities in the battle against discrimination and overcoming poverty and social exclusion (COM(2008)0412 final). The declaration of the year 2010 as The European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (COM(2008) 0412 final) shouldhave been an opportunity for reworking policies in this area. In connection with the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Ex-clusion (2010) the strategy Europe 2020 set out in the scope of the main initiative the European Platform for Combating Poverty a target “toensure economic, social and territorial cohesion so as to raise awareness and to recognise the fundamental rights of people experiencingpoverty and social exclusion, enabling them to live in dignity and take an active part in society” (Europe..., 2010, pg. 20). The specific frame-work for overcoming marginalisation and barriers to human development of Roma is created by the Communication from the Commissionto the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions designated as An EUFramework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 from 6 April 2011. In this document national governments are challenged toprepare their own national strategies for integration of the Roma population.

BOX 1.1

21

clusion as a complex, multidimensional, multilayeredand dynamic concept. In it, attention was devoted to allkey areas of inclusion of the Roma, such as housing, health,education and the labour market, but also to the incomesituation and material deprivation. Empirical data from2010 documents the lingering of a number of inequalities,for example, in education, in the accessibility of health careor in access to many products and services generally. Atthe same time, it is known that social exclusion hasa tendency to be reproduced from generation to gener-ation in a cycle of deprivation.

Data on the living conditions of Roma communitieshave a great significance for the needs of social policy.They are necessary because measures can then be tar-geted and so that it is possible to quantify their impactson marginalised groups of citizens. The project, carried

out in cooperation between the United Nations Devel-opment Program and the Ministry of Labour, Social Af-fairs and Family of the Slovak Republic, and one of whoseoutputs is this report, consists of a series of quantitativeas well as qualitative studies which will help to obtaina complex picture about the development of living con-ditions of socially excluded Roma communities.

We are convinced that solutions aimed at genuine in-tegration and improving the living conditions of Roma donot consist only in finding a suitable methodological ap-proach, but that they primarily consist in the principle ofpolitical choice, which is in its essence a moral choice. Thisrests, for example, on broad support of a range of policiesreducing social inequalities and policies creating equal con-ditions for all groups of citizens for permanently sustain-able human development in Slovakia.


Social policies belong to those political agendas which are in the competence of nation states, but in the framework of the open methodof coordination (OMC) Member States are responsible for the transfer of general EU goals into their own national action plans. National strate-gies for social protection and social inclusion were developed in three areas – for social inclusion, pensions and medical and long-term care.Every three years national reports have been submitted to the European Commission, with the last covering the years 2008 – 2010. Slova-kia has set out the following disadvantaged groups and priorities for the area of social inclusion: On the basis of analysis of the experienceand development of the situation in the previous period the National Report concentrated on (similarly as the Decade of Inclusion of the RomaPopulation 2005-2015) four areas of measures (education, health, housing, work) focused on disadvantaged groups of citizens, those mostthreatened by poverty and exclusion – i. e. particularly on children, youths, young adults, families with children, the unemployed (the long-term unemployed in particular), people with health disabilities, marginalised Roma communities, the homeless, people released from im-prisonment and drug addicts and other addicts (National Report..., 2008).

BOX 1.2

Good research frameworks have already been establishedfor monitoring the living conditions of Roma communitiesin Slovakia. UNDP sample surveys (2005, 2010, 2011) de-rive from the so-called sociographic mapping of Romacommunities in Slovakia (Atlas of Roma Communities inSlovakia 2004), which were based on the assumption thatthe marginalised Roma population lives in certain spa-tial enclaves. Such an approach to research is not in con-flict with principles embedded in the Constitution of theSlovak Republic and is in accordance with standards forthe protection of personal data, because sociographicmapping does not investigate the ethnic identity of in-dividuals and does not collect personal data about in-dividuals, but instead only works as a kind of “invento-ry” of settlements.

2.1. Research procedure and DATA collection

Sociographic mapping of Roma communities was car-ried out in the year 2004, and a total of 1,068 munici-palities and 1,573 Roma settlements from all of Slovakiawere mapped (one municipality could have more thanone settlement). Such a method of mapping provideddetailed information about Roma settlements, on the ba-sis of which it was possible for UNDP sample surveys todivide Roma settlements into three basic classes ac-cording to the degree of integration with the majoritypopulation – segregated, separated and diffused. Anequal number of districts (of various numbers – con-taining approximately between 40 and 120 house-holds) were created for each of these classes, fromwhich 30 sites in each class were selected for data col-lection using random proportional selection. The finalnumber of data collection sites for the sample of Romahouseholds was 90.1

A sample from the general population served as acontrol set in the study for the purpose of comparing cer-tain socioeconomic and other variables. Because theRoma population is not equally distributed within Slo-vakia and because of the great regional differences, it wasmore appropriate to compare certain socioeconomic datanot with the general population of Slovakia, but with thegeneral population living in the geographic vicinity ofRoma settlements. The basis for selection of data col-

lection sites in the sample from the general populationwas the 90 districts in municipalities neighbouringthose from which data on the Roma were collected. Thesewere classified as urban (more than 5,000 residents) andrural (less than 5,000 residents), and 45 data collectionsites were randomly selected from among them. At thesedata collection sites interviewers selected households byrandomly strolling through and then visiting the selectedhouseholds. Even though some of the households iden-tified themselves as Roma, or during the interviewcould be identified as Roma, they were left in the selectedsample of the general population.2

The UNDP carried out its “field work” for the samplesurvey in the months November and December 2010(specifically 22.11. – 27.12. 2010). Data collection was or-ganised by the agency TNS Slovakia via face-to-face in-terviews between interviewers and respondents onthe basis of a structured questionnaire. The minimumtime necessary for conducting one interview was ap-proximately 60 minutes, though longer with largernumbers of household members. Interviewers weretrained in Poprad and in Bratislava, and the number oftrained interviewers was 34. The trained interviewers didnot go to segregated locations by themselves but wereaccompanied by Roma activists, of whom there were nine.The average number of questionnaires assigned to oneinterviewer was 31. The survey was conducted in a to-tal of 246 municipalities.

A managed household, defined in the manual as anindividual or a group of people who either are or are notrelated and who live together as an independent groupin that they have a common organisation for theirhousehold economy (this means that they share or sup-port one another in a single family budget) representedone selected unit. At each of the selected data collectionsites 8 households were randomly selected, which meant240 households for each of the three classes of Roma set-tlements or types of living and 360 households for the ge-ographically close general population.

The questionnaire contained 8 modules and was fo-cused on information about the household as well as in-formation about the individual members of the house-hold. Information about the household was provided bythe household member who was identified as the headof the household. Information about members of thehousehold was obtained directly from individual mem-

23

02 Methodological information and a description of the research sample

1 For detailed information about the methodological preparations for the survey, see the manuscript (Evans, 2005).2 The questionnaire did not include a direct question about ethnicity; however, it did enquire about the native language of the respondents. In the set of

individuals of the general geographic vicinity of the population, for example, 2% of respondents declared the Romani language as their mother tongue.

24


bers; information was provided by a parent or the headof household only in regard to small children or in thecase of absence of a member.

2.2. Description of the research sample

The above-mentioned selection process managed in thescope of field data collection to capture almost exactlythe planned number of households. The following sub-chapter offers information of a double type: it zooms inon the size of individual research sets of the Roma pop-ulation and the control set of general population from thegeographically close surroundings, as well as on their com-position according to basic demographic characteristics.At the same time it is necessary immediately in the in-troduction to again emphasise that the group of gener-al households was selected randomly and not limited bymembership to the majority population; Roma house-holds and families and individuals who are members ofthem could have also been a part of the research sample.

2.2.1. The frequency of the researched setsof households, families and individuals

After a check and final revision, a total of 1,083 house-holds were included in the analyses and statistical pro-cessing. These were households for which a completequestionnaire set – i. e. a questionnaire for the household,for its individual members and the relevant nuclear fam-ily – was successfully compiled. The set of Roma house-holds totalled 723 units, and each subset defined by thetype of living was represented by approximately an equalnumber of households – individually this was about 240households from the groups living segregated, separatedand diffused. Relatively speaking, then, each subset rep-resented one-third of the total. The control set of spatiallyclose general population was made up of 360 households.

As is mentioned above, three types of data were col-lected in each selected household. These were data re-

lated to the household as a whole, additional data relatedto families making up the household, and finally dataabout the individual members of the household. Thus,three mutually related research sets were created – in ad-dition to the set for households, these was a set for fam-ilies and a set for individuals.3

In comparison with the frequency of the set of house-holds, the frequency of the set of families changed only alittle (Table 2.1). The subset of segregated families grew by23 units, by 27 for separated families and by 29 units fordiffused families. The shares of the compared types of Romacommunities therefore remained proportionally balanced– each had approximately a one-third share. In the case ofthe geographically close general population, the numberof families increased in comparison with the number ofhouseholds by only 3 units. This means that the majorityof selected households were identical with a nuclearfamily; they were not made up of several family units.

In regard to the set of individuals, which was formedby all of the members of the selected households, a to-tal of 3,614 persons were represented in the research sam-ple for the Roma population, of which segregated com-munities represented 1,277 persons (a 35.3% share), sep-arated 1,232 persons (34.1%) and living diffused 1,105persons (30.6%). The size of the research set of individ-uals for the spatially close general population in the endtotalled 1,060 respondents.

2.2.2. Composition of the research setsaccording to selected quantitativecharacteristics

Table 2.2 shows how the set of households and the setof individuals of the Roma and the spatially close gen-eral population were composed on the basis of a num-ber of indicators corresponding to the size and compo-sition of surveyed households. It captures in detail thestructure of the sets according to the total number ofhousehold members, the number of dependent children,the number of children and young people of different

3 The research set of families was the narrowest in terms of content, because for nuclear families only selected social benefits and some incomes andexpenses were found within the household. Most of the analyses rest on data for the set of households and the set of individuals.

Table 2.1Numbers of households and individuals for the monitored subsets

Sets of Roma population Sets of the geographicallyclose general populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

Number of households 240 244 239 723 360

Share of households in % 33.2 33.7 33.1 100.0 —

Number of individuals 1 277 1 232 1 105 3 614 1 060

Share of individuals in % 35.3 34.1 30.6 100.0 —

Number of families 263 272 268 803 363

Share of families in % 32.8 33.9 33.4 100.0 —


25

Table 2.2Structure of the set of households and individuals for both compared populations according to the numberof members of different age categories and definitions (in %)

Sets of Roma population Sets of geographically close general population

Households Individuals Households Individuals

Number of household members:

1 member 2.9 0.6 16.9 5.8

2 members 12.2 4.9 27.5 18.7

3 members 14.7 8.8 22.8 23.2

4 members 17.6 14.1 18.3 24.9

5 members 17.3 17.3 8.6 14.6

6 members 12.0 14.4 3.6 7.4

7 members 8.6 12.0 1.9 4.6

8 members 6.5 10.4 — —

9 members 3.6 6.5 0.3 0.8

10 or more members 4.6 11.0 — —

Number of dependent children: Young children before primary school + pupils and students max. to 25 years

no children 25.9 13.9 62.5 45.6

1 child 17.3 13.8 17.2 20.8

2 children 19.6 18.9 14.2 21.6

3 children 14.4 16.4 3.9 6.8

4 children 9.8 13.3 1.4 3.0

5 children 4.4 6.6 0.6 1.3

6 children 4.6 8.2 0.3 0.8

7 or more children 4.0 8.9 — —

Number of children to 6 years inclusive: Age interval = 0 to 6 years

no children 49.0 36.9 85.8 73.9

1 child 23.2 24.0 12.8 18.2

2 children 14.7 17.6 3.9 6.7

3 children 9.3 14.2 0.3 0.6

4 children 2.6 4.6 0.3 0.7



no children 28.1 15.7 73.1 59.9

1 child 18.9 15.9 13.9 17.4

2 children 19.4 19.1 8.9 14.4

3 children 13.8 16.4 3.1 5.7

4 children 9.3 13.0 0.8 2.0

5 children 3.5 5.6 0.3 0.7



no children 23.5 12.1 65.8 50.2

1 child 15.5 11.6 16.4 19.8

2 children 20.1 18.8 12.2 19.0

3 children 16.0 17.5 3.3 5.8

4 children 10.2 13.4 1.4 3.0

5 children 5.1 7.6 0.6 1.3

6 children 4.7 8.3 0.3 0.8


Number of members to 25 years incl. Age interval = 0 to 25 years

no members 15.9 6.7 55.3 37.3

1 member 12.3 8.2 18.3 20.3

2 members 18.0 14.7 18.1 26.6

3 members 19.4 18.7 5.6 9.4

4 members 13.4 16.2 1.4 2.9

5 members 7.5 10.1 1.1 2.6

6 members 5.9 9.3 — —

7 members 3.5 6.2 0.3 0.8

8 or more members 4.1 9.9 — —

26


age categories and according to the number of workingmembers. All of the indicators used confirmed the dif-ferent structure of Roma and of geographically close gen-eral households and individuals.

Differences in the makeup of the sets representing theRoma population on one hand and the general populationon the other are already shown from the viewpoint ofhousehold size. While not quite 3% of total Roma house-holds were made up of single-member households, thisnumber was nearly 17% from general households from thenearby vicinity. On the other hand, households with eightor more members represented nearly 15% of the Roma setbut only 0.3% of the general set. In the set of Roma house-holds the most numerous group were households with fourand with five members (17.6% and 17.3%), while in the gen-eral set two-member (27.5%) and then three-member(22.8%) households were the most common.

Similar differences in terms of number of memberswere also apparent in a comparison of the sets of indi-viduals. Less than one percent of surveyed Roma indi-viduals lived in households consisting of only one mem-ber; however among individuals representing the geo-graphically close general population this was nearly 6%.The share of Roma individuals who lived in large house-holds consisting of eight or more members was 28%,while for the set of the general population only 0.8% ofindividuals were from such large households.

The Roma set of households and individuals was alsonotable mainly by a higher number of children withoutregard to how the “child” was specified, either as de-pendent on parents or by a certain age limit.

Nearly 26% of Roma households were without de-pendent children4 at all, while for the general set theirshare reached 62%. On the opposite side of the quanti-tative interval the ratio was reversed: up to 13% of sur-veyed Roma households had five and more dependentchildren, while in the general set this was only 0.9%. Inrelation to the set of individuals, the composition herewas similar. Only 13.9% of all the surveyed Roma livedin a household where there were no dependent chil-

dren; from respondents representing the general pop-ulation in the geographically close surroundings this num-ber was 45.6%. Or stated otherwise: up to 86.1% of Romaindividuals belonged to a household which had at leastone dependent child, and from the general set of indi-viduals this figure was 54.4%. And 25.7% of the surveyedset of Roma individuals lived in those households wherethere were five or more dependent children among themembers, but only 2.1% of representatives of the gen-eral population lived in such a situation.

The situation with a comparison of the number ofchildren of a certain age proved to totally equal, only withdiffering proportions. Upon monitoring the presence ofchildren up to six years old, the set of Roma householdswas divided nearly in half (49% of them did not have anychildren up to six years old and 51% had at least one childof that defined age), while from general households theshare of those without a child to six years old surpassedthe four-fifths mark (up to 85.8% of them did not haveany child to six years old and 14.2% had at least one suchchild). While 28.1% of Roma households did not haveeven one child up to 14 years old, more than 73% of thegeneral sample fell into this category; and again 23.5%of Roma and 65.8% of the general surveyed householdsdid not have a child up to the age of 18 years old.5 Whenwe look at the sets through dependent children up to 25years of age, 16% of Roma households but 55.3% of thegeneral households had no such member.

With tracking of the number of working members ina household, the proportions between the Roma and thegeneral population samples reversed and became moreacute. Up to 80% of the surveyed set of Roma householdsdid not have even one working member, while in the gen-eral household sample this figure was half as high – only38.9%. From the set of Roma individuals nearly 80% livedin a household where not even one member declared him-self/herself as working, while from the individuals repre-senting the geographically close general population theshare living in households without a working member wasnot quite 28%. While from the surveyed Roma the largest

Sets of Roma population Sets of geographically close general population

Households Individuals Households Individuals

Number of working members: Working = on the basis of self-reporting (not according to the Labour Force Survey)

no one works 79.9 78.8 38.9 27.8

1 member 13.3 13.9 27.2 28.6

2 members 4.1 4.6 25.0 30.9

3 members 2.1 2.2 5.8 7.5

4 or more members 0.6 0.5 3.1 5.2

Note: Each set for an individual characteristic totals 100%.

4 According to the definition valid in Slovakia, children and young people to age 25 years old who have still not completed preparation for a profes-sion, that is theoretically from birth to completion of study at the first level of university, are considered to be dependent children.

5 The age boundary dividing childhood and adulthood as defined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN General Assembly, 1989).


27

Table 2.3Structure of the subsets of Roma households and individuals per number of members of different age cate-gories and definitions (in %)

Subset of Roma households Subset of Roma individuals

Segregated Separated Diffused Segregated Separated Diffused

Number of household members:

1 member 1.7 3.3 3.8 0.3 0.6 0.8

2 members 10.8 10.2 15.5 4.1 4.1 6.7

3 members 12.1 14.3 17.6 6.8 8.5 11.4

4 members 14.6 20.1 18.0 11.0 15.9 15.6

5 members 20.8 13.9 17.2 19.6 13.8 18.6

6 members 13.8 13.5 8.8 15.5 16.1 11.4

7 members 9.6 9.0 7.1 12.6 12.5 10.8

8 members 6.3 7.8 5.4 9.4 12.3 9.4

9 members 3.8 4.1 2.9 6.3 7.3 5.7

10+ members 6.7 3.6 3.8 14.4 8.9 9.7

Number of dependent children: Young children before primary school + pupils and students max. to 25 years

no children 22.9 26.6 28.0 12.5 14.9 14.5

1 child 15.8 17.6 18.5 12.1 14.2 15.1

2 children 17.9 18.0 23.0 16.1 17.0 24.3

3 children 15.4 11.9 15.9 16.1 13.6 19.5

4 children 8.3 13.9 7.1 9.9 18.6 11.4

5 children 7.9 3.3 2.1 11.3 4.8 3.3

6 children 5.4 4.1 4.2 9.7 6.7 8.2

7+ children 6.4 4.6 1.2 12.3 10.2 3.7

Number of children to 6 years: Age interval = 0 to 6 years

no children 43.8 51.7 51.5 32.7 41.0 37.3

1 child 23.8 22.1 23.8 23.2 23.5 25.5

2 children 15.8 12.7 15.9 17.7 14.9 20.6

3 children 10.8 10.3 6.7 16.6 14.4 11.2

4+ children 5.8 3.2 2.1 9.9 6.2 5.3


no children 24.6 28.7 31.0 13.8 16.8 16.8

1 child 16.7 20.5 19.8 13.3 17.4 17.2

2 children 18.3 17.6 22.2 16.5 17.0 24.4

3 children 14.6 12.7 14.2 15.8 15.9 17.7

4 children 10.0 10.7 7.1 13.2 14.2 11.3

5 children 5.4 4.1 0.8 7.4 7.5 1.4

6+ children 10.4 5.7 4.9 20.0 11.3 11.2


no children 20.4 23.4 26.8 10.6 12.4 13.4

1 child 12.9 16.4 17.2 9.2 12.3 13.5

2 children 19.2 19.3 21.8 16.5 18.3 22.1

3 children 17.5 13.1 17.6 17.7 14.2 20.9

4 children 9.6 14.3 6.3 11.6 18.8 9.4

5 children 7.1 4.1 4.2 9.4 5.9 7.2

6 children 5.8 4.5 3.8 10.4 7.6 6.6

7+ children 7.5 4.9 2.3 14.6 10.6 7.0


no members 13.8 14.8 19.2 5.8 6.0 8.4

1 member 9.6 14.8 12.6 6.6 10.0 8.2

2 members 15.0 17.2 21.8 11.1 14.9 18.6

3 members 24.2 16.0 18.0 23.1 14.7 18.1

4 members 13.8 14.8 11.7 15.1 17.8 15.6

5 members 7.1 9.0 6.3 8.9 11.9 9.6

6 members 5.8 7.0 5.0 8.1 10.9 8.9

7 members 4.2 3.7 2.5 6.9 6.7 4.8

8+ members 6.5 2.8 2.9 14.4 7.1 7.9

group lived in a household where no one worked(78.8%) and then after a large gap was followed by thegroup living in households with one working member(13.9%), among the general population representatives ofhouseholds with two working members had the highestoccurrence (30.9%) and 28.6% of the set were in householdswith one working member.

The Roma sets were in structure not only larger inoverall household membership but also in the repre-sentation of children of different age categories; on theother hand, they also had a significantly smaller share ofhouseholds and individuals in relation to the number ofworking members. Thus, the basic makeup of the sur-veyed sets already strongly indicates the different social,life and work situation of both compared sets of house-holds and their members, which the results of theanalyses subsequently confirmed.

And as Table 2.3 shows, differences in the type of hous-ing of Roma communities versus the geographically closegeneral population continue to deepen in many directions.The more segregated the housing, the more members ofthe household and at the same time more children and few-er childless households (and fewer individuals living in child-less households). In all, 22.9 % of Roma households livingsegregated had no dependent children, while for house-holds living diffused this figure was 28%; 43.8% of segre-gated households did not have a child up to six years old,but this was 51.5% for diffused Roma households; the shareof households with no child up to 14 years old for the seg-regated subset was 24.6% and for diffused households 31%;with the age limit up to 18 years old the numbers were20.4% to 26.8%, respectively.

From the surveyed Roma living segregated up to12.3% lived in households where there were seven ormore children, while in the case of Roma living diffusedthis group was only 3.7%. The share of individuals livingin multiple-children families was nearly double forRoma living segregated versus diffused, and this was thecase for each age-limited category. A total of 9.9% of seg-regated and 5.3% of diffused Roma individuals lived ina household with four or more children up to six yearsold; with six or more children up to age fourteen theshares from among segregated and separated house-holds achieved 20% to 11%; with seven or more childrento age 18 these figures were 15% to 7%; and likewise witheight or more members up to 25 years 14% to 8%.

In terms of the number of working members, repre-sentation of those without a working member in the struc-ture of the households was the highest in the segregat-ed and lowest in the diffused Roma households (83.3% to75.7%). From the surveyed individuals living segregated,up to 83% lived in households where no one worked, andamong diffused Roma this was 10% less (73%).

For a different composition of the compared sets ofhouseholds, the average numbers of members for a giv-en category are also shown; Table 2.4 summarises them.Thus, the average number of members, as well as thenumber of younger members of households or children,ends up being for the Roma set 2 to 4-times higher thanfor the set of general households. In all indicators, a con-tinuous growth of average values is also expressed, witha progression from Roma households living diffusedthrough separated communities up through segregat-ed. The average number of working members among in-


28

Subset of Roma households Subset of Roma individuals

Segregated Separated Diffused Segregated Separated Diffused

Number of working members: Working = on the basis of self-reporting (not according to Labour Force Survey)

0 working 83.3 80.7 75.7 82.9 79.6 73.0

1 member 13.3 11.9 14.6 13.9 11.5 16.4

2 members 2.5 4.1 5.9 2.2 5.2 6.6

3 members 0.8 2.5 2.9 0.9 2.6 3.3

4+ members — 0.8 0.8 — 1.1 0.7

Note: Each set for an individual characteristic totals 100 %.

Table 2.4Average numbers of members of different age and definition for the compared surveyed sets of households(average numbers)

Sets of Roma households Geographically closegeneral householdsSegregated Separated Diffused Total

Number of household members 5.3 5.0 4.6 5.0 2.9

Number of dependent children 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.2 0.7

Number of children to 6 years 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.2



Number of members to 25 years 3.3 2.9 2.6 3.0 0.8

Number of working members 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1

dividual Roma subsets does not vary much (from 0.2 to0.4 working members in a household), but in compari-son with the general households they were almostfour times less.

As the basic description showed, the composition ofthe surveyed sets of households and individuals for Romaand the general population differed according to all quan-titative indicators – Roma sets were distinguished bya higher representation of multi-member and multi-childgroups and on the other hand again by a lower repre-sentation of groups having working members in thehousehold. The degree of segregation on the basis ofhousing differences in large households versus thegeneral set from the geographical vicinity deepenseven further – segregated environments have on aver-age the largest households.

2.2.3. A comparison of sets of householdsby cohabiting generations

As follows from Graph 2.1, even on the basis of the gen-erational type of household, the structure of the surveyedsets differed. Although households comprising two gen-erations – that is of parents and children – form the mostnumerous group in both the Roma and general house-holds, in the Roma set there were significantly more ofthem: 65.3% versus 49.2%. The Roma set also hada broader representation of three-generation households(20.7% versus 11.3%), as well as other generationaltypes of households, that is, those in which members werefrom four generations or from three but not directly in suc-cession, (for example, grandparents with grandchildrenand great-grandchildren – without the parents genera-

tion). Their share in the entire set was effectively minimal:1.3% of Roma and 0.6% of general households.

The only type of household which was more frequentin the general set from the geographic vicinity was thesingle generation household, to which neverthelesshouseholds with one member were ranked but also thosewith two or more members all belonging to the samegeneration (for example, a partner pair, or siblings andthe like). These made up 38.9% of the general householdsand only 12.7% among Roma households.

A look at the makeup of three subsets of Romahouseholds (Table 2.5) showed moderately lower rep-resentation from multiple-generation households anda higher share of single-generations in the case of liv-ing diffused in comparison with the other surround-ings – segregated and separated communities. How-ever, this did not involve large differences (approxi-mately by 5%), so from the viewpoint of generationalcomposition of households, the individual Roma sub-sets were relatively balanced.

A more detailed quantitative presentation of the re-search sample and its composition leads to several con-clusions even prior to our own analysis. The first is thestatement that in the course of field data collection in2010 the frequencies for the individual surveyed sets ofhouseholds as set by the methodology worked up by ex-perts at the World Bank in 2005 was successfully fulfilled,6

which enables a comparison to be made for selected in-dicators with the situation five years ago.7 Accordingly,the sets of individuals created from members of the se-lected households have sufficient range for the carryingout of classification and calculation of the necessary in-dicators for different subgroups of Roma and general re-spondents as defined by age or some other trait. It was


29

Graph 2.1The structure of the set of households for both compared populations according to generational typeof household (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Single-generation household

Two-generation household

Three-generation household

Other generational type of household

Roma households

General households

12.738.9

65.349.2

20.711.3

1.30.6

Note: Single-generation household = an individual or couple and more members, but from one generation; Two-generation household = a parent orparents and a child or children; Three-generation household = one or more representatives of a parental, child and grandparent generation; othergeneration type of = four generations, or members of an alternating generation.

6 The methodology for the selection of data collection sites was developed in 2005 by a team of World Bank consultants under the leadership of Va-lerie Evans. With the surveys in 2010, as in 2005, the proposed methodological approach was observed (Evans, 2005).

also shown that despite differences in internal compo-sition, the individual surveyed sets of Roma populationare sufficiently disparate for the required mutual com-parison between the individual environments to be made.The differences in the composition of the size of the sur-veyed households (number of members, number ofyoung people, number of children of different age) how-ever, at the same time indicate that with analysis of somebasic areas, such as, for example, a module on incomeand the like, it will be necessary, in addition to the over-all data from households, to monitor primarily the cal-culation per one member.

The research sample is not representative of the en-tire Roma population but is representative of the Romapopulation bound by the framework of the selected datacollection sites (Atlas of Roma Communities in Slovakia

2004). On the basis of sociological suppositions, we as-sume that this involves that part of the Roma popula-tion which is spoken of as “marginalised”.8 The analysisis primarily focused on mutual comparison of individ-ual Roma environments defined by the type of settle-ment and further for comparison of average values forRoma households and individuals with householdsand individuals representing the general population fromthe geographical vicinity of Roma communities. Wherethe data allows (identical formulation of questions), thesituation in the year 2010 is compared with the situa-tion found in 2005. The report is divided into a total of11 chapters. Aside from the introduction and method-ological parts, chapters three through eleven are devotedto their own main subjects; the text concludes with theproposal of measures.


30

7 The count for the research sets in 2005 was as follows: the three individual subsets of Roma households each had up to 240 surveyed units (together720 surveyed Roma households) and the set of geographically near general households totaled 355 units. The sets for individuals created by allmembers of the selected households consisted in the case of segregated Roma communities of 1,361 surveyed units, in separated of 1,167 and indiffused of 1,241 surveyed units (a total of 3,769 Roma individuals); the set made up of members of the general population in the geographic vicin-ity of Roma communities totaled 1,204 respondents. Overall, a total of 1,075 households and 4,973 individuals were included in the 2005 survey.

8 If in the analysis, in the interest of simplifying the text and interpretation of data, the whole of Roma households or Roma population is spoken of,the information expresses the average value for the three selected Roma environments.

Note: Single-generation household = an individual or couple and more members, but from one generation; Two-generation household = a parent orparents and a child or children; Three-generation household = one or more representatives of a parental, child and grandparent generation; other gen-eration type of = four generations, or members of an alternating generation.

Table 2.5Structure of the subsets of Roma households by generational type (in %)

Subsets of Roma households

Segregated Separated Diffused Total

Single-generation household 10.7 11.9 15.5 12.7

Two-generation household 66.7 63.9 65.3 65.3

Three-generation household 21.3 23.0 18.0 20.7

Other generational type of household 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3

Households together 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

In experts circles in Slovakia it is a generally known factthat Roma do not report their nationality during censuses,or report it only in a limited range (Hojsík, 2009; Mušin-ka, 2004; Škobla – Leončikas – Štěpánková, 2008; Vaňo,2001, 2002; Vaňo – Haviarová, 2002; Vašečka, 2002). Thisis also pointed out in the UNDP reports from the year 2002or 2006 (UNDP, 2002, 2006). In the 1991 census of peo-ple, houses and flats, 75,800 citizens of Slovakia declaredthemselves to be of this national minority. Ten years lat-er, in 2001, this was 89,900. Although this represents mod-est growth, it is still only a share of the overall popula-tion of Slovakia which is smaller than 2%.1 The preferencefor Slovak or Hungarian nationality before Roma na-tionality is explained by a crisis of Roma identity, whichis the consequence of a long period of assimilation andthe perception of Roma nationality as less-valuedand the stigmatisation associated with it (Škobla –Leončikas – Štěpánková, 2008; Vašečka, 2003).

According to demographic estimates from the year2001, however, about 380,000 Roma (more than 7% ofthe Slovak population) were living in Slovakia, andprognoses predict a rise in the number of this ethnicgroup to 580,000 (Vaňo, 2001, 2002) by the year 2025.This estimated large growth in numbers in the comingquarter-century derives from the assumption of differ-ent reproductive behaviour of the Roma population anddifferent demographic development, which is distin-guished in comparison with the majority by higher birthrates and higher measures of fertility, an earlier start toreproductive activities and a longer reproduction peri-od, as well as a significantly higher measure of mortali-ty; differences have also been identified in terms of mar-ital behaviour – a smaller number of marriages despiteearlier partnership cohabitation (Filadelfiová, 2001ab,2004, 2005ab, 2010c; Vaňo, 2001; UNDP, 2006). The spe-cific demographic development is subsequently ex-

pressed in the overall makeup of the Roma population,in which younger age groups and groups of individualsof reproductive age are represented considerably morestrongly, but also in the structure of the Roma popula-tion according to family status.

The following chapter compares the structure of thesurveyed Roma set and the individual subsets definedby type of settlement with the geographically close gen-eral population and with the state in the year 2005, anddoes so on the basis of gender and family status, age andproductivity.

3.1. Structure by gender and family status

As follows from Table 3.1, the representation of womenand men within the entire surveyed Roma population wasvery balanced: men made up on average 50.6% andwomen 49.4%.2 According to the type of settlement thesurvey found a moderately higher share of men for thesubset of the Roma population living diffused and sep-arated, while segregated environments were found tohave a higher percentage of women (51.1% women to48.9% of men).

In comparisons with the geographically close gen-eral population, but also with the overall population ofSlovakia, the share of women and men for the surveyedRoma population is balanced in a non-standard way, be-cause in most modern populations the proportion ofwomen is higher than the proportion of men. So, for ex-ample, in the year the study was carried women madeup 51.4% of the overall population of Slovakia, and forthe geographically close general population in thestudy this proportion was nearly identical (51.2%). Thediscovered differences in the proportions of women and

31

03 Demographic characteristics of the roma population in comparisons

1 How the situation changed in 2011 and how many residents in the most recent census declared themselves to be of Roma ethnicity was still not knownat the time the report was written.

2 A similar balance of representation for both groups of genders was also found for the Roma set in 2005; only the proportion was reversed (51%women and 49% men). But the change in this proportion was very small; in the case of a selected finding of this type, it could be the result ofunchecked factors in the process of selecting the research sample.

Note: The data shown are for the entire research set of the surveyed Roma population.

Table 3.1Structure of the total set of Roma population by gender and type of settlement (in %)


Men 48.9 51.6 51.8 50.6

Women 51.1 48.4 48.2 49.4

Individuals together 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

men for the Roma sets versus the general population,however, from a distance doesn’t reach a level of adequatestatistical significance; therefore, it would not be correctto base any hypotheses on this lag in the share ofwomen in the Roma population.3 But in the future it willbe necessary to monitor this indicator for the Roma pop-ulation or part of it in order to determine whether or notin some Roma communities the violation of the humanrights of women is involved (unequal access to health careand nutrition, physical violence against Roma women,the consequences of multiple pregnancies on the healthof Roma women and the like).

In relation to the structure of the total set of surveyedRoma population age 11 years and older,4 on the basisof the reported current family status, the most numer-ous group was that of individuals living in marriage. Ascan be seen in Graph 3.2, married women and men to-gether made up on average 44% of Roma age 11+ years.The second most numerous group was single individu-als (the structure of the Roma set by age itself already in-dicates this, as the next sub-chapter shows, which con-firmed the high representation of the youngest agegroup), which in the Roma population 11+ years oldreached 36.1%. The representation of the group living asa partner was also relatively high – with a share of 13.6%of the total surveyed Roma population age 11 years andolder. Thus, 57.6% of the total Roma set lived in some kindof partnership cohabitation. The remaining three fami-ly status indicators obtained only a very low percentageof representation: divorced was 2.6%, so-called “sepa-rated” was 0.7% and widowed was 3%.

With calculations on the basis of the population de-fined by the age 15 years and older, as a commonly usedgeneral statistic, however, the structure of the surveyed

Roma population by family status changed more signif-icantly. The share of individuals living in a marriage in-creased to 51% and the share of cohabitation (partners)to 15.8%. Together with the status “in a partnership” theywere thus on average up to 66.8% of the surveyed Romapopulation age 15 years and older; the number of singleindividuals at the same time dropped by 10% – to 26%.

The structure on the basis of family status upon nar-rowing the population to those older than 18 years ap-


32

Graph 3.1Structure of the entire set of Roma population by gender – comparison with geographically close generalpopulation and with the total population of the Slovak Republic (in %)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Roma population

Geographically close general population

Slovak Republic total

50.6 49.4

48.8 51.2

48.6 51.4

Note: The data shown are for the entire research set of the surveyed Roma population.

Men Women

3 In the world the share of women in the population is lower than the share of men in those countries which are distinguished by a significantlyunequal standing of women or by artificial interference into natural reproductive development (for example, China, some states in India, someArab states and others).

4 We approached this specification of the basic set according to age in order to ensure a comparison with previous findings in 2005.

Graph 3.2Structure of the Roma population age 11+ by family status (in %)

Note: The data shown are for individuals age 11 years or older.

36.1

44.0

13.6

2.60.7

3.0

Single

Married

Partner

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

33


peared still different. In this case the share of single in-dividuals was only 15.6%, and up to 76.1% lived in sometype of partnership (of these, 59.1% in a marriageand 17% as partners). And for the population older than24 years, single individuals represented only 9.5%, whileup to 80.7% of the set remained in partnership cohab-itation (64.9% in a marriage and 15.8% as partners).

The higher the age limit for defining the basic pop-ulation, the smaller was the share of Roma men andwomen living single, and the shares for partnership co-habitation increased. Likewise, the number living as apartner also increased, as if to a certain age limit, andthen changed into cohabitation in marriage. What’s in-teresting is that the representation of divorced and wid-owed individuals did not notably increase with a shiftin the age limit of the surveyed Roma population. Afterthe loss of a partner, Roma men and women probablyenter into repeated ties or cohabitation. No significantdifferences were shown by gender in family statusamong the Roma population; the one exception was thecategory of the widowed, where women predominat-ed (5% of Roma women were widowed and among menless than 1%).

For additional possibilities for comparison, let us re-turn to the basic population set by the age limit of 11years. Compared to the findings of five years ago (Graph3.3) the percentage of single individuals from the Romapopulation age 11 years and older grew (from 32.9% to36.1%), and the share living as a partner and divorced alsoincreased moderately. On the other side this meanta weakening of the position of Roma men and womenliving in marriage – on average by 4%.

As Table 3.2 shows, on the basis of empirical data cer-tain differences were recorded according to the type ofsettlement of the Roma population – the achieving of in-dividual family statuses was different for the three com-parable Roma settlement types. While all three subsetsof the Roma population older than 11 years had an equalshare of single individuals, and the aggregate share ofthose living in a partner relationship was also equal, theproportion of the two types of partnership arrangementsvaried in the individual environments. The share ofmarried individuals was highest in the separated type(47.2%), which at the same time had the fewest living aspartners (9.8%). This was the opposite for those living indiffused settlements; these had the fewest of the mar-

Graph 3.3Structure of the total set of Roma population by family status – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Single

Married

Partner

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

32.936.1

48.144.0

12.313.6

1.32.6

0.60.7

4.03.0


2005

2010

Note: The data shown are for individuals age years 11 or older.

Table 3.2Structure of surveyed Roma population by family status and type of settlement (in %)


Single 36.5 36.9 35.0 36.1

Married 43.8 47.2 40.7 44.0

Partner 13.3 9.8 18.2 13.6

Divorced 1.9 2.8 2.9 2.6

Separated 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.7

Widowed 3.3 2.7 2.8 3.0

Individuals 11+ years total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

34


ried status from among all three compared parts of theRoma population (40.7%) and the most living in part-nerships (18.2%). The segregated part of the Romapopulation, with 43.8% living in a marriage and 13.3%in partnerships, moved somewhere in the middle be-tween them. The other family statuses had in all three sub-sets only a very low occurrence, including widowed in-dividuals (only about 3% in all environments).

The last axis of comparison – with the geographicallyclose general population – did not bring any surprisingfindings. However, a number of differences are indicat-

ed which are to a great measure caused by the differentage structure of both compared populations (significantlyfewer of the youngest and significantly more 50-year oldsand older for the general set – see Graph 3.7). Since thegeneral population from the geographic vicinity is on av-erage substantially “older”, there are logically ratherfewer single individuals in it than in the Roma popula-tion (28.1% to 36.1%). Those living in marriage again to-tal about 10% more: 54.4% of the general set to 44.0%of the surveyed Roma set.

The statuses cohabiting as a partner, being di-vorced as well as being widowed are ranked among thosefamily statuses in which differences between the gen-eral population from the geographically close sur-roundings and the Roma population are most manifestedand without regard to the comparable age category (theyapplied for all defined age groups). The share living asa partner was consistently many times higher within thesurveyed Roma population: among those older than 11years it made up 13.6% of the Roma population and fromthe general population only 2.3%; in the group age 25years and older this was 15.8% in the Roma populationand 2.6% in the general population. The difference in thecase of divorced individuals was 2.6% from the Roma to4.4% from the general population 11+ years old (amongthose age 25 years and older it was 4.2% to 5.4%); in thecase of widowed individuals 3% from the Roma to10.5% from the general population 11+ years old(among those 25 years and older 4.8% to 12.7%).

Widowed individuals are thus among the Roma pop-ulation very much a minority category, although they rep-resented more than one-tenth of those in the geo-graphically close population.5 Such a result is caused par-tially by the low representation of older ages in the Roma

Graph 3.4Structure of total set of the Roma population by family status – comparison with the geographically closegeneral population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Single

Married

Partner

Divorced

Separated

Widowed


28.136.1

44.054.4

13.62.3

2.64.4

0.70.2

3.010.5

Roma population

Geographically closegeneral population

Graph 3.5Structure of the Roma populationby age group (in %)

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

40.2

24.6

24.1

11.1

Less than 15 years

15-29 years

30-49 years

50 years and more

35


population and partially by the higher occurrence of re-peated partnership cohabitation in comparison with thegeneral population.

3.2. Age structure

In relation to the structure by age, the description of theresearch sample (Chapter 2.2.) has already outlined theabove-standard representation of the younger agegroups in the Roma sets and the low share of older peo-ple. As Graph 3.5 shows, the age group of the youngestindividuals to 15 years old reached on average for thewhole surveyed Roma population up to 40.2%, and forthose 50 years and older fell to just approximately one-tenth (11.1 of the total set of individuals).

What’s more, over the past five years almost noth-ing has changed in this ratio of the youngest and the old-est (Graph 3.6). Empirical data recorded only a minimalincrease for the categories of the youngest and oldest(by 1%), namely at the expense of the middle agegroups, which in a comparison for the five-year periods“tapered off” from 50.4% to 48.7%.6

According to the type of settlement children to 15years old had the largest share of the subset of those liv-

ing segregated (Table 3.3), where they made up 44.3%.In the other two groups of Roma population they got anapproximately 6% smaller share (they made up 38.4% ofseparated and 37.5% of those living diffused). In regardto those older than 50 years, the opposite inclination oc-curred. They received the smallest share among segre-gated Roma (9.9%) and in the other two groups this wasabout 1 – 2 percent more (12.1% and 11.2%). But as canbe seen, the mutual differences were in no way princi-ple; all three compared Roma living environments arecharacterised by a strong generation of young people,equally as well as the under-representation of the old-est age category.

From a comparison of proportions of individual agegroups among the Roma and the geographically closegeneral population a huge difference appeared in theshare of the youngest and the oldest. In the geograph-ically close general population there was, according tothe research findings, approximately 25% fewer childrento age 15 years old (15.5% versus 40.2%) and 28%more people in the 50+ years age group (39.2 % versus11.1%) than for the Roma population. The middle-agedgroups achieved in total a relatively balanced proportionalrepresentation among the compared populations; onlya moderate shift toward the older age category was ex-

5 We should also remember that in the overall population of Slovakia the share of widowed individuals is high, primarily among women; in recent yearsit was around 12% (Statistical..., 2010).

6 The change in time, however, is not statistically significant and could also be caused by the selection process.

Graph 3.6Structure of the whole set of Roma population by age – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Less than 15 years

15-29 years

30-49 years

50 years and more

39.440.2

27.624.6

22.824.1

10.211.1


2005

2010


Table 3.3Structure of the whole set of Roma population by age and type of settlement (in %)


less than 15 years 44.3 38.4 37.5 40.2

15-29 years 23.7 24.8 25.5 24.6

30-49 years 22.1 24.7 25.8 24.1

50 years or older 9.9 12.1 11.2 11.1


pressed (30 – 49 years) in the general population (Graph3.7). The general population from the geographically closesurroundings of Roma communities is thus significant-ly older than the Roma population.

Yet another comparison of the surveyed Roma andthe general population offers cumulative totals, as arepresented in Table 3.4. Children up to six years old madeup 19.5% of the total Roma population, but only 7.6% ofthe general population. With a shift in the age limit to 14years old, the share of Roma children rose to 40.2%, butchildren to age 14 totalled only 15.5% of the geo-graphically close general population. Further, whilechildren 18-years and younger made up 47.6%, or near-ly half, of the Roma population, in the general popula-tion this group had a one-fifth representation (20.7% be-ing 18 years and younger).

The cumulative share of the young generation to 25years inclusive reached nearly 60% in the surveyedRoma set, while in the general population they totalledless than 30%. Thus, the share from the Roma populationolder than 25 years was just over 40%, while from the gen-eral population it was 71%.

The result of the listed differences in representationof the youngest and oldest categories is a much dividedaverage age for the Roma and the geographically

close general population. While for the Roma thismoved on the level of 25 years, the average age for thegeographically close general population was over 40years old (42.79 year), which approximately corre-sponds to the Slovak national average. A second trendwhich is obvious from the data presented in Graph 3.8is a drop in the average age with the level of spatial ex-clusion. For the segregated part of the Roma popula-tion the average age did not even reach 23 years, whilein the Roma population living separated it was almostexactly 25 years and for those living diffused it was near-ly 26 years. Segregated settlement, therefore, furtherdecreases the already low total average age of the sur-veyed Roma population.

A comparison of the average age of women andmen for the individual subsets confirmed that, as withSlovakia as a whole, in the Roma population this is high-er also in the case of women: on average by one yearfor all Roma women in comparison with men, and insegregated environments by a half-year. The differencein average age of Roma women and men, however, lagsmore markedly behind the gender difference (the“gender gap”) characterising the entire population ofSlovakia. While the average age of women in Slovakiain the year 2010 reached 40.4 years and the average age


36

Graph 3.7Structure of the whole set of Roma population by age – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Less than 15 years

15-29 years

30-49 years

50 years and more

40.2

24.619.7

24.1

11.1


Roma population Geographically close general population

15.5

25.6

39.2


Table 3.4Share of the youngest generation of different age groups for the whole set of Roma population – comparisonwith the geographically close general population (in cumulative %)


Share of children to 6 years inclusive 19.5 7.6



Share of youth to 25 years inclusive 59.3 28.6

Share of the age group 26 or more years 40.7 71.4

of men in Slovakia was 37.1 years, which is a differenceof approximately three years, for Roma women from thesegregated environments this was 21.8 years and formen was 22.4 years, which is a difference of only halfa year. Not only is the Roma population distinguishedby a significantly lower average age on the whole, butit’s also as if the gender difference in these indicatorshas been wiped away.

Analysis of empirical data confirmed that the agestructure of the Roma population is furthermore signif-icantly differentiated from the total population. With theRoma population it’s not possible to speak of its demo-graphic aging, although over time it is possible to observea shift toward older age groups. The average age of theRoma population is more than 15 years lower, which ison one hand a consequence of its higher birth rate, buton the other hand also earlier mortality, with great prob-ability caused by worse living conditions, worse healthstatus and more difficult access to health care (seeChapters 6 and 7 for more information).

3.3. Structure on the basisof productivity

Structure by age categories and the value of the aver-age age at the same time indicated the strong positionsof pre-productive age and the absence of old-age pen-sioners within the entire Roma population. On the ba-sis of declared current economic status the largest partof the surveyed Roma population group was the pre-productive group (Graph 3.9). Together this was 44.1%of the entire set, with 18.7% represented by children be-

fore mandatory school attendance and 25.4% pupilsfrom primary schools and students from secondaryschools or colleges. On the other side, the share of post-productive persons, those who declared themselves aspensioners, was very low, totalling just 5% in the totalset of Roma population. The remaining 50.9% was madeup of economically active individuals (working and un-


37

Graph 3.8Average age in comparison – by gender and with the total population (in years)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Diffused Separated Segregated Geographically closegeneral population

Slovakia total


23.9

7

25.8

0

24.8

5

24.8

5

25.0

4

24.7

9

21.8

3

22.8

6

22.3

6

37.4

5 42

.79

40

.19

37.1

0 40

.40

38.8

0

Men Women Women

Graph 3.9Structure of the surveyed Roma population by eco-nomic status (in %)


OČD = treating a household member.

18.7

25.4

6.1

32.5

6.5

5.0

1.2

3.3

1.3

Child before primary school

Pupils, students

Working

Unemployed

At home

On parental leave,

maternity leave

Old-age pensioner

Disability pensioner

Other (including OČD)

employed) and holders of other statuses of economicinactivity – at home, on maternity or parental leave, dis-ability pensioners and other types of inactivity (Chap-ter 9 devotes broader attention to them).

The structure of the surveyed Roma population ac-cording to declared productivity has changed only a lit-tle from a five-years perspective (Graph 3.10): theshare of pre-productive children, that is those of a pre-school age and pupils and students, was 44.6% in 2005,and the current figure is 44.1%. The only shift which wasrecorded in the younger generation was a certain “ag-ing”. In the pre-productive group the representation ofchildren of a pre-school age decreased significantly(from 25% in 2005 to 18.7% in 2010), and did so to theadvantage of mandatory school-aged children and stu-

dents (a growth on average from 19.6% to 25.4% of theentire Roma population).

With the type of settlement the size of the pre-pro-ductive component of the Roma population changedmoderately. Children and students for the subset of Romaliving segregated together represented 47.6%, from sep-arated made up 43.5% and from diffused 40.7%. On theother hand, the share of old-age pensioners was lowestin segregated settlements – only 3.6%; in the subset ofRoma living separated this was 6.3% and among thoseliving diffused it was 5.1% (Table 3.5).

In comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation the Roma population in its overall structurehad a great deal fewer old-age pensioners – by near-ly 20%. While these made up 5% of the surveyed Roma


38

Graph 3.10Structure of the Roma population by economic status – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Pupils, students

Working

Unemployed

At home

On parental leave, maternity leave

Old-age pensioner



25.018.7

19.625.4

4.36.1

34.932.5

0.61.2

7.46.5

4.85.0

2.93.3

0.51.3

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population. OČD = treating a household member.

2005

2010


Table 3.5Structure of the Roma population by economic status and type of settlement (in %)


Child before primary school 20.0 17.7 18.1 18.7

Pupils, students 27.6 25.8 22.6 25.4

Working 3.9 6.1 8.5 6.1

Unemployed 31.5 32.9 33.1 32.5

At home 2.0 0.6 1.0 1.2

Parental or maternity leave 6.4 6.3 6.8 6.5

Old-age pensioner 3.6 6.3 5.1 5.0

Disability pensioner 3.5 2.8 3.7 3.3

Others (including OČD) 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.3


population, for the geographically close general popu-lation old-age pensioners represented 24.5%. At the op-posite pole, the ratio between the Roma and the generalpopulation was reversed, with the Roma set having 20%higher representation of pre-productive persons than theset from the geographically close general population(44.1% to 23.6%).

But at the same time, as the data in Graph 3.11 show,the total share of pre-productive and post-productive per-sons in both compared sets was approximately equal. Forthe Roma and the geographically close general popu-lation they make up approximately half: 49.1% for theRoma and 48.1% for the general population.

The index of economic burden, which expresses theshare of pre-productive and post-productive personsfor a group of productive persons, was therefore near-ly identical for both compared populations. They differedonly in the fact that in the case of the Roma populationthey represented a “higher burden” for the publicbudget for the education of children and preparationfor a profession and in the case of the general popu-lation of payouts for pensioners. But this depends onthe economic activities of the productive group,whether it is connected to the labour market and withwhat level of success.7

Conclusions

Thus, on the basis of biological as well as by productive age,the structure of the Roma population is significantly moreabundant in the younger age groups; on the other handits older generation is disproportionately weaker than thatof the general population. And with the growth of geo-graphic exclusion this generational disproportion is stilldeepening. While the high share of the youngest gener-ation of pre-productive age confirms an assumptionabout reproductive behaviour, for which a higher birth rateand higher fertility is characteristic, the low share of old-er age groups and post-production individuals reflects, asidefrom the different reproduction behaviour, also the worsthealth status and living conditions of many groups of theRoma population, which contributes to the growth of mor-tality and its shifting to a lower age, than is typical for theSlovak Republic (in comparison with original EU memberstates the standard measure of mortality is still very high).

The very small share of older age groups and old-agepensioners in the Roma population indicates that theydo not represent a great burden for the pension system.This fact, however, is not emphasised and is neglectedin discourse about the relations of the Roma populationand the social system; the connection with poverty ben-efits is more typically pointed out.


39

Graph 3.11Structure of the Roma population by economic status – comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Pupils, students

Working

Unemployed

At home

On parental leave, maternity leave

Old-age pensioner


Other (including OCD)

7.618.7

19.625.4

37.86.1

32.56.2

0.41.2

3.16.5

24.55.0

3.63.3

0.91.3



7 Chapter 9 is devoted to details about the different aspects of the economic activities and employment of Roma men and women.

Professional literature often cites basic knowledge andabilities in a language as being among the fundamen-tal prerequisites for the integration of individuals into asociety. Command of the majority language increases thechance for education and subsequently broadens job op-portunities and regional possibilities for finding work.Studies, particularly those focusing mainly on migrationsand migrants, have called attention to this dependence(Gallová-Kriglerová, 2009; Gallová-Kriglerová –Kadlečíková – Lajčáková (eds.), 2009; Filadelfiová –Sekulová, 2009; Filadelfiová – Gyárfášová – Hlinčíková –Sekulová, 2010; Popper – Bianchi – Lukšík – Seghy,2006; Rákoczyová – Trbola (eds.), 2009; Souralová, 2009;Vašečka – Košťál (eds.), 2009; Williams – Baláž, 2008); butthey are also mentioned in connection with ethnic mi-norities (Kusá – Rusnáková – Koželová, 2011; Vašečka2002, 2003; UNDP, 2006). An empirical study carried outon the Roma population also devoted attention to this,by which the mother tongue and the language of dailylife were examined.

4.1. Native language

In terms of language used, the Roma population in Slo-vakia can be identified as heterogeneous, or multicultural.This is already evident in the question of the mothertongue. Exactly one-third of the surveyed Roma popu-lation gave Slovak as their mother tongue and an addi-tional 12% gave Hungarian (Graph 4.1). However, thehighest representation was, naturally enough, in the Ro-mani language, which more than half of the entire set de-clared as their mother tongue (54.7%). And a compari-son with the situation five years ago did not reveal anysignificant shifts in this regard.1

However, where answers about the mother tonguedid strongly differ was in relation to the type of settle-ment (Table 4.1). With growing concentration and seg-regation of Roma citizens, the citing of Romani as themother tongue increased very markedly. While amongthe Roma population living in diffused settlements thistotalled 29.9%, for separated Roma the share grew to57.4% and for Roma citizens living segregated up to 74%.The greatest linguistic differentiation on the basis of

mother tongue was therefore found in the group livingdiffused (along with the 29.9% Romani, 19.5% Hungarianand 50.5% Slovak were given as the mother tongue); con-versely, the largest concentration for the Romani lan-guage as the mother tongue was again found in seg-regated settlements (only 14.8% Slovak and 11.2%Hungarian).

Upon comparison of the status in the years 2005 and2010, particularly for the segregated part of the Romapopulation, a moderate shift from Slovak to Hungarianwas observed,2 while representation of the Romani lan-guage remained completely the same. The shift towardHungarian in this environment could be the result of theselection, or it could equally signal that segregated set-tlements often originate in geographic surroundingswhere the Hungarian language predominates.

Despite the geographical proximity, a completely dif-ferent structure by mother tongue is evident betweenthe Roma and general population (Graph 4.2). The ge-ographically close general population was less diversefrom this point of view in that the Slovak language waspredominate as the mother tongue (given by 80.6%),

41

04 Mother tongue and languageused in daily life in the roma population

Graph 4.1Roma population by native language (in %)

Note: Mother tongue was defined as the language spoken by the respondent’s mother.

33.2

12.0

54.7

0.1

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

other language

1 The share declaring Romani as their mother tongue remained almost totally identical (54.4% in 2005 and 54.7% in 2010). The moderate declinerecorded in Hungarian as the mother tongue and the moderate increase of Slovak as a mother tongue (a change of approximately 1.5%) could bethe result of selection – which regions of Slovakia the research sample covered in the subsequent years.

2 In 2005, 16.9% of Roma living segregated gave Slovak as their mother tongue and five years later 14.8%; on the other hand, in 2005 only 8.1% con-sidered Hungarian as their mother tongue and in 2010 the share rose to 11.2%.

42


while the share of Hungarian as the mother tongue wasnearly the same in both compared populations (12% inthe Roma and 14% in the general population). The Ro-mani language, which 54.7% of the surveyed Roma pop-ulation gave as their mother tongue, reached only 2% inthe general population.

This was the situation so long as the three most com-monly listed mother tongues were involved – Romani,Slovak and Hungarian. But where the general populationshowed greater diversity in the mother tongue, there wasa share for still another mother tongue. In the Roma pop-ulation an additional language occurred only sporadically,

while for the geographically close general population oth-er mother tongues were declared by 3.4% of respondents.The Ruthenian language occurred most commonly, fol-lowed by the Czech language.

4.2 Language of daily usein the roma population

The distribution of answers regarding the language ofdaily use which respondents listed as first (Graph 4.3) asa whole approximately matched the status for the


Table 4.1Roma population by mother tongue and type of settlement (in %)


Slovak 14.8 36.5 50.5 33.2

Hungarian 11.2 5.8 19.5 12.0

Romani 74.0 57.4 29.9 54.7

other language — 0.3 0.1 0.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3 The situation appeared in more detail with a comparison of mother tongue and first language of daily household use for the three Roma settle-ment types as follows:a) In segregated settlements the share of those who listed Slovak as their mother tongue and at the same time as the first language of daily use

was 12.6%; in separated settlements this was 35.0%, and for diffused it was 48.0%;b) The Romani language was used equally as a mother tongue and as the first language of daily use for 67.9% of segregated, 54.2% of separated

and 25.3% of those living diffused;c) Hungarian was declared as the mother tongue and the first language of daily use by 9.8% of segregated, 5.3% of separated and 17.3% of those

living diffused;d) The transition from Slovak as the mother tongue to Hungarian as the primarily used language occurred only very rarely for all three Roma set-

tlement types (from 0.2% for separated to 1% for Roma living diffused);e) The transition from Slovak as the mother tongue to Romani as the primarily used language occurred a bit more often (from 1.4% for separated

and diffused through 2.2% for segregated);f ) The reverse transition, from Romani as the mother tongue to Slovak as the primary language of daily use, occurred more often – for segregated

and diffused settlements it was more than 4% and for separated 1.5% (an equal share of separated gave the transition from Romani as themother tongue to Hungarian);

g) In all, more than 90% of Roma, without regard to the type of settlement, declared the mother tongue and the first language of daily use as beingthe same, and not quite 10% expressed a disproportion (while for the general population from the geographic proximity this was only a little morethan 5%). However, it was shown that when the mother tongue is not found in the position of the first language of daily household use, it appearedas the second language of daily use; only a minority part of the surveyed Roma population did not commonly use their mother tongue at home.

Graph 4.2Roma population by mother tongue – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

other language

33.280.6

12.014.0

54.72.0

0.13.4



mother tongue. A total of 34.9% of the surveyed Romapopulation gave Slovak as their first language of daily use,another 12.3% Hungarian and 52.7% Romani. Thus, themother tongue on the whole corresponded almostcompletely with the primary language of daily householduse; on average only a minimal shift toward the Slovaklanguage was shown in the first language of daily use;this occurred at the expense of Romani, but only by a neg-ligible 2%.3

A comparison with the geographically close gen-eral population (Graph 4.4), therefore, also shows themother tongue to be the first language of daily use. Whilefor the general population the Slovak language was dom-inant as the most common language of daily householduse (84.2%), for the surveyed Roma population, Romaniprevailed (52.7%), but Slovak and Hungarian also hada significant share. Only 0.1% of the Roma populationused another language as their first language of daily use,while this was 2.6% for the general population.

But a relatively large difference was found with theciting of the first language of daily household useupon comparison of the situation with the year 2005. In


43

Graph 4.3Roma population by (first) language of daily use (in %)

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language.

Data only for those who can already speak.

34.9

12.3

52.7

0.1

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

other language

Graph 4.4Roma population by (first) language of daily use – comparison with geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

other language

34.984.2

12.311.7

52.71.5

0.12.6

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.


Graph 4.5Roma population by (first) language of daily use – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

other language

40.834.9

14.112.3

0.20.1

44.952.7


2005

2010

2010 a great deal fewer cited Slovak as the first languageof daily household use, and the same held true for Hun-garian as well, while this decline occurred to the bene-fit of the Romani language. The share of those Roma whogave Romani as a first language of daily household usein 2010 increased in comparison with 2005, from 44.9%to 52.7% (Graph 4.5).

The situation from the viewpoint of the first languageof daily household use in the surveyed Roma populationdiffered very strongly on the basis of type of settlement– the share of primary Romani-speaking households grewdynamically with the measure of spatial exclusion (Table4.2). While in the Roma population living diffused the Ro-mani language was listed as the first language of dailyuse by 27.4%, among the separated it was 56.2% and forthe segregated part of the Roma population it was 71.2%.In segregated settlements the share of Romani as the lan-guage of daily use was thus almost three times higherthan for those living diffused. It can be stated that thespatial segregation of Romani as the language of dailyuse is strengthening. The share of Hungarian as the mainlanguage of daily use had its highest occurrence for Romaliving diffused (19.7%), followed by living segregat-

ed (11.3%), and only 6.9% of separated gave Hungarian.The Slovak language is also the most used among theRoma population living diffused (52.9%), with the sep-arated part of the Roma population at a distance(36.8%), and it is used the least in segregated settlements,where it scored only 17.5%.

And the type of settlement of the Roma populationalso intervened significantly in the recorded time change,to the benefit of the more often given Romani as the pri-mary language of daily use. Most the above-mentionedgrowth in using the Romani language in comparison with2005 (see Graph 4.5) occurred in the segregated part ofthe Roma population (Graph 4.6). While the share of Ro-mani as the first language of daily household use increasedfor those segregated in the course of the past five yearsfrom 53.7% to 71.2% (by nearly 20%), for those living sep-arated this increase was from 48.1% to 56.2% (by only 8%);with those living diffused a decline took place in the endregarding the use of Romani – from 31.6% to 27.4%. Withthe Slovak language as the first language of daily house-hold use, this was the opposite: for the segregatedRoma population there was a drop in the primary use ofSlovak from 36.6% in 2005 to 17.5% in 2010; with the sep-


44


Table 4.2Roma population by (first) language of daily use and the type of settlement (in %)


Slovak 17.5 36.8 52.9 34.9

Hungarian 11.3 6.9 19.7 12.3

Romani 71.2 56.2 27.4 52.7

other language — 0.1 — 0.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Graph 4.6Roma population by (first) language of daily use and the type of settlement – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2005 2010 2005 2010 2005 2010

Segregated Separated Diffused


11.317

.5

0.6

53.7

9.1

36.6

71.2

41.8

0

10.0

48.1

0.1

36.8

6.9

56.2

0.1

44.3

24.1 31

.60

52.9

19.7 27

.50

Slovak Hungarian Romani other language

arated part, the drop was more moderate (from 41.8% to36.8%), and in the case of those living diffused the use ofSlovak as the first language increased (from 44.3% to52.9%). In relation to daily use of the Hungarian languageamong the Roma population, again the recorded statusdifferentiated according to the degree of spatial exclusion,but not as intensively. For the segregated share, Hungarianas the first language of daily use grew modestly in thecompared years (from 9.1% to 11.3%), and with the oth-

er two groups a decline was recorded: in the case of sep-arated from 10% to 6.9% and in the case of the Roma pop-ulation living diffused from 24.1% to 19.7%.

On the basis of the obtained date it was also shownthat the Roma population living segregated far more of-ten than the other compared groups also gave a secondlanguage of daily household use (Graph 4.7). From thesegregated type 88% declared a second language of dai-ly use, while with the separated this was 70.1% and for


45

Graph 4.7The share of those who listed a second language of daily household use – comparison of subsets with the ge-ographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


88.0

70.1

66.5

24.5


Graph 4.8Share of a 2nd language of daily use for individual types of the 1st language of daily use – comparison of theRoma subset with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

Slovak

Hungarian

Romani

11.30 47.2 0.9

43.8 48.20 0

84.3 9.8 0

5.50

70.7 24.4 00

69.8

8.60

4.70 7.40.6

55.3

66.3

87.5 0 0

78.60 0

2.7

15.3 0

33.50 0

40.0 0 . 9

9.0 0.60

43.9 0.2


Segregated

Separated

Diffused

Geographicallyclose general population

Slovak Hungarian Romani other language

diffused 66.5%. A great deal fewer respondents (24.5%)from the geographically close general population useda second language for household communication.

A comparison of the first and second languages ofdaily use indicated that there exists a relatively broadgroup of segregated Roma population in which Slovakwas not among the first two languages. Thus, the Hun-garian language was put in the first position and Romaniin the second (48.2% of the segregated Roma popula-tion with Hungarian as the primary language), or the op-posite – Romani appeared in the first place and Hungarianin the second (9.8% of the segregated Roma populationwith Romani as the primary language). The same groupshad representation also in the separated and segregat-ed groups, only to a smaller extent (Graph 4.8). This meansthat for a certain segment of the Roma population theSlovak language is the third language of choice (or is per-haps not used at all).

Conclusions

Empirical data suggest that the spatial segregation of theRoma population probably also has an impact on lan-guage segregation, because in the surveyed segregat-ed settlements the dominant language of daily house-hold use was predominately Romani – unlike the other

two types of settlements. In comparison with Roma liv-ing diffused, those in the segregated settlements declaredRomani as their first language of daily use three timesmore often. At the same time segregated settlementsmost often also cited a second language of common com-munication, with the Roma in comparison with the ge-ographically close general population, a second languagewas listed a great deal more often.

The data also show that groups of population existwhich utilise two languages in daily household use, how-ever neither of them is Slovak. Many Roma children fromsegregated (and separated) settlements thus can haveproblems in education due to the lack of opportunity tohear Slovak in common use at home. The mothertongue and the language of daily household use shouldtherefore be very carefully considered when selectinga specific school (according to the language used forteaching), but also when testing prior to entry to primaryschool or deciding about being assigned to a specialschool. Children can fail when testing because of the lan-guage used, not because of mental disability or insuffi-cient general foundations and skills. At the same time itis necessary to emphasise that also in connection withknowledge of languages, an adapted and an availablesystem of nursery schools appears to be a very impor-tant component of preparation for school attendance formany groups of Roma children.


46

One component of the empirical research on the livingconditions of Roma households was an important mod-ule focused on the geographic mobility of the Roma com-munity. It can say a lot about the depth of spatial ex-clusion – about its being minimising or strengthened –as well as about the consequences and impacts of ex-clusion on the position and life chances or Roma citi-zens in other spheres of life. In this module the continuityof living in the current settlement was tracked along withrelocation within a municipality, and the geographic po-sition of the municipality of previous residence is com-pared with the present one; an important component wasalso the measure of segregation of the previous and the

present residence. The reasons for relocation and the tem-porary migration from the site of the current residencealso became components of the findings.

5.1. Mobility to place of currentresidence and within it1

A block of questions devoted to changes of places of res-idence began by ascertaining the continuity or discon-tinuity of living in the municipality of current residence.This subsequently divided the research set of Roma pop-ulation into natives and migrants. For those who currentlylived in their municipality of birth, changes of resi-dence within the current municipality were further de-termined, and for migrants to the municipality, thelength of stay in their current residence and the specificsof their previous residence on the basis of distance fromthe present one were ascertained.

5.1.1. Continuity of residencein the present municipality versus migration

In relation to the period of residence in the current mu-nicipality, the scales were tipped heavily in favour of con-tinual residence (Graph 5.1). More than three-quartersof the surveyed Roma population age 15 years and old-er lived in the municipality where they were born (a to-tal of 77.1%); thus, 70.1% of the entire set lived contin-uously, that is without any longer or shorter breaks, inthe municipality of their birth; another 7% had inter-rupted their residence in their place of birth for a short-er time (4.4%) or for a longer (2.6%) time period.2 Less thanone-quarter (23%) had migrated to the municipality oftheir current residence from another settlement.

47

05 Migration and exclusion relating to housing

1 The entire chapter on migration presents data from the population age 15 years and older.2 The line between smaller and longer breaks was set at 6 months.

Graph 5.1Roma population age 15+ years by continuityof residence in a municipality (in %)

70.1

23.0

4.4

2.6

From birth

With smaller breaks

With longer breaks

Migrated here

Question: Have you lived in this municipality practically since birth,possibly with smaller or larger breaks?

Question: Have you lived in this municipality practically since your birth (possibly with smaller or larger breaks)?

Table 5.1Roma population age 15+ years by continuity of residence in a municipality and type of settlement (in %)


Since birth 74.6 72.5 62.6 70.1

With smaller breaks 4.6 5.2 3.4 4.4

With larger breaks 1.3 2.8 3.7 2.6

Migrated 19.4 19.6 30.4 23.0

Individuals 15+ total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

48


According to the type of settlement within the sur-veyed Roma population age 15+ years, larger differencesappeared in the continuity of residence in the place of birth– residents of non-integrated municipalities were the“most loyal” to their place of birth (Table 5.1). While the shareliving in their native municipality since birth was 74.6% insegregated settlements and 72.5% in separated settlements,this share of the Roma population living in diffused set-tlements was more than 10% less (only 62.6%). Con-versely, segregated and separated areas had a significantlysmaller representation of those who migrated to their cur-rent municipality: 19.4% and 19.6% migrants as opposed

to 30.4% among those living diffused. Also, temporary in-terruptions of residence were the least frequent for the sub-group of Roma population living segregated (total short-er and longer breaks 5.9%).

In comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation, representation of those living in their nativemunicipality continuously hardly differed (68.8% for thegeneral population to 70.1% for the Roma). Where a small-er difference could be observed was in interrupted livingand migrating to the municipality (Graph 5.2). In theRoma population age 15+ years, residence in the place ofbirth with smaller or larger breaks was more common (7%to 3.7%), while the geographically close general popula-tion had a higher representation of migrants to the mu-nicipality (27.4% for the general population to 23% for theRoma population).

According to empirical data it appears as if the seg-regated and separated settlements in the Roma popula-tion were more closed and offered fewer opportunities formovement associated with a change in permanent resi-dence. A similar tendency was evident to a smaller meas-ure with a comparison of the Roma and the geographicallyclose general population – the Roma population showeda modest predominance of those who live in their placeof birth. The differences, however, were not statistically sig-nificant.

5.1.2. Changes of place of residencewithin a municipality

Let’s look closer at the group of those individuals who havelive permanently in their native municipality (they haven’tmigrated): to what extent they have changed their placeof residence within the municipality (Graph 5.3). Accord-ing to the findings, approximately half of these (48.1%) havealways lived in their family house, flat or dwelling, while theremaining 51.9% have moved at least one time, changedthe address of their permanent residence, within their na-

Graph 5.2Roma population age 15+ years by continuity of residence in a municipality – comparison with the geographi-cally close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Since birth

With smaller breaks

With longer breaks

Migrated here

70.168.8

4.42.0

2.61.7

23.027.4

Question: Have you been living in this municipality practically since your birth (possibly with smaller or larger breaks)?

Roma population


Graph 5.3Roma population age 15+ years by relocation withina municipality (in %)

Question: Are you living in the home you were born in,or have you moved within the municipality/town?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who live permanently in the municipality – they did not migrate from another municipality.

48.1

11.2

40.7

In a family house, flat, dwelling

Relocated one time

Relocated multiple times

tive municipality. The share of those who relocated only onetime represented 40.7% of those who had moved withintheir native municipality, while 11.2% had moved withintheir native municipality more than once.

A look at the part of the Roma population age 15+ yearswho lived permanently in their native municipality revealsa relatively large differentiation by spatial segregation. Liv-ing in a family home was in segregated settlements sig-nificantly more frequent than in the other two groups: 56%for segregated versus 49% for separated and 37.2% for dif-fused. On the other hand one-time or repeated relocationwithin the native municipality more often appeared in thoseliving diffused: 16.2% of them had moved more than once(only 5.9% for segregated), while 46.6% had moved onlyonce (only 38% for segregated). And this is probably notdue only to the the higher number of children in segregatedsettlements (see Chapter 2); segregated communities dohave more children, as well as significantly earlier marriageor partnership cohabitation.3

In a comparison with the equally defined geograph-ically close general population the Roma population ap-peared from the viewpoint of mobility within the nativemunicipality as more mobile (Graph 5.4). A moderatelysmaller share was shown to be living in the family homeor dwelling and also a single move within the municipal-

ity (in total they represented 88.8% versus 94% for the gen-eral population), but those who had moved more than oncewithin their native municipality was nearly two-timeshigher (11.2% versus 6% for the general population).

As follows from the data presented in the graph, thegeneral population living permanently in the native mu-nicipality predominately remained in a family home ormoved one time – probably to be independent of parents,relatively few reported repeated changes of place of res-idence within a native municipality. In the surveyed Romapopulation, the first two models likewise predominated,i.e. to live in the family home or move one time within amunicipality, but in comparison with the immediate gen-eral surroundings they moved within the native munici-pality more often – the share of repeated relocation in themreached 11.2%. (Whether by relocating they shifted to anintegrated settlement and the reasons for relocating arepresented in the following parts 5.2 and 5.3.)

5.1.3. Migrations by geographic position of the municipality of previous residence

The second group defined by the continuity of residencein the native municipality was made up of migrants. Let us


493 For more details see Chapter 3.1 of this publication, but also: Vaňo, 2001; Vaňo – Haviarová, 2002.

Question: Are you living in the home you were born in, or have you moved within the municipality/town?Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who live permanently in the municipality – they did not migrate from another municipality.

Table 5.2Roma population age 15+ years by relocation within a municipality and type of settlement (in %)


In family house, flat, dwelling 56.0 49.0 37.2 48.1

Moved one time 38.0 38.6 46.6 40.7

Moved more than once 5.9 12.4 16.2 11.2


Graph 5.4Roma population age 15+ years by relocation within a municipality – comparison with the geographicallyclose general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

In the family house, flat, dwelling

Moved one time

Moved more than once

48.150.7

40.743.3

11.26.0


Question: Are you living in the home you were born in, or have you moved within the municipality/town?Note: Only for individuals of 15+ years, who live permanently in the municipality – they did not migrate from another municipality.

50


recall that they comprised the smaller part of the populationage 15 years and older: among the Roma 23% migratedto their current municipality and from the general popu-lation 27.4%. For this group, the place from which they ar-rived to the current municipality was ascertained. It wasshown that more than half of the migrated Roma popu-lation age 15+ years had previous residence within the samedistrict (total 58.9%), of which 15.6% arrived from an im-mediately neighbouring municipality and 43.3% from an-other municipality in the same district. An additional12.8% had their previous residence in another district, butin the same region, and 8.3% came from a different regionof Slovakia. Migrants from abroad made up 4.4% of theRoma population age 15+ years (predominately from CzechRepublic; other countries occurred only rarely); the re-maining 15.6% did not answer the question (Graph 5.5).

According to the type of Roma population settlementthe share of migrants from another district or region ofthe Slovak Republic (about 12% and 8%) was more or lessthat same among all three subsets, but for the other pos-sibilities a certain difference appeared (Table 5.3). In thecase of segregated and separated Roma there were moremigrants from neighbouring municipalities in compar-ison with those living diffused (18.9% and 15.9% against13% for diffused), and among those living diffused, againthere were significantly more migrants found from oth-er municipalities in the district in comparison with theother two groups. While among migrants to a munici-pality in the case of living diffused the share of those ar-riving from another municipality in the district was51%, for segregated and separated settlements this wasnot quite 38%. Migration from abroad (as is mentionedabove, nearly exclusively from Czech Republic) most of-ten occurred for separated settlements (7.5%); those liv-ing diffused had a smaller share by half (3.9%) and withsegregated this was nearly 4-times less (only 2.1%).

But it is necessary to emphasise that to the last re-sult, the high share of non-responses intervened in thesequestions, especially for the segregated part of the mi-grant Roma population age 15 years or more. Among theseparated and diffused approximately 12% refused to re-spond in regard to from where they had migrated to themunicipality; however, from the segregated areas morethan one-quarter of all migrants did not respond to thequestion about their previous residence. The questionhere is whether respondents considered this informationas threatening from fear that it will have some conse-quences for their remaining in the given settlement.

The disproportion in the number of non-responsesalso emerged from a comparison with the geographicallyclose general population (Graph 5.6). From the relevanttotal Roma population 15.6% did not specify a previousplace of residence, while in the surveyed general popu-lation the share of non-response was 9.5%. Otherwise, onlysmall differences emerged from a comparison with thegeographically close general population. So, for example,in the general population migration from neighbouring

Graph 5.5Migrated Roma population age 15+ by previous res-idence (in %)

Question: Where did you migrate here from?Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated

to the municipality.

15.6

43.3

8.3

12.8

15.6

4.4

neighbouring municipality

another municipality in the district

another district in the region

another region in Slovakia

abroad

not given

Question: Where did you migrate here from?Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Table 5.3Migrated Roma population age 15+ years by previous residence and type of settlement (in %)


neighbouring municipality 15.9 18.9 13.0 15.6

other municipality in the district 37.7 37.8 51.0 43.3

other district in the region 11.6 14.9 12.0 12.8

other region of Slovakia 7.2 8.8 8.7 8.3

abroad 2.1 7.5 3.9 4.4

not answered 25.4 12.2 11.5 15.6


municipalities was more often cited (20.6% against15.6% among the Roma population), then from anoth-er district in the same region (16% against 12.8%) and fromanother region of Slovakia (11.9% against 8.3%); amongthe migrant Roma population, those with a previous res-idence in another municipality in the district again hada higher prevalence (43.3% versus 39.5% in the generalpopulation), and also migration from abroad (4.4% ver-sus 2.5% in the general population).

The compiled empirical data showed that the Romapopulation, but also the geographically close generalpopulation, is relatively narrowly tied with the place ofbirth and the nearest regions. If a change of municipal-ity or a migration between municipalities is involved, thisoccurs predominately within the district. Migration be-tween regions is now rare and migration from abroad isall but exceptional.

5.2. Previous versus present residenceby level of segregation

With the monitoring of migration of the Roma popula-tion, the type of settlement in the previous place of res-idence is among the important indicators. Namely, it cantestify regarding the directions toward spatial integra-tion or about the strengthening of segregation of Romacitizens. Graph 5.7 shows the type of previous residenceof the “mobile” part of the Roma population. As is obvi-ous, among Roma citizens age 15 years or more who inthe course of their life relocated at least one time (with-in their native municipality or migrated from another mu-nicipality), the largest part previously lived directly ina town or village – a total of 60.4%. The previous residenceon the margins of a municipality had for the entire rel-

evant subset 13%, while 12.5% reported living in a set-tlement outside of a municipality (the remaining 14.1%did not respond to the question).

A comparison of the type of settlement by level of ex-clusion for the present and the previous place of residencecould indicate in which direction the habitation of theRoma population is shifting – whether migrating alsomeant a change in type of settlement or if this did notchange. The results of the study suggest more of a shift


51

Graph 5.6Migrated Roma population age 15+ by previous residence – comparison with the geographically close gener-al population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

neighbouring municipality

other municipality in the district

other district in the region

other region of Slovakia

abroad

not answered

15.620.6

43.339.5

12.816.0

8.311.9

4.42.5

15.69.5

Question: Where did you migrate here from?Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Roma population


Graph 5.7Migrated Roma population age 15+ years by placeof previous residence (in %)

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence).Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family

home – migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within the municipality.

25.3

35.1

12.5

13.0

14.1

Directly in a town

Directly in a village

On the margins –

town, village

Outside of a municipality

(settlement)

Not answered

52


toward spatial exclusion (Table 5.4). From the segregatedRoma population age 15+ years with experience of mi-grating 54.3% said that they had their previous residencedirectly in a town or village, 11.8% of them lived previouslyon the edge of a town or village and 19.3% listed an iden-tical type of habitation – now and before they lived in a set-tlement outside a municipality. For mobile Roma citizenscurrently living separated the situation was very similar:52.7% lived previously directly in a municipality, 14.9% re-mained in an identical separated settlement and 14.2%of them listed a segregated settlement as their previousresidence. For both types of currently excluded habitationsthe representation of non-respondents was relatively high(14.8% and 18.2%). In relation to the third group of theRoma population – currently living diffused – a large partof them also lived diffused in their previous place of res-idence (72.1%). Only 18.1% reported a shift toward inte-gration: 12.3% of them living diffused at the time of thesurvey had their previous residence on the edge of a set-tlement, and only 5.8% lived outside a municipality(9.8% did not answer the question).

A comparison with the geographically close gen-eral population ended up as expected: the migrated gen-eral population gave as their previous residence signif-

icantly more integrated habitation directly in a town orvillage (79.8% to 60.4%) and gave the separated (2.4%to 13%) or segregated (0.5 to 12.5%) types of previoushabitation disproportionately less than the surveyedRoma population. And this difference is expressed de-spite the higher representation of non-respondents inthe general population (17.2% against 14.1%).

Let’s return to the mobile Roma population and followprevious residence by the type of current settlement. Asis presented above, the trend with their relocating wasa great deal stronger from living integrated in the previ-ous settlement to living separated or segregated than wasa change of segregated or separated type of settlement forspatial integration within a municipality. Such a directionis valid for Roma citizens moving within their native mu-nicipality, as well as for migrants to the current municipality.

The structure of the Roma population age 15 years andolder with experience of moving within their native mu-nicipality was differentiated for the individual groups bycurrent type of settlement with comparisons with the pre-vious habitation (Graph 5.9). By moving within the nativemunicipality 62.3% currently living segregated shifted to-ward segregation – 51.6% of them previously lived directlyin the town or village and 10.7% in the separated part of

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence).Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or at least once moved within the municipality.

Table 5.4(Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ years by place of previous residence and type of settlement (in %)

Previously lived: Segregated Separated Diffused Total

directly in a town 22.8 23.2 29.0 25.3

directly in a village 31.5 29.5 43.1 35.1

on the margins – town, village 11.8 14.9 12.3 13.0

outside a municipality (settlement) 19.3 14.2 5.8 12.5

not answered 14.8 18.2 9.8 14.1


Graph 5.8Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ years by place of previous residence – comparison with the ge-ographically close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Directly in a town

Directly in a village

On the margins – town, village

Outside of a municipality (settlement)

Not answered

25.334.4

35.145.4

13.02.4

12.50.5

14.117.2

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence).Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or at least once moved within the municipality.

Roma population


the municipality. The same trend was also found in thosecurrently living separated: 52.7% of them previously liveddirectly in the municipality; 14.7% in the course of relocatingwithin the municipality shifted from living segregated toseparated and19.5% didn’t change their type of habitationwithin the village by moving – they lived and still live sep-arated. A look at the composition of the geographically closegeneral population shows a fully different structure. Withprevious residence those among them living directly ina town or village dominated; this was also shown that they“absorbed” only a minimum of separated or segregated (to-tal 5.3%) individuals.

And as Graph 5.10 shows, the segregation trend waseven stronger for the subset of migrants to the present

municipality. Overall 62.3% of those who migrated to seg-regated settlements previously lived directly in a townor village and 15.2% on the edge of the previous mu-nicipality, and 13.8% moved from a segregated to a seg-regated space. This was similar with those living sepa-rated: 62.8% of them previously lived directly in a mu-nicipality, 9.5% moved from a separated to a separatedenvironment and 16.2% moved from a segregated set-tlement to a separated part of the municipality. On theother hand, 83.4% of the Roma population migrating totheir present place of residence and who live diffused hadtheir previous residence directly in a town or village; only7.7% reported living on the edge of a municipality or ina segregated settlement.4


53

Graph 5.9The Roma population age 15+ years with experience of moving within the native municipality by type ofpresent and previous habitation and a comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


51.6 10.7 23.4 14.3

13.014.719.552.7

66.5 18.5 4.28.0

85.4 4.6 9.20.7

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence)Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or at least once moved within the mu-nicipality.

Previously – directly in a municipality

Previously – in a settlement outside a municipality

Previously – on the edge of a municipality

Not answered

Graph 5.10Migrated Roma population age 15+ years to the present municipality by type of present and previous habita-tion and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


62.3 15.2 13.8 8.7

11.516.29.562.8

83.4 4.3 9.1

81.90

17.70.4

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence)Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Previously – directly in a municipality

Previously – in a settlement outside a municipality

Previously – on the edge of a municipality

Not answered

3.4

4 For migrants in the geographically close general population representation of previous residence was as separated and segregated only min-imally (0.4%).

54


A comparison of responses from 2010 with the sit-uation five years ago, which could indicate whether thetendency toward segregation upon migration is strength-ening or weakening, cannot be carried out, because inthe findings from 2005 the question about the type ofprevious residence was lacking. Information about theyear of migration to the present municipality, however,shows that the majority of cases of migration discoveredtook place after 1990 (Graph 5.11). A total of up to 77%of the migrant Roma population migrated to their pres-ent place of residence in the period after 1990; that is,during the past 0 to 20 years; from the migrant generalpopulation this was only 49.2%. In the last five years 29.1%of all migrant Roma citizens migrated to their present mu-nicipality of residence, but only 18.4% from among themigrant geographically close general population. In thecase of migrants for the segregated part of the Roma pop-ulation 75.2% of migration took place after 1990, whilethe largest part – as much as a third – migrated to a seg-regated settlement in the past five years.

5.3. Reasons for moving and migrating

In relation to the reasons for moving within a municipalityor migration to the present settlement, most responsesfor Roma citizens age 15 years or older involved variousfamily reasons. Together they made up 60.4% of all re-sponses and are as follows: starting a family (getting mar-ried or living with a partner) with 36.3%; moving witha family or parents with 16.2%; to gain independence fromparents was 5.6%; and for other family reasons (divorceor separation, loss of parents and the like) an additional2.3%. Since 10.9% of relevant respondents didn’t reply tothe question on reasons for a change of residence, oth-

Graph 5.11Migrated Roma population age 15+ years by period of migration – for individual types of settlements andcomparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused

Roma population


33.8 15.8 16.4 9.2 24.8

30.312.417.920.019.4

32.2 17.5 23.0 17.1

81.9 23.010.519.717.7

8.811.618.4 10.4 50.8

To 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 or more years

10.2

Question: How many years ago did you migrate?Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Graph 5.12Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ by reason for migration (in %)

Question: For what reason did you relocate or migrate to the municipality?

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a familyhome – they migrated from another municipality

or moved at least once within the municipality.

36.3

16.25.63.11.4

2.3

1.5

0.6

6.3

2.8

10.9

13.2

Marriage, to live with a partner

Family reasons

Moving with a family, parents

To be independent of parents

Personal problems

Return to birthplace

Loss of a flat (sold, indebted...)

Eviction, unpaid rent

Got housing from municipality

Better living conditions

Other reason (including for work)

Not answered

er reasons received a 28.7% share. Among them were bet-ter living conditions (13.2%), then provision of housingfrom the municipality (6.3%), so-called personal problems(3.1%), the loss of a flat or eviction from a flat (together

4.3%), and finally a return to the place of birth (1.4%) andother reasons for changing residence (0.6%).

A comparison with the internal Roma populationwith the experience of relocating on the basis of type of


55

Table 5.4Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ years by reason for moving and type of settlement (in %)


Marriage, to live with a partner 39.2 37.9 32.5 36.3

Family reasons 2.0 1.9 2.9 2.3

Moving with a family, parents 15.0 11.9 21.0 16.2

To be independent of parents 4.8 8.2 3.8 5.6

Personal problems 2.3 5.4 1.5 3.1

Return to birthplace 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.4

Loss of a flat (sold, indebted...) 0.7 3.3 3.8 2.8

Eviction, unpaid rent 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.5

Got housing from municipality 0.7 5.0 11.7 6.3

Better living conditions 19.3 9.0 12.3 13.2

Other reason (including for work) 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.6

Not answered 12.0 14.2 6.9 10.9


Question: For what reason did you move within or migrate to the municipality?Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within themunicipality

Graph 5.13Relocated or migrated Roma population age 15+ by reason for moving – a comparison with the geographical-ly close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Marriage, to live with a partner

Family reasons

Moving with a family, parents

To be independent of parents

Personal problems

Return to birthplace

Loss of a flat (sold, indebted...)

Eviction, unpaid rent

Got housing from municipality


Other reason (including for work)

Not answered

36.341.3

16.214.5

5.67.7

3.11.7

1.7

2.8

1.5

6.3

0.62.4

10.914.6

13.212.9

0

0

0

1.4

Question: For what reason did you move within or migrate to the municipality?Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within themunicipality.

Roma population


2.33.1

present settlement revealed a number of differences inthe reasons for moving or migrating. While the strengthof family reasons together was in all three subgroups ap-proximately equal – around 60% – the frequencies for oth-er reasons were different. So, for example, 19.3% of thoseliving segregated gave better living conditions asthe reason for moving; in the case of separated this wasonly 9% and for diffused it was 12.3%. A total of 11.7%living diffused, but only 5% of separated and 0.7% of seg-regated, said they had received housing from the mu-nicipality. Reasons like loss of a flat or eviction from a flatoccurred more often among those presently living sep-arated and diffuse (more than 5%), while for segregat-ed this was only 2%.

In comparison with such a distribution, the individ-ual reasons for moving in the geographically close gen-eral population were represented differently (Graph 5.13).With their moving within a municipality or migration toa municipality reasons like establishing a family, gainingindependence from parents or family problems playeda stronger role (approx. 8% more for family reasons); bet-ter living conditions as a reason was approximately equal

to the Roma population (around 13%); fewer gave personalproblems as the reason; and reasons for a change of res-idence like loss of a flat, eviction from a flat or provisionof housing from the municipality didn’t occur at all.

The reasons for relocating also differed by whethermoving within a municipality or migrating to the mu-nicipality was involved. In relation to the first group, whichhad experience with relocating within a municipality(Graph 5.14), the individual reasons were different in fre-quencies, both within the three subgroups of the Romapopulation according to type of current settlement andin comparisons with the geographically close generalpopulation. Family reasons had the most commonprevalence in the case of the general population (theyreceived 68.3%); among the compared groups of theRoma population only those living diffused came closeto such a share (64% for family reasons); the separatedand segregated groups listed family reasons significantlyless (59.4% segregated and 55.1% separated).

Better living conditions as a reason for moving with-in the place of birth (the second most common reasonon average) occurred most for those living segregated


56

Graph 5.14Roma population age 15+ with experience of relocating within a municipality by reason of relocating andcomparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

family reasons together

personal problems

Return to place of birth

Loss of a flat, eviction

Got housingfrom the municipality


Other reason (including work related)

no reply given

59.4

2.98.6

0.3

1.2

1.25.1

2.40.0

0.0

0.00.30.30.3

0.47.2

17.8

21.312.0

10.1

10.6

3.5

14.5

15.5

13.5

1.01.41.0

0.3

55.1 64.068.3

Question: For what reason did you relocate or migrate to the municipality?Note: Only for individuals 15+ years, who have lived permanently in the municipality (they did not migrate from another municipality) but havemoved at least once within the municipality.

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


– with 21.3% of them giving this reason; at the sametime for the separated groups this reason was given byonly 12% and for the diffused just 10%; while in thenend this was 15.5% for the relevant general population.The strongest position for better living conditions asa reason for relocating within a municipality for seg-regated Roma citizens could at first glance seem par-adoxical, but it may have a relatively logical explanation.At least two are provided here: 1. The living conditionsof some segregated citizens could be so unacceptablethat even the small change which they achieved bymoving within a municipality could be perceived as im-proving their living conditions; 2. Construction ofhigher quality dwellings (for example, even of low stan-dard), either for municipal aid or NGOs, which meansimproved living conditions in comparison with the pre-vious state, could be situated within the segregated en-vironment, that is, outside the main space of the mu-nicipality.

The reason for relocating within a municipalityspecified as “they received housing from the municipality”was offered most often by the Roma population livingdiffused (17.8%) and then those living separately (7.2%).So that even “to get a flat from the municipality” does notalways have to mean spatial integration.5

The remaining reasons for relocating within a mu-nicipality were given much less often. Personal problemsas a reason for relocating was given mostly by Roma cit-izens living separated (8.6%), and then segregated(2.9%), and for diffused and the geographically close gen-eral population this reason occurred only rarely. The lossof a flat or eviction from a flat as a reason for relocatingwithin a municipality was declared by 5.1% of separat-ed, 2.4% of those living diffused and 1.2% of segregat-ed; no one from the general population gave this reason.

Among the reasons for migration to a municipality(Graph 5.15) family reasons also had the strongest po-sition. From the relevant Roma citizens, those living sep-


575 With relocations within a municipality, the year of relocation was not determined; it is therefore not clear for what period relocation within the mu-

nicipality meant integration to the surroundings and when it meant separation.

Graph 5.15Migrated Roma population age 15+ to the present municipality by reason for relocating and comparison withthe geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

family reasons together

personal problems

Return to place of birth

Loss of a flat, eviction

Received housingfrom the municipality


Other reason (including work related)

no reply given

69.5

1.40.0

3.4

0.7

3.66.8

9.10.0

0.0

0.02.2

1.55.3

1.42.0

4.8

18.12.7

16.8

5.33.43.4

11.1

2.9

1.41.4

2.9

3.7

84.059.6

71.6

Question: For what reason did you move within or migrate to the municipality?Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


arated most often gave them as the reason (up to84%); for segregated this was 69.5% and for those livingdiffused only 59.6%; for the relevant general populationthe share for family reasons together was 71.6%.

Better living conditions was among the reasons formigrating to a municipality for 18% of the relevant Romapopulation living segregated, which again reveals the factthat improving living conditions does not necessarilybring spatial integration. This reason was given relativelyoften also for the group living diffused, where it received16.8%; among migrants to separated parts of a munic-ipality it received only 2.7%. At the same time this wasalso the second most common reason for migrating toa municipality declared by the geographically close pop-ulation – 11.1% of the total gave it as a reason.

The loss of a flat or eviction from a flat was given asa reason for migration to the present municipality mostamong those living diffused (9.1%), then separated(6.8%) and finally segregated (3.6%); for the general pop-ulation no one declared this as the reason for migration.Personal problems were the reason for migrating to thepresent municipality in the case of the general popula-tion and the Roma population living diffused (approx. 3%of them gave it), while for the group or Roma living sep-arated and segregated it was not found at all or only rarely.

If we look collectively and particularly only at the “re-location for reasons other than family reasons”,6 which in-cludes reasons like personal problems, a return to the placeof birth, loss of a flat (sold, due to debts, etc.), eviction, un-paid rent, assignment to municipal housing, better livingconditions or another reason, such a perspective allows for

still another view of the situation of the Roma population.Graph 5.16, for example, presents the whole of mobile re-spondents (migrants to a municipality or those relocatingwithin a municipality) for reasons other than family reasonsby type of mobility and type of current settlement.

Among Roma citizens age 15 years or older who at thetime of the survey lived in segregated settlements and whohad experience of any kind with relocating for reasons oth-er than family reasons, the largest share was made up ofthose who had moved once within their municipality ofresidence (52.3%), while repeated relocation within a mu-nicipality for non-family reasons scored 12.5%; the shareof migrants to segregated settlements for reasons otherthan family made up 35.2%.

From Roma citizens living separated who gave asthe reason for relocating something other than family rea-sons (that is, personal problems, return to birthplace, lossof a flat, eviction, unpaid rent, obtaining housing from themunicipality, better living conditions or still another rea-son), the most were those who had relocated within themunicipality only once (51.9%); repeated relocation with-in the municipality for non-family reasons, however,had three-times the representation here than for the oth-er subsets (32.8%), while in contrast, only 15.3% migrat-ed from another municipality to a separated environmentfor non-family reasons.

The distribution for Roma living diffused was differentin comparison with the previous two groups: up to 45%of those living diffused migrated to their current munici-pality for reasons other than family, while not quite 41%of diffused migrants changed their place of residence only


58

Graph 5.16Types of relocation of the Roma population age 15+ for non-family reasons by type of settlement and compar-ison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


35.2 52.3 12.5

15.3 51.9 32.8

45.0 40.9 14.1

51.4 43.0 5.6

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or relocated at least once with-in the municipality, namely for reasons other than family reasons.

Migration to the municipality

One-time relocating within a municipality Repeated relocation within a municipality

6 A great many motives lead to such a reduction. Since family reasons dominated all subsets of the Roma population and for the general population,and at the same time they are the most common reason given for relocating when tracking internal state-wide mobility among citizens of the Slo-vak Republic (Development..., 2011), in relation to the life situation of the Roma population there are therefore no differentiations. To track each ofthe non-family reasons individually is again not possible, because the quantities are too small to allow for additional classifications to be made.

once within a municipality for reasons other than family,and 14.1% changed residence more than once within a mu-nicipality for reasons other than family-related reasons.

Within the geographically close general populationin regard to mobility, migration from another municipal-ity for reasons other than family reasons predominated(more than half – 51.4%), while one-time relocationwithin a municipality represented 43% and repeated re-locations within a municipality only 5.6%.

While with segregated and especially separatedRoma populations reasons other than family reasons (per-sonal problems, return to birthplace, loss of a flat, evic-tion, unpaid rent, obtaining housing from the munici-pality, better living conditions or still another reason) weresignificantly more common with a change of place of res-idence within a municipality than with migration to a mu-nicipality, for those living diffused and the geographicallyclose general population, reasons for mobility within amunicipality other than for family reasons were ap-proximately the same.

With analysis of relocation of the Roma population forreasons other than family it is interesting to track the yearof migration, especially in relation to segregated and sep-arated settlements. As Graph 5.17 shows in detail, the mi-gration of the Roma population for reasons other than fam-ily reasons to segregated settlements took place for36.8% in the past five years and an additional 21.1% in thelast 6 – 10 years. Thus, a total of 57.9% of all migrations tosegregated settlements in the last ten years took place forreasons other than family reasons, and an additional 13.2%took place 11 – 20 years ago, meaning that after 1990 a to-tal of 71.1% of all migrations to segregated settlementsoccurred for reasons other than family reasons.

Still more evident was the situation for Roma livingseparated: of all the migrants to separated settle-ments for reasons other than family reasons, the most

migrated in the period from 6 – 10 years ago (42.1%)and then in the past five years (21.1%). Thus, up to 63.2%of “non-family” migrants came to a separated settlementfrom another municipality during the past ten years;with expansion to the entire post-1990 period, theymade up a total of 84.3%.

In relation to migrations of Roma citizens to the mu-nicipality of residence for reasons other than family rea-sons among those living diffused, the largest part mi-grated 11 – 20 years ago (44.2%); a significantly small-er part in comparison with the previous two groups ofRoma migrants for reasons other than family reasonscame to the municipality of residence during the pastten years (40.3% to 57.9% for segregated and 63.2% forseparated).

According to the gathered data, it’s as if segregationand separation for reasons other than family reasons in thepast years has intensified. But let us remember thatshares of migrants to these environments for reasons oth-er than family reasons do not represent very high num-bers; therefore, it is necessary to look on the analysis witha certain reserve in relation to the specific percentages pro-vided. We have tried to capture from the existing data atleast the basic tendencies or trends; for more valid dataregarding mobility for individual types of settlements ofthe Roma population it would be necessary to conducta special survey.

Let’s look at the end of this section at relocation fornon-family reasons according to type of present and pre-vious settlement (Graph 5.18). For the Roma populationwhich changed its residence (within a municipality orwhich migrated from another municipality) for reasonsother than family reasons, a comparison of the previousand present settlement by type came out rather un-favourable for the segregated and the separated groups.Among the Roma living segregated who changed their


59

Graph 5.17Migrations to a municipality for non-family reasons by year of migration and type of settlement and compari-son with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


36.8 7.9 5.3 26.321.1

Note: Only for individuals 15+ years, who migrated to the municipality.

Up to 5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21 and more years

Not answered

2.6

21.1 15.8 5.3 10.542.1 5.3

27.3 32.5 11.7 11.713.0 3.9

33.9 5.4 5.4 37.516.1 1.8

place of residence for reasons other than family reasons,up to 70.3% previously lived directly in the municipali-ty and 10.2% on the edge of the municipality; in 15.7%of them this did not involve a change – they exchangedone segregated habitation for another segregated one.From Roma currently living separated who changed theirplace of residence for reasons other than family reasons,up to 61.2% of them lived integrated directly in the mu-nicipality and by migrating entered into a separated en-vironment; 19.4% of them did not change their type ofsettlement (they previously and presently lived in a sep-arated part of a municipality) and 12.9% came into a sep-arated environment from a segregated settlement. Forthat part of the Roma population which at the time ofthe survey lived diffused and had changed their place ofresidence for reasons other than family reasons, 23.4%arrived from separated settlements and only 9.4% fromsegregated.7 Overall, therefore, from the available re-sponses an exclusionary tendency is more evident thana tendency toward integration.

5.4. Mobility from place of present residence

In addition to relocation within the municipality of res-idence and migration to the present municipality,movement in the opposite direction can also be mon-itored – mobility in the direction away from the place

of residence. This can have either a temporary or a per-manent character, i.e. it includes different motivated de-partures from the place of residence without a changein permanent residence or emigrating from the mu-nicipality. The type of research carried out was not ableto capture the second of these mentioned possibilities,because the starting point for the selection of house-holds was the residence in the selected settlement (seeChapter 2), and statistical data for the surveyed data col-lection sites in regard to the number of those movingout were not tracked.

So long as temporary migration from the place ofresidence is involved, a certain amount of attention wasdevoted to this in the research. For example, the tem-porary interruption of residence in the native munici-pality, which is presented in section 5.1 of this chapter,can be included here. It was shown that only 7% of thesurveyed Roma population age 15 and older had ex-perience with such mobility outside of the native mu-nicipality, while 4.4% reported shorter breaks in resi-dence lasting less than six months, and 2.6% reportedbreaks longer than a half year.

In a certain sense, for mobility in the direction fromthe place of residence the question aimed at all mem-bers of a household partially showed whether and howlong they were outside of their household from the startof the year (2010).8On the basis of responses it was shownthat an absolute majority of those surveyed were con-sistently present in the household from the start of the


60

7 With the geographically close general population who changed their place of residence for reasons other than family reasons, the share of thosearriving from geographically excluded settlements was utterly negligible – only 0.9%.

8 The primary purpose of this question was the identification of relevant individual members of the given household, not the determination of mo-bility. If a member of the household was at the time of the survey present in the place of residence, the possible interruption of presence in thehousehold from the start of the year was ascertained; for persons currently and long-term absent from the household the reason for the absencewas not ascertained.

9 From segregated and separated this was 1.5% and from those living diffused 2.7%; in the case of the geographically close general population theshare temporarily absent from their household at the start of the year achieved 2.5%.

Graph 5.18Relocating for non-family reasons by type of previous and present settlement and comparison with the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


70.3 15.710.2 3.7

61.2 19.4 12.9 6.5

63.8 23.4 9.4 3.5

88.1 11.00.90

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who do not live in the family home – they migrated from another municipality or relocated at least oncewithin the municipality, namely for reasons other than family reasons.

Directly in the municipality

On the margins of the municipality

Outside the municipality

Not answered

year, and that interrupted presence was reported by only1.9% of the total set of the surveyed Roma population,9

1.3% of which interrupted their presence in the house-hold for less than a half year and 0.6% for longer. Reasonsfor absence were varied (Graph 5.19), with the largestshare, however, falling to migration for work, in the caseof the Roma population primarily abroad. Although it onlyinvolves one part, and what’s more a very small part ofthe Roma population which is covered by this question,it’s as if the responses indicated the presence of alabour migration within it, with a significant predomi-nance of it going abroad.

Attention was also given to migration aboard forwork in the questionnaire for households, where aquestion was inserted addressing the overall experienceof members of the surveyed households with workingabroad (overall experience in the sense of past and pres-

ent work abroad, but only work of a more regular char-acter or for a longer period). As Table 5.5 shows, the ex-perience of Roma households with work abroad wasmoderately higher in comparison with the general pop-ulation: from all surveyed Roma households 27.8% on av-erage had some longer-term or more regular work ex-perience abroad; from geographically close generalhouseholds this figure was 20.6%.

In both compared groups of households the situa-tion in which only one member had been abroad was themost common. The share of the Roma and the generalpopulation was approximately equal if the migrationabroad for work of only one household member wascompared (16.4% to 15.6%); with comparisons of mul-tiple migrations abroad for work (more householdmembers were or are working abroad) the experienceof Roma households was more than two-times higher


61

Graph 5.19Reasons for absence from a household from the start of the year – comparison with the geographically closegeneral population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

in hospital long-term

undergoing treatment, at a medical institution

working abroad

working elsewhere in the country

in an orphanage

visiting relatives

in prison

other

not answered

4.3

5.93.8

46.6

11.5

7.20

7.211.5

4.30

1.47.7

15.915.5

Question: What was the reason for absence from this household from the start of the year?Note: Only for respondents who were not present in the household from the start of the year in total for more than one month. This involved a verysmall number (n = 95); the presented percentage values therefore only have an illustrative meaning.

Roma population


15.4

34.6

7.2

Question: Has/was/is someone from your household gone abroad for work (regularly or for a longer period)?

Table 5.5Overall work experience abroad of members of a household – comparison of subsets of Roma households andwith geographically close general households (in %)

Roma households Geographically close general populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

Yes, one member 19.8 14.8 14.6 16.4 15.6

Yes, more members 11.3 13.5 9.4 11.4 5.0

No, no one has been yet 68.9 71.7 76.0 72.2 79.4

Households total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(11.4% to 5.0%).10 With comparisons of individual sub-sets of Roma households on the basis of type of settle-ment, those from segregated settlements declaredmoderately more overall experience with work abroad(a total of 31.1%); households living separated followedwith 28.2%, and finally households living diffused with23.9%. It is obvious that migration for work abroad is not,according to the data obtained in Roma households,a marginal phenomenon, as it occurs minimally on thesame level as in the geographically close general pop-ulation, if it is not higher. A previous study has alreadyshown the work commitment of the Roma populationabroad (Grill, 2011). This survey confirmed departures for

work abroad, but it didn’t devote itself to other detailsabout work abroad, such as whether it was official or theprimary needs of the labour market, the quality of thework, the form of contract or the duration of the workand the like. But what it did allow for is the monitoringof the impact of work abroad experience of householdsmembers on the quality of life in the household.

A comparison of the living conditions of Roma house-holds with experience of work abroad and those withoutsuch experiences turned out more favourable for the firstgroup –for households from which one or more membershad worked abroad. These households, unlike those with-out work abroad experience, had better living conditions


62

Table 5.6Living conditions of Roma households with and without experience with work abroad – comparison with thegeographically close general population (prevalence of selected indicators in %)

Roma households by experiencewith work abroad

General nearby households by experience with work abroad

1 mem.(n=116)

2+ mem.(n=81)

No one(n=511)

1 mem.(n=56)

2+ mem.(n=18)

No one(n=284)

Excellent and very good living conditions indwelling

29.3 34.5 21.5 91.1 94.4 83.1

Bad or very bad living conditions in dwelling 32.7 22.0 43.1 1.8 - 1.8

Functional bath or shower in dwelling 49.1 51.9 37.2 100.0 100.0 95.1

Functional flushing WC in dwelling 50.0 49.4 34.2 94.6 100.0 93.7

Automatic washing machine in household 42.2 41.3 23.9 95.9 94.9 88.2

Telephone in the household 82.5 75.3 65.7 98.0 100.0 93.3

PC or laptop in the household 18.4 21.0 8.7 65.3 82.4 49.6

Internet in the household 16.5 17.3 4.8 63.3 64.7 42.7

Decidedly want children to continue after primaryschool in a secondary school

34.3 48.8 34.5 85.7 100.0 76.0

Complete and partial satisfaction with the household financial situation

16.5 13.9 8.3 47.3 44.4 47.5

(Very) easily cover costs for children’s education(primary school)

6.0 18.1 3.2 28.6 50.0 32.0

Sufficient income for basic needs(food, clothing, housing)

14.0 15.0 6.5 54.5 44.5 45.5

Possibility for the entire household to go on holidayfor a week

3.4 4.9 0.6 41.1 44.4 32.4

Possibility to eat meat or fish each day... 33.6 30.9 14.1 67.9 72.2 54.6

Possibility to buy new seasonal clothing and shoeseach year

15.5 16.0 6.8 53.6 50.0 43.3

Possibility to pay an unexpected cost totalling 300 € 13.8 9.9 3.3 60.7 83.3 53.9

1 time or more they didn’t have food for children 48.1 45.2 58.7 16.6 - 10.6

1 time or more they weren’t able to cook 39.8 36.2 42.0 7.6 6.3 8.8

1 time or more they didn’t have heat in dwelling 39.6 39.2 43.4 9.8 6.3 9.6

The household is (much) better in this...compared with relatives in another municipality 16.7 17.2 13.3 21.8 38.9 17.1

...compared with neighbours on the street 17.4 24.7 9.7 25.5 35.3 16.0

...compared with residents in part of the municipality 18.3 22.0 9.7 16.7 29.4 14.0

...compared with residents of neighbouring municipality

9.3 9.1 3.4 15.9 29.4 11.6

...compared with a common Slovak family 1.8 5.3 1.2 11.3 27.8 7.4

Question: Question: Has/was/is someone from your household gone abroad for work (regularly or for a longer period)?

10 Here it is necessary at the same time to recall that the chance for general households for multiple work stays abroad were lower also in view of thediffering size and makeup of the households (fewer household members, more pensioners – see Chapters 2 and 3). We present a comparison withthe geographically close general population for the purpose of illustration; what’s important is in this regard is the situation for Roma households.

and household furnishings, supported their children’sstudies in secondary school more, better evaluated theirown financial situation, more easily covered their house-hold expenses, came closer to the standard of livingcommon in our society, experienced less material depri-vation, and also better evaluated their own life situationin comparison with those around them.11 And all of thetracked indicators ended up more favourable with multi-ple household experiences with work abroad in compar-ison with those with only one experience. The geograph-ically close general population also showed equal results,12

only on a level a number of times higher; they had signif-icantly stronger prevalences with favourable indicators andsignificantly lower with unfavourable. It appears thatwork mobility abroad improves the standard of Roma (andof the general) households; whether work activities as homeplay an equal role is the content of the following chapter(See Chapter 9.4 in particular).

Conclusions

On the basis empirical data regarding relocation it is pos-sible in conclusion to state that the spatial mobility of theRoma population connected with a change of place ofresidence is in no way particularly high in an overall view.More the opposite, as the majority of Roma remain in theirmunicipality of origin, meaning that Roma living seg-regated and separated are still more “attached” to theplace of their birth. But let’s remember that even the ge-ographically close general population did not havea high share of relocation within the municipality and mi-gration to the municipality.

If the Roma population does relocate, this is most of-ten only one time and within the municipality itself – inconnection with independence or for other reasons. Atthe same time Roma recorded, in comparison with the ge-ographically close general population, more repeated re-locations within a municipality and more migrations toa municipality. In regard to migration to the current placeof residence, this predominately involved migrationfrom another municipality in the same district or direct-ly from a neighbouring municipality; even another dis-trict in the same region was found a lot less in respons-es and another region or from abroad was completely rare.

Reasons for relocating are predominately associatedwith family and the stages of family life, such as gettingmarried or commencing cohabitation with a partner, re-locating with parents, gaining independence from par-ents or for other family reasons, such as, for example, di-vorce of loss of parents, etc. Reasons for relocating oth-er than family had about a one-third prevalence, andamong these were loss of a flat or eviction, obtaining a flatfrom a municipality or for better living conditions.

From a number of comparisons of the type of pre-vious and present settlement a stronger tendency towardspatial exclusion was evident over integration of theRoma, particularly in the post-revolution years and in-volving reasons other than family reasons for moving. Butfor more strongly worded statements it would be nec-essary to conduct special empirical research.

The tracking of current migration indicates a relativelybroad experience among Roma households with workabroad; it was shown to have minimally an equal or ahigher range of work experience abroad than generalhouseholds from neighbouring Roma communities.


6311 For an overall analysis of the indicators of the living and financial situation used and the material deprivation of Roma households (and in compar-

ison with general populations) see Chapter 6, but mainly Chapters 10 and 11.12 Differences are evident also despite the small number of general households which had a one-time or repeated experience with work abroad.

Housing conditions are a key (direct) indicator of stan-dard of living. Deprivation in housing has fundamentalconsequences for the life of household members in allconceivable aspects. Therefore, the majority of developedcountries have some type of housing policy available, thegoal of which is in general to support the developmentof housing, its accessibility and a certain minimumquality (expressed through the introduction of minimumstandards). This applies especially in the case of groupsof citizens with insufficient resources. Housing conditionscan be assessed from different perspectives – keepingin mind price availability, quality tied to internal or ex-ternal characteristics, long-term sustainability (for ex-ample, costs-to-income ratio, crowding, processes uponthe origin of arrears) and the like. According to data fromthe last wave of EU SILC (2010) surveys, deprivation re-lating to quality of a dwelling itself is not too high in thepopulation. For example, in 2010 the share of persons liv-ing in flats that were too dark was 3% (the average forthe EU-27 was 7%); the share of persons living in dampflats was 6% (average for the EU-27 was 16%). On the oth-er hand, the measure of crowded housing in Slovakia is40.1%, which is one of the highest values among all EUmember states.1 Furthermore, the value of the trackedindicators has principally worsened, if we look at thegroups on the bottom rungs of the income distributionladder. Access to housing has also been shown to beproblematic: “access to housing, expressed by the num-ber of flats per thousand citizens, has an above averagelevel in Slovakia in comparison with developed states,as well as with other V4 countries” (Kusá, 2011: 70).

In carrying out the research the character of house-hold habitation was tracked through a number of indi-

cators. Some of them rest on the responses of householdmembers; other were identified and verified by inter-viewers. Attention was paid to the type of dwelling, itssize, questions of ownership and rental, but also the typeof building materials used. Along with the characteris-tics of the dwelling itself the level of furnishings were alsomonitored, where an additional set of indicators were in-vestigated – from access to drinking water, throughsources used for hot water, up through ownership of long-term consumer goods. Indicators allow for an analysis ofthe level of housing and its variability in groups definedon the basis of spatial integration.

6.1. Type of dwelling

According to empirical data more than half of all Romahouseholds lived in free-standing brick houses, and 11%lived in brick buildings with two or three flats. Flats inhousing blocks were used by a total of 20.8% of house-holds, with most of them living in a blocks with morethan ten flats. A total of 15.6% of Roma households livedin non-standard forms of dwellings like a house of woodor from other materials; of these 10% were in a shack,43% in a wooden house and 1.3% in another type ofdwelling. Representation of individual types of dwellingsin the set of Roma households differed according to themeasure of integration. The highest share of free-standing brick houses and brick houses with several flatsoccurred in the group of households living diffused(81.6%). In segregated and separated settlements theshare of brick dwellings was significantly lower and non-standard dwellings were significantly more common,

65

06 Material conditions of life:housing and household furnishings

1 In 2009 the average for the 27 EU member states was 17.7%. The highest measure was found in Latvia (57.1%), the lowest in The Netherlands (2.2%).

Table 6.1Structure of Roma households by type of dwelling and type of settlement (in %)


Free-standing brick house 43.5 49.6 64.9 52.6

Brick house with 2 or 3 flats 6.7 9.5 16.7 11.0

Flat in a housing block with fewer than 10 flats 6.7 11.6 5.0 7.8

Flat in a housing block with more than 10 flats 10.9 16.5 11.7 13.0

Wooden house 9.6 2.1 0.8 4.3

Dwelling of other materials (shack) 20.5 9.1 0.4 10.0

Other type (portable, dwelling not intended for housing...) 2.1 1.2 0.4 1.3

Households total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Interviewers answered the questions, not respondents.

66


particularly among segregated Roma households. Theshare of households living in dwellings of different ma-terials (shacks) here was two-times higher than in sep-arated settlements. We also find similar differenceswith the use of wooden houses.

In comparison with 2005 a moderate shift took placein the representation of individual types of dwellings(Graph 6.1): fewer households were recorded living inshacks and wooden houses with the exception of seg-regated settlements, where in contrast the representa-tion of such households grew. On the other hand, theshare of those living in brick houses and housing blocksmoderately grew. On the whole, however, it’s possible tosay that over the course of five years no dramaticchange occurred in terms of the structure of Roma house-holds by type of dwelling. A comparison of the Roma pop-ulation with the geographically close general populationshows differences on the basis of type of dwelling. A high-er share of households living in non-standard forms ofdwellings was characteristic for the Roma population, sim-ilarly as five years ago (0.3% and 15.3%).

Conclusions derived from data about the type ofdwelling supplement (and confirm) information aboutthe method of dwelling construction. In the case of ex-ternal walls the data found “copies” the distribution oftypes of dwellings mentioned above: houses from firedbricks occurred most often for households from diffusedsettlements, non-standard building materials (wood, ply-wood, stone) were used most often in segregated set-tlements. A similar situation can be identified also in thecase of the roofs of dwellings; quality material (roofingtiles) was used most often with diffused dwellings(60%). In separated and segregated settlements tiles wereused significantly less, a much more common buildingmaterial was sheet metal (related to 52.5% of householdsfrom segregated and 36.5% from separated settle-ments, in comparison with 19.2% of diffused house-holds).2 The floor of Roma dwellings consisted most of-ten, without regard to type of settlement, of linoleum,after which was concrete.

Comparison of the situation in the set of Roma andgeneral households revealed tangible differences: more

2 It’s necessary to add that in the use of other, less standard materials (cardboard, asbestos, tar) the differences between individual categories of Romahouseholds were not so large.

Graph 6.1Structure of the set of Roma households by type of dwelling - comparison with 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Free-standing brick house

Brick house with 2 or 3 flats

Flat in block of flats with fewer than 10 flats

Flat in block of flats with morethan 10 flats

Woodenhouse

Dwelling of various materials(shack)

Other types (portable, dwellingnot intended for housing)

52.650.3

11.0

7.8

13.5

10.7

13.0

10.0

7.6

12.1

1.30.8

4.35.0

2010

2005

Table 6.2Evaluation of conditions for life in dwellings (in %)


Excellent 2.9 5.8 8.4 5.7

Good 13.0 17.5 25.6 18.7

Average 32.8 35.8 39.1 35.9

Bad 39.1 28.8 22.7 30.2

Very bad (unsuitable for living) 11.8 11.3 4.2 9.1

Under construction 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.4


quality building materials were much more common-ly used in dwellings of general households (whether inregard to walls, roof or floor), less quality and non-stan-dard building materials were, in contrast, more commonin the Roma population.

The conditions of Roma households for life in thedwellings were evaluated by assessors predominately asaverage (35.9%) or bad or very bad (39.3%).3 Bad or verybad conditions for living occurred especially in segregatedsettlements (50.9%). Roma households living diffused hadthe highest occurrence of positive evaluations (34%). Theobjectively better conditions for living in the geo-graphically close population was also confirmed bydata on the more quality materials used with the con-struction of houses and flats: in the opinion of re-searchers up to 38% had excellent conditions in dwellingsand another 48% had good conditions.

6.2. Size characteristics of dwellings

An important characteristic of the quality of housing isthe size of the dwelling, which can be evaluated on thebasis of the number of residential rooms and/or on thebasis of the size of the total floor space for living. In termsof the number of rooms for living, most Roma householdslived in two-room dwellings, which was followed by one-room houses/flats. More than one-fifth or Roma house-holds had three rooms for living available, and approx-imately one-tenth of Roma households lived in dwellingswith four or more rooms. The study from 2005 statedthat from the viewpoint of size of dwelling it is possible

to observe significant differences by degree of spatial in-tegration of the Roma population, as well as comparisonswith the general population (UNDP, 2006). Five years lat-er the mentioned facts were again confirmed. Dwellingswith one residential room occurred most often in seg-regated settlements. Separated dwellings once again hadthe highest share with two residential rooms. Four-roomdwellings and those with a higher number of roomsamong Roma households occurred rarely; however, inhouseholds living diffused their share moved above av-erage for the entire set of Roma households. The aver-age values provide summary information (Table 6.3),which show that with increasing spatial integration, theaverage number of residential rooms also grows.

Data on the representation of dwellings with a dif-ferent number of rooms provide only part of the re-quired information, because the quality of the living con-ditions does not depend only on the size of dwellingsbut also on the size of the household which livesthere. The values of the indicator “number of personsper residential room” confirm that we find crampedhousing most often in segregated settlements. The num-ber of persons here per residential room was 3.3 on av-erage. Households from separated and diffused set-tlements were better in this indicator. Table 6.4 presents,along with the aggregate average indicators, the shareof households in which a different number of peoplewere apportioned into one room. In nearly one-quar-ter (24 %) of all Roma households 4 or more people wereapportioned to a single residential room. Such a highoccupation for dwellings (4 or more persons per room)was most widespread in segregated settlements, re-


673 Life conditions in dwellings were evaluated by researchers.

Table 6.3Dwellings of Roma households by the number of residential rooms (in %)


1 residential room 38.8 25.0 25.5 29.7

2 residential rooms 34.6 42.6 37.2 38.2



5 or more residential rooms 1.2 4.0 7.1 4.1


Average number of rooms 1.95 2.26 2.43 2.22

Table 6.4The number of person per one residential room in Roma households (in % and averages)

Segregated Separated Diffused All Roma households

Number of persons per 1 room Share of households of the entire number of households of the given type (%)

2 or more person per residential room (%) 75.8 66.4 59.0 67.1



Average number of persons per residential room 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.8

68


lating to nearly one-third of these households. And itis possible to state that a significant lack of space for liv-ing and cramped conditions are a component of the lifefor a not insubstantial part of the Roma population, andis so in all types of settlements.

We obtain a similar picture upon looking at the sizeof dwellings, expressed by the size of the floor space insquare meters. A significant difference was found par-ticularly between households from the lowest and thehighest degrees of integration by settlement. While inthe subset of households living diffused the averagearea was 54.8 m2, in separated and segregated settle-ments lower values were achieved (49.2 m2 and 41.9 m2).The results of an ANOVA statistical procedure4confirmedthat statistically significant differences exist betweenhouseholds from different types of settlements interms of size of dwellings (measured in square metres),namely a 1-percent level of significance. And these arehouseholds from segregated settlements, which fromthe viewpoint of average area of dwellings significantlydiffer statistically from households from the other twosubsets, denoting higher spatial integration.5 Amonghouseholds living separated and diffused no statisticallysignificant differences in average area of dwellingwere demonstrated.

And in the case of size of floor space it is necessaryto take into consideration the number of persons livingthere. Table 6.6 provides a glimpse at the structure ofRoma households by how many m2 occur per person in

a household. Standardised values of dwelling size are di-vided into a number of categories. Dwellings witha smaller area per person are the domain of segregatedsettlements: nearly 40% of these households had an areaof 5 m2 or less for one member. This involves a very strik-ing representation of cramped dwellings, which in com-bination with the frequently low quality of life, representsan important accumulation of problems which shouldbe included with further considerations about the di-rection of Roma public policies. In separated and diffusedsettlements such crowded dwellings occur a great dealless often (which doesn’t mean, however, that it isa negligible problem).

Average values for space per one member providean additional confirmation of the differences in the size-related characteristics of dwellings (Table 6.6).

A comparison with the geographically close gen-eral population shows that this revealed a significant-ly different structure of housing by the number of res-idential rooms: the share of houses/flats with a small-er number of residential rooms here was well lower thanamong Roma households. In the case of one-roomabodes the difference represented more than 25 per-centage points, while with two-room dwellings it wasmore than 20 percentage points. We next find dwellingswith a higher number of residential rooms more oftenamong households belonging to the general popula-tion. The overall unfavourable situation of Roma house-holds from the viewpoint of dwelling size in the end is

4 The null hypothesis of equality of variance was not disproved (Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was not statistically significant), so that thegiven procedure could be used.

5 According to the Bonferroni post-hoc test statistically significant differences of a 1-percent level of confidences exist between households from diffusedand segregated dwellings. Statistically significant differences for confidence levels of 5% were found between separated and segregated households.

Table 6.5Average size of floor space of Roma dwellings (in m2)

Average size (m2) Standard deviation

Standard error Confidence interval (95%)

Lower limit Upper limit

Segregated 41.9 29.4 1.9 38.1 45.6

Separated 49.2 28.5 1.8 45.6 52.8

Diffused 54.8 28.7 1.9 51.2 58.5

Note: The testing criterion F in the ANOVA procedure had a value of 12.1 with two degrees of freedom and a significance level of α = 0.001.

Table 6.6Structure of Roma households by number of m2 per one member (in %, average in m2)


To 5 m2 per person 38.9 23.5 14.3 26.0

6-10 m2 per person 28.9 30.0 30.2 29.3

11-15 m2 per person 13.4 20.2 21.5 18.3

16-20 m2 per person 7.9 11.2 13.8 11.3

21+ m2 per person 10.9 14.4 20.2 15.1


Average number of m2 per person 10.0 12.3 15.6 12.6

also confirmed by a comparison of the average valueswith the set of households from the geographically closegeneral population (2.22 rooms to 3.56 rooms). If we takeinto consideration the number of household members,the difference seems much more striking: in Romahouseholds nearly three persons (2.8) occurred per oneroom on average, and in geographically close generalhouseholds this was only one person per room. Dif-ferences between these groups are also confirmed bydata on the size of the total floor space of dwellings.While households from the general population lived inhomes and flats with an average size of 82.4 m2, Romahouseholds lived on average in much smaller living ar-eas – 48.6 m2. For the general population the area perperson on average was 36 m2, while in the set ofRoma households this was only 13 m2.

Between the years 2005 and 2010 a change occurredin the size structure of dwellings of the set of Roma house-holds. The share of dwellings with one residential roomwas in 2010 higher by 10 percentage points. The shareof two-room dwellings also increased, by 6 percentagepoints. The representation of dwellings with a highernumber of rooms decreased, while the most visible fallwas recorded in dwellings with four rooms for living (near-ly 9 percentage points). Thus, in 2010 the surveyed Romahouseholds lived on average in smaller dwellings in termsof the number of rooms than they had five years before.

6.3. Ownership relations to house/flat and property

The majority of Roma households (72.4%) lived in 2010in dwellings which belonged to members/members ofthe family. Ownership of a dwelling by members of theclosest family was the most commonly given responseby households from diffused settlements, while theweakest representation was from households from sep-arated settlements. The share of flats and houses in mu-nicipal and state ownership had the opposite structurein these two groups. While the prevalence of theseforms of ownership in diffused households (11.7%) wasbelow the average for the entire set of Roma households,among households living separated it was well above av-erage (21.5%). Segregated households in this regard werelocated somewhere in the middle (17.3%). The dominantposition of separated households in terms of the shareof dwellings in public ownership in 2010 was a confir-mation of their position from 2005, when the share of suchflats and houses was likewise easily the highest (19.6%).

The situation of Roma households as a whole differedmarkedly from the situation in the geographically closegeneral population. The share of dwellings in ownershipof a family here represented 94.7%, which means that oth-er forms of ownership, including municipal and state, didnot play an important role. For a comparison, the share


69

Graph 6.2Size of dwellings by number of rooms – comparison of Roma households and households from the geographi-cally close general population (in %)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

General households

Roma households

1 room 2 rooms 3 rooms 4 rooms 5 and more rooms

3.9 17.2 34.7 23.6 20.5

6.129.7 38.2 21.9 4.1

Graph 6.3Structure of the set or Roma households by the number of residential rooms – comparison with 2005 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

5 and more rooms

4 rooms

3 rooms

2 rooms

1 room

4.15.5

6.115.3

26.921.9

38.232.2

29.719.7

2010

2005

70


of dwellings in town or state ownership represented only2% in comparison with 17% among Roma households.Both sets also differed in the extent to which certain formsof ownership in their representation varied according tothe period during which the households lived in the giv-en residence. In the set of Roma households surveyed theshare of households with their own dwelling was low-est among those who lived in the given dwelling theshortest period of time – specifically, with households liv-ing in the given location at most five years this was 51%;among households with residence lasting 6 to 10 yearsapproximately 72% lived in their own dwelling, andamong households with residence of 11 to 15 years thiswas 74%. Together with this, among households with theshortest residence in their current dwellings, the preva-lence of dwellings in ownership of the municipality orstate was much more common. In the set of householdsfrom the geographically close general population it is like-wise possible to find differences of such character, but

not such significant ones: among households with res-idence in the range from 1 to 5 years, 77% lived in theirown dwelling, in comparison with 86% of householdswith residence from 6-10 years and 88% with residencefrom 11 to 15 years.6

The share of Roma households living in their owndwellings was in comparison with 2005 lower by 10 per-centage points. A number of factors which can lead todifferent or alternative explanations for such changescould have caused the mentioned shift. Focusing hereon changes in the structure of ownership of Romadwellings, we give attention to the increased share ofdwellings in the ownership of towns (municipalities) orthe state. The mentioned changes were most significantwith households from segregated settlements. It isamong these very households that the sharpest growthin the share of dwelling in public ownership took place:while in 2006 not quite 7% of them lived in dwellings inpublic ownership, in 2010 this was already 17%. This was

Table 6.7Structure of the set of Roma households by declared form of ownership of dwelling and type of dwelling (in %)


My family 73.8 67.0 76.5 72.4

My relatives live outside the household 2.1 2.0 4.2 2.8

Another person 4.6 4.2 5.9 4.8

Town (municipality)/ state 17.3 21.5 11.7 17.0

Co-op 0.6 1.7 1.3 1.1

Others 1.6 3.6 0.4 1.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration. The responses “another member of the household” and “an-other private person” were included in the category “other person”.

Graph 6.4Structure of the set of Roma households by declared form of dwelling ownership – comparison with the situa-tion in 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

My family

My relatives

Town (municipality)/state

Co-op

Another person

Other

81.8

2.83.8

1711.4

1.11

1.8

1.90.2

4.8

72.4

2010

2005

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not included in the calculations.

6 We find similarly high (or even higher) values also among households with a longer residence in the given dwelling.

accompanied by a reduction in the representation ofhouseholds living in their own dwellings from 88% to67%, which again represented the largest change in thethree monitored types of settlements.

Households in which no family member or otherhousehold member owned the dwelling were askedabout the method of providing rent (the question relatedto approximately one-quarter of Roma households).Among them approximately half stated that they paidfor the provided lodgings: 34% full price and 17% livedin lodgings for an advantageous price. A total of 24% ofRoma households had rent free-of-charge available,which most often involved a place belonging to relativesliving in a different dwelling. Rental of a dwelling withno agreed-upon conditions related to a very small partof the set (4.3%). Interpretation of the mentioned dis-tribution of responses is made difficult by the high rep-resentation (21.5%) of those households which re-sponded to the given question with “another possibili-ty” of rent provision (most of them were among house-holds from segregated settlements – up to 39.3%). It ispossible to assume that either this was the result of notunderstanding the question or an unwillingness to pro-vide information about the real form of relations to thedwelling where the household lived.

While in segregated settlements rent of a dwellingwas the most common solution within the “other pos-sibilities”, in diffused and separated settlements themost households had a rental offered for the full price.Overall, however, payment of the full price represents onlythe smaller part of the category of methods by whichhousing rentals are handled within the set of Romahouseholds. If we add up all forms of favourable rent,whether this means free-of-charge housing, housing foran advantageous price, or housing without specificagreed upon conditions – the resulting share in allthree monitored groups is higher than the share of renterspaying the full amount. If we look at the individual formsof favourable rents individually, then a number of dif-ferences are found which, however, do not allow to de-

termine clearly which type of settlement shows the mostadvantageous (or least favourable) conditions for rent-ing of flats or houses. On one hand it is true that rent free-of-charge is often provided in diffused and segregatedsettlements; households from separated dwellings werebelow average in this regard among the entire set ofRoma households. On the other hand separated house-holds showed the significantly highest share of rentalsfor an advantageous price.

Unlike flats and houses, property in the ownershipof family members occurred less often. Some 58% of allRoma households had a house or flat on their own prop-erty.7 In comparison with flats and houses public own-ership had a stronger representation in regard to prop-erty: more than one-quarter of Roma households (28%)lived in dwellings located on lands in ownership of mu-nicipalities or the state. Lands owned by municipalitiesor the state were listed especially in segregated settle-ments, by 37% of households (31% of householdsfrom separated settlements and 16% living diffused).Housing blocks were most often located on public lands,and this was true for all types of settlements. If we lookat dwellings from non-standard materials, then segre-gated settlements show on public lands the highestshare of wooden homes and together with separatedsettlements also the highest share of shacks. The situ-ation of the Roma and geographically close householdswas fundamentally different, because in the general pop-ulation up to 93% of households had dwellings on theirown property, and only 3% of their homes and flats stoodon public lands.

6.4. Access to water and its quality

Access to quality drinking water is considered as a ba-sic human right, a fact confirmed by a resolution of theUnited Nations General Assembly from July 2010(GA/10967; Škobla – Filčák, 2011). Easy access to waterin our geographic area is taken as a given. The Report


71

Table 6.8Structure of the set of Roma households by provision of rent (in %)


Free 26.8 18.2 28.3 23.7

At an advantageous price 7.1 26.0 13.2 16.7

Full price 25.0 36.4 39.6 33.9

No conditions agreed upon 1.8 5.2 5.7 4.3

Others 39.3 14.3 13.2 21.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Only those Roma households living in dwellings not in the ownership of any family members or other household member are included. This rep-resented a total of 186 households.

7 Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

72


on the Living Conditions of Roma Households mappingthe situation for the year 2005 showed that it is im-possible to speak of this as a given in the case of Romasettlements (UNDP, 2006). Current data from the year2010 confirm the existence of enduring deficiencies inthis regard. First of all, again a higher measure of di-versification of water sources was determined in Romahouseholds in comparison with the geographically closegeneral population. Fewer than half of Roma householdshad water from public water mains connected to theirabode in comparison with more than two-thirds ofhouseholds belonging to the general population. Aquarter of Roma households used sources of water fromoutside of their own households.8 In the geographicallyclose population water from such sources is almost nev-er used at all. Water obtained outside the space of thedwelling included some very different sources. It is pos-sible to rank water from a spring or creek as fully non-standard regarding quality of water – but 5.7% of Romahouseholds used such sources. In the three moni-tored groups of Roma households we find different pat-terns of access to water. External sources were most of-ten used in households from segregated settlements(44.2%). A public water source in a municipality in par-ticular was here, in comparison with the other two cat-egories of Roma households, used a great deal less of-ten – the share of households which used water from

this source was in segregated settlements more thanthree times higher than the shares among house-holds in separated and diffused settlements. On the oth-er hand, the measure of use of public water mains inhouseholds was below the level for the entire set ofRoma households.

A problematic approach to water also signals the factthat external sources of water are not always found inclose proximity to Roma dwellings – 41.6% of Romahouseholds which drew water from sources outside oftheir own dwelling9 had to go more than 50 metres forit (in comparison with 2005, in 2010 the share of thesehouseholds increased). More than a third of Romahouseholds used water from a distance of 11 to 50 me-tres. Roma households which drew water from sourcesoutside their own dwelling had on average to go 128 me-tres for water, and the largest average distance of a wa-ter source from a dwelling was in households from sep-arated settlements (190 m). Households living diffusedwhich used sources of water outside the dwelling wereon average 150 m distance from these sources of water.Roma from segregated settlements had to cover theshortest distance (91 m).

Despite the variety of primary water sources, themajority (84%) from the total set of Roma householdsdeclared the water used as “good for drinking”. Themeasure of this consent, however, differs by type of set-

Table 6.9Structure of compared sets by main source of household water (in %)

Roma households Geographically close general householdsSegregated Separated Diffused Total

Public mains in household 30.7 57.8 51.7 46.8 80.0

Pipe from yard, garden 8.4 6.1 14.4 9.6 15.0

Well or borehole in yard 16.4 15.6 22.9 18.2 4.7

Public tap in municipality 27.3 7.4 6.8 13.8 0.0

Water from spring 8.8 4.1 0.8 4.6 0.0

Water from a creek 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

Water from relatives/neighbour’sdwelling 5.0 7.8 3.4 5.4 0.3

Other sources 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.10Structure of Roma households by distance of the main water source from dwelling (in %)


to 10 metres 24.3 21.7 20.8 23.1

11-50 metres 36.9 30.4 37.5 35.3

more than 50 metres 38.8 47.9 41.7 41.6


8 The share of Roma households using water outside the home was lower in 2010 in comparison with 2005 also because in 2010 the placement of a wellor borehole was specified in the questionnaire – namely in the spaces of the household’s yard. Those households subsequently responded to the ques-tion regarding distant of water source from the dwelling.

9 This involves households which did not use public water in the household, pipes from the yard/garden or well/borehole in the yard.

tlement. The lowest share of households with such anopinion was among those from segregated settle-ments (70.6%). It was shown that households in seg-regated settlements evaluated the water used as lesssuitable for drinking (19.5%) or even as “unsuitable fordrinking, but not other purposes” (9.5%) more often thanthose in separated and diffused settlements. ThoseRoma households which did not consider water suitablefor drinking were asked to describe the way that theyacquired drinking water. Among the most commonmethods was drawing water from a spring, boiling wa-ter or using public sources in the municipality. Unlike

year 2005, when the report stated that the opinions ofthe geographically close and the Roma population didnot differ regarding water quality (UNDP, 2006: 44), in2010 it’s possible to state more significant differences.In contrast to the set of Roma households, nearly allhouseholds from the geographically close generalpopulation (98.6%) declared the waster they used assuitable for drinking; the prevalence of more negativeevaluations in this regard were negligible.

Access to hot water certainly ranks among the fun-damental needs of life and is a key for observing gen-erally expected standards of hygiene and creating theconditions for full participation in the life of a society.In groups exposed to the risk of social exclusion, it rep-resents an important foundation for participation in themajority of preferred forms of social integration, like de-veloping social contacts with surroundings, searchingfor work, travelling for work and the like. According todata from 2010, 6.7% of Roma households did not haveaccess to any source of hot water, and the most suchcases occurred for the group living diffused (10.1%) andthe least in segregated settlements (4.5%). More oftenthe absence of a source of hot water for the group ofdiffused households in comparison with the othertypes of settlements could be the result of the fact thatin segregated and separated settlements dwellings oflower quality (shacks, wooden homes), in which it is eas-ier to establish some alternative source of heat than inmore standard dwellings in a municipality (in the casethat it involves disconnection from standard sources),occur more often.

The most frequent method of securing hot wateramong Roma households was wood or coal-burningstoves, which were used in more than half of suchhouseholds. Other sources had a significantly weakerrepresentation. Stoves were used particularly in house-holds living in surroundings with a weaker measure ofintegration – in separated and segregated settlements.The predominant methods of securing hot water inRoma populations differed from those used in the


73

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not tak-en into consideration.

Graph 6.5Evaluation of water quality to which Roma house-holds had access (in %)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

not suitable for any purpose

not suitable for drinking, but suitable for another purpose

sometimes good for drinking

good for drinking


19.5

70.6

9.5 5

91.3

3.78.5

88.9

2.6

Table 6.11Structure of compared sets by source of hot water in the household (in %)


Public or collective water main 5.1 7.8 12.7 8.5 42.7

Gas water heater 3.4 5.7 6.8 5.3 23.5

Electric water heater 14.4 18.4 16.9 16.6 23.5

Wood, coal boiler 5.5 7.0 7.6 6.7 6.4

Gas stove 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 0.6

Electric stove, hot plate 1.7 1.2 3.0 2.0 0.0

Coal, wood stove 63.6 52.9 41.4 52.6 3.1

No source of hot water 4.7 5.3 10.1 6.7 0.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

74


households of the geographically close population. Un-like in Roma households, hot water here was obtainedespecially through a public or collective water main. Theshare of households with this source of hot water wasapproximately five-times higher than that of the set ofRoma households. Far behind were water heaters,whether running on electricity or gas. When we com-pare the situation in 2005 and 2010, at both times woodor coal-burning stoves were rather dominant: more thanhalf of all Roma households used them.

Data on sources of hot water indicated that amongRoma households less standard methods of securingpersonal hygiene can also occur. A look at the structureof these households by how members bathe partiallyconfirms this assumption. Up to 30% of them usea wash basin or bucket for bathing, an additional26.5% use a bath not connected to a source of runningwater. In more than half of Roma households membersbathe in a non-standard way. This is true particularly for

segregated settlements, where a wash-basin, bucket orbath without running water is used by 69% of house-holds. Facilities in the dwellings of family or friends weremore often used. The low level of use of public wash-rooms in municipalities is worthy of attention, name-ly without regard to the degree of spatial integration.Data thus indicates that despite a running grant pro-gram, centres do not sufficiently fulfil the purpose fordifferent reasons.10

6.5. Waste and method of its removal

One of the key problems negatively affecting the livingconditions of local administration and Roma settle-ments within them is the handling of waste. Importantfactors in this regard are strict legislation, the increasingvolume of waste and the higher cost of its handling. Withdeepening awareness and with the possibility of citizen


Table 6.12Structure of Roma households by method of bathing of household members (in %)


Bath or shower in dwelling with running water 28.4 44.8 50.2 41.3

Bath in dwelling without running water 25.4 24.9 29.1 26.5

Wash-basin, bucket 43.5 28.6 18.6 30.1

In dwelling of family/friend 2.7 0.4 1.7 1.5

Public washroom in municipality (community centre) 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.13Method of waste disposal in Roma households by type of settlement and comparison with geographicallyclose general households (in %)


Organised collection in residentialbuilding or nearby 24.1 31.1 24.8 26.6 23.2

Disposal by town from household container 19.8 25.6 47.1 30.9 59.0

Disposal by town from commoncontainers for households 35.4 25.6 21.0 27.3 17.8

Throw into dump 15.2 6.3 2.9 8.1 0.0

Throw away into nature(forest behind village)

2.1 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.0

Throw away into river 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.0

Burning of waste 2.5 6.3 4.2 4.3 0.0

Burying of waste 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0


Note: Households which did not answer the question or which used the variant “otherwise” were excluded from the analysis.

10 In the grant policies of the Ministry of Work, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic (i.e. outside the FSR) in the years 2004 to 2011the construction of personal hygiene and laundry centres was supported in 38 municipalities. Grants totalling 1,217,164 euro were pro-vided by the ministry for this purpose. It would be necessary to perform an evaluation of the programme with the goal of identifying thereasons for poor use of these centres.

involvement in decision-making activities the questionof establishing dumps has become very complicated andat the same time can represent a case of unequal treat-ment for marginalised groups.

Many residents attempt to avoid fees associatedwith waste management by using illegal dump sites.One task of a municipality, which is placed on them bylaw, is to liquidate such dumps. At the same time it isunlikely that legal and illegal dumps can originate wherewealthy citizens or those who have political power hap-pen to live. Conversely, it is generally known thatsome Roma settlements are located directly on olddumps or new dumps or in their nearby vicinity. This isnot a voluntary decision of Roma communities re-garding their site of settlement, but is the result ofprocesses of exclusion, in the framework of whichRoma were forced to build dwellings in risky environ-ments or on otherwise unusable terrain (Filčák, 2007).11

Organised waste collection or collection directly in a res-idential building or in its proximity, the disposal of con-tainers from households or a collective container forhouseholds was given by 84.8% or Roma householdsin comparison with 100% of all geographically closegeneral households. This striking disparity can suggestan acute deficiency of financial resources in householdsfor the ever more expensive service of waste liquida-tion. However, it can also indicate a different approachon the part of local administration in the organisationof waste management between Roma parts and non-Roma parts of municipalities (see Table 6.14).

Data also shows that residents of Roma settle-ments, unfortunately, choose unsuitable methods ofwaste disposal, such as, for example, throwing rubbishonto a pile or throwing it away into nature. The worst sit-uation in this regard is in segregated and separated Romasettlements, where up to 26.5% of households choosesuch a method of dealing with waste. This fact hints atthe poverty of people as well as the inability of self-or-ganisation of communities to collectively eliminate el-ementary health risks that endanger the survival of theentire community.

Deficiencies, and especially inequalities, in the fieldof waste management, which originate either with in-sufficient financial resources of households or the differentapproach of local administration to Roma settlements (ortheir combination), are evident in the following data:Nearly 100% of households in the geographically closegeneral population reported that waste is collected reg-ularly during the year, and only 81.1% of Roma house-holds responded positively to the same question, whilethe most irregular waste haulage was reported in seg-regated settlements. Up to 31.3% of those living in thistype of settlement responded that waste is hauledaway only “occasionally” and 6.1% responded that theydon’t haul away waste at all.

Supplemental information about the reasons wasteis not collected is provided in Table 6.15. According to itmore than 61% of respondents from these households,in which waste is not collected, declared as the reasonthe fact that they don’t pay the fees for waste collection.


75

Table 6.15 Reasons why waste is not collected regularly in households from the Roma population (in %)


No system for waste collection exists 29.1 28.0 11.1 27.4

Non-payment of waste collection fee 61.6 52.0 55.6 61.1

Other 6.3 20.0 33.3 11.5


Table 6.14Regularity of waste collection during the year in Roma households by type of settlement and comparisonwith the geographically close general population (in %)


Regularly 62.6 83.9 95.7 81.1 99.2

Occasionally 31.3 14.1 3.9 16.1 0.8

Not at all 6.1 2.0 0.4 2.8 0.0


Note: Households which did not answer the question or which used the variant “otherwise” were excluded from the analysis.

Note: The listed data relates only to households in which waste is not regularly collected. Households which did not answer the question or which usedthe variant “otherwise” were excluded from these analyses.

11 An interesting case study on the origin and genesis of squeezing of a Roma settlement into increasingly risky areas is described in the publica-tion (Schaeffel, 2009).

On the other hand, 27.4% of those households report-ed the absence (non-existence) of a system of waste col-lection from their place of residence. This data might in-dicate also the above-mentioned different approach oflocal administration to waste management in Roma partsof municipalities.

6.6. Household goods

In the process of mapping household goods, not only own-ership of “standard” long-term consumer goods is deter-mined, but also facts relating to the accessibility and useof electrical energy, heating or waste disposal. In a greatmajority of Roma households (92%) the main source oflighting was electrical energy, and this is most often usedin households living diffused (97.9%) and least often in seg-regated settlements (88.3%). In the geographically closegeneral population electrical energy is used by almost allhouseholds. Candles and pocket flashlights were used by6.4% of Roma households, and this most often occurredin households from separated dwellings (9.8%). Othersources of lighting were completely marginal. While 76.5%of Roma households utilising electrical energy for lightinghad a connection to a source of electricity during the en-tire year,12 18.3% of them had an interrupted connection.

The share of households with an interrupted connectionwas highest in segregated settlements (22.2%). The valuefor the subset of households from separated settlements(19.6%) was also above average. Among householdsfrom diffused settlements, 13.7% had a connection to elec-trical energy with interruptions. In households from the ge-ographically close general population only a very smallnumber had an interrupted supply of electrical energy.

An interrupted connection to electricity was not al-ways only a short-term experience in Roma house-holds: 28.9% of households with an interrupted con-nection did not have electricity for two months, and12.2% had to live without electricity for three months.More than a third of Roma households which reportedhaving an interrupted electricity supply remained fourmonths or more without electricity. Differences be-tween the individual sets of Roma households were notsignificant in this regard. The most common reason forsuspending electricity in Roma households was the factthat they did not have the money to pay for it (68%). Morethan one-tenth of households had to face the problemof an interrupted connection, power outages or brokendown power lines.13


76

Graph 6.6Structure of Roma households with an interruptedelectricity connection by length of disconnection (in %)

Note: Households with an interrupted electrical supply represented 23.5% of all Roma households.

23%

29%12%

36%

1 month

2 months

3 months

4 and more months

Graph 6.7Structure of Roma households with an interruptedpower supply by reasons for disconnection (in %)

Note: Households with an interrupted electrical supply represented 23.5% of all Roma households.

9.0

68.0

4.93.3

2.5

12.3

Forgot to pay

Didn’t have the money

Malfunction,

broken down power line

Entire housing block

switched off

Other

Reply not given

12 If we speak about periods of the whole year, we mean a situation from the start of the calendar year up to the moment when the empirical researchwas carried out.

13 The number of households without electricity was lower than it was possible to observe in other classifications which would provide more de-tailed information.

Heating for Roma households was, similar as with hotwater, secured especially through wood or coal-burningstoves (77%). This method was used especially in seg-regated settlements (83.7%), which implicates the in-tensive demand through the use of heating materials.Other sources were used a great deal less. For example,only 7% of Roma households had radiators connectedto a central heating, and the so-called “gamatky” only 5%of them. A comparison of Roma households and house-holds from the geographically close population revealsthe chasm-like difference in the securing of heat indwellings. In the general population, standard methodsof securing heat were used – through radiators with cen-tral heating or with a connection to another heating el-ement. The share of households with central heating wasamong households from the geographically close pop-ulation more than six-times higher than in the set of Romahouseholds and approximately twelve-times higherthan in the case of segregated settlements. In contrast,

wood or coal-burning stoves played a much less im-portant role in the set belonging to the geographicallyclose general population.

In the majority of studies of living conditionshousehold goods are monitored through the pres-ence, or absence, of a set of long-term consumergoods; for example, in regular statistics of the EU SILC,which covers the entire population. What is researchedis not whether households have the given item availableor not, but also why it does not have it. The goal is iden-tification of forced absence, which is not a result of freechoice on the basis of certain preferences or life style,but is the result of financial limitations. In Roma house-holds the presence of seven items was ascertained, fromwhich some can be categorised as basic (washing ma-chine, refrigerator) and others as above-standard fur-nishings (the Internet). Roma households showed in re-gard to these seven items a different measure of forcedabsence. Roma households most of all could not afford


77

Table 6.16Structure of surveyed sets by method of heating their dwelling (in %)


Radiators – central heating 3.8 9.5 8.8 7.3 48.3

Radiators with input from gas, electric or coal boiler 3.8 3.7 10.9 6.1 35.7

Gas heaters 2.9 5.8 6.7 5.1 6.7

Electric heaters 3.8 2.9 2.9 3.2 0.6

Wood or coal-burning stove 83.7 77.3 69.8 77.0 7.6

Other 2.1 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.1



Graph 6.8Forced absence of long-term consumer goods – comparison of the situation of Roma households and house-holds from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Internet

PC or notebook

TV

Telephone

Automatic washing machine

Common washing machine

Refrigerator

18.962.4

15.861.5

0.86.8

2.823.5

551

11.950.2

14.40.6

Note: Additional numbers up to 100% represent the share of those who did not answer the question; telephone = fixed line or mobile.

Roma households

General households

the Internet and a computer. Half of Roma householdscould afford to obtain an automatic washing machine,and 23.2% due to insufficient finances did not have a tele-phone available. Approximately 14% did not have a re-frigerator. The situation in Roma households was dia-metrically different form the situation in households be-longing to residents who lived in the geographical vicin-ity, where the share of forced absence was significant-ly lower. Securing ownership of a refrigerator, telephoneor washing machine represented a problem for a greatmajority of these households.

The ability to secure the mentioned goods changedby the degree of integration. In the great majority of cas-es, the households which could not purchase the givenitem were highest in segregated settlements. With the

increasing measure of integration this share dropped(with the exception of a common washing machine). Itseems that a dividing line could perhaps be drawn be-tween households from diffused settlements on one handand households from separated and segregated settle-ments on the other. If we change the perspective and lookat the ownership of individual items, we obtain the sameinteresting picture. A television and a refrigerator belongto the most common items in Roma households (with-out regard to the measure of integration). A total of 84%of households in segregated settlements owned a tele-vision, and in the remaining two types of settlements thisnumber was even higher. A refrigerator was among thegoods for three-quarters of households in segregated set-tlements and even more common in separated and dif-


78

Table 6.17Furnishing of Roma households with long-term consumer goods by type of settlement (in %)


Yes Can’t afford it

No for otherreasons


No for otherreasons


No for otherreasons

Refrigerator 73.3 20.4 1.7 80.7 16.0 2.9 85.8 6.7 3.3

Common wash-ing machine 57.6 21.3 16.3 54.5 24.2 16.4 51.0 15.1 26.8

Automatic wash-ing machine 19.2 62.1 10.4 25.8 50.0 17.2 35.1 41.0 15.5

Telephone* 61.3 27.1 6.3 68.0 24.2 6.6 71.5 19.2 4.6

TV 84.6 10.0 0.8 89.3 8.2 2.0 93.7 2.1 0.4

PC or notebook 5.8 72.1 17.9 11.1 61.1 25.0 16.7 51.5 26.8

Internet 2.5 70.4 22.5 9.8 62.7 24.2 11.3 54.0 30.1

Note: Additional numbers up to 100% represent the share of those who did not answer the question; telephone = fixed line or mobile.

Graph 6.9Forced absence of long-term consumer goods in Roma households by type of settlement (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Internet

PC or notebook

TV

Telephone

Automatic washing machine

Common washing machine

Refrigerator

54.062.7

51.561.1

72.1

2.18.2

10.0

19.224.2

27.2

41.0

15.124.2

21.36.7

16.020.4

50.062.1

70.4

Segregated

Separated

Diffused

fused settlements. A telephone and a common washingmachine were among the goods which more than halfof households in all three types of settlements owned.The mentioned three objects can be considered asstandard, since they are owned by a majority of the pop-ulation. The forced absence of these items can thus beconsidered as an example of a combination of materialand social deprivation.

The absence of some of the goods which at pres-ent can be considered as essential for the fulfilling ofbasic life needs, can have a negative impact on the qual-ity of life of households. Unfavourable effects can per-haps be expected, if several of these goods are lack-ing from a household. The accumulation of forced ab-sence of long-term consumer goods leads not only toa worsening of (an often already unfavourable) livingsituation, but can also limit attempts to change it in the

future, since the missing household furnishings hinderthe connecting and observing of social contacts,searching for work and the like. For this reason we cal-culated an indicator of cumulated forced absence oflong-term consumer goods (material deprivation),which determines what share of households can afforda certain number of the seven tracked goods (one, two,three up to all seven).

As follows from Table 6.18, the share of house-holds first with a number of goods which they could notafford, increases and then continually drops. In all,13.6% of Roma households could not afford two items,and more than one-fifth of Roma households did nothave three of the goods due to financial problems. Forcedabsence of four of the goods affected more than a tenthof Roma households. The situation in segregated and sep-arated settlements was more serious than the situation


79

Note: This involves the total share of households who endure the forced absence of at least one of the seven mentioned items. Additional numbers upto 100% represent the share of households which did endure forced deficiencies.14

Table 6.18Accumulation of forced absence of long-term consumer goods in Roma by type of settlement (in %)


One item 6.2 5.7 12.1 8.0

Two items 12.5 11.9 16.3 13.6

Three items 27.1 19.7 19.2 22.0

Four items 12.1 13.1 10.0 11.8

Five items 7.9 8.2 2.5 6.2

Six items 7.5 7.4 3.8 6.2

Seven items 5.4 2.9 1.7 3.3


Graph 6.10Accumulation of forced absence of long-term consumer items – a comparison of the situation in Roma house-holds and the geographically close general households (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25

One item

Two items

Three items

Four items

Five items

Six items

Seven items

8.08.0

11.113.6

22.05.0

1.411.8

0.36.2

0.3

0.13.3

6.2Roma households

General households

14 We point out, however, that this means that the given share includes only those households which own all of the items. Conversely, it can also in-clude those who do not have them, however for another reason than they cannot afford it.

in households living diffused – the share of householdswhich could not secure a larger number of the seventracked items was higher in them.

On the basis of the share of households with an ac-cumulation of the highest number of long-term con-sumer goods, it’s possible to state that Roma householdsare most often located in unfavourable living condi-tions defined by the absence of necessary furnishingsthan the geographically close general population. AsGraph 6.10 shows, both lines track a more or less simi-lar sample, however, on different levels.

Conclusions

In this chapter attention was focused on dwellings, theirsize, questions of ownership and type of building ma-terials used. Along with the characteristics of thedwelling itself, the level of its furnishings was also mon-itored, as well as access to water, method of waste dis-posal and sources of hot water used. On the basis of thedata, it can be stated that more than half of all Romahouseholds lived in free-standing brick houses. An ad-ditional 11% of households lived in brick houses with twoor three flats. More than 20% of households lived in flatsin residential homes, and the majority of them lived inresidential blocks with more than ten flats. Some 16% ofRoma households lived in non-standard forms ofdwelling, as in a house from wood or an abode from var-ious materials. Although in comparison with 2005 ratherfewer households were recorded as living in shacks andwooden houses (which could indicate the runningprocess of building of municipal rental flats within Pro-grammes for the development of housing), in the courseof five years no dramatic changes occurred from the view-point of structure of Roma households by type ofdwelling. The significant lack of space for living and crowd-ed conditions is a part of the life of no small part of theRoma population in all types of settlements. In terms ofthe number of rooms, it’s possible to say that in 2010 sur-veyed Roma households lived on average in smallerdwelling than five years ago.

The majority of Roma households (more than 70%)in 2010 lived in dwellings which belonged to a memberof the household or a member of the family. The dom-inant position of separated households from the view-point of share of dwellings in public ownership in 2010was confirmation of the situation in 2005, when the shareof such flats and houses was likely well higher. This fact

again can point to the running process of constructionof so-called flats of lower standard and relative progressin the solution of the housing problem of the margin-alised Roma population.

New data repeatedly confirmed the existence of lin-gering problems from the viewpoint of access of Romacommunities to drinking water. First and foremost,a higher measure of diversification of sources of waterin Roma communities was again found in comparisonwith the geographically close general population. Lessthan half of Roma households had water from public wa-ter mains in their dwelling. The problematic approachto water signifies the fact that external sources of wa-ter were not always found near Roma dwellings, and 42%of Roma households which drew water from sources out-side of their own dwelling had to go more than 50 me-tres for it (in comparison with 2005 this share of house-holds increased).

Analysis of data also showed deficiencies in the fieldof waste management, which can originate either dueto a lack of financial resources of Roma households or thedifferent approach of local administration to Roma set-tlements. Organised collection of waste, whether in theform of collection directly in the residential building orin its proximity, collection from a household containeror from a common container for households was reportedby up to 100% of general households in the geograph-ic proximity, but only 85% of Roma households.

In the great majority of Roma households (92%) elec-tric energy was the main source of lighting, with the mostoften used in households living diffused and the least insegregated settlements. Access to electrical energy,however, was often interrupted and also for longertime periods: nearly 30% of them did not have electric-ity for two months, 12% had to live without electricity forthree months, more than a third of Roma householdswith an interrupted supply remained without electrici-ty for four or more months.

In the study the furnishings of households were alsomonitored through the presence, or absence, of a set oflong-term consumer goods. More than two-thirds ofRoma households could not afford the Internet and acomputer, half could not afford to acquire an automat-ic washing machine, 23% did not have a telephone avail-able due to insufficient finances, and approximately 14%did not have a refrigerator. On the basis of these data it’spossible to state that Roma households are often locatedin unfavourable living conditions defined by the absenceof necessary furnishings.


80

The module devoted to the health of the Roma popu-lation was relatively extensive. It began with the studyof chronic illnesses and invalidity, continued with over-all illness and health problems in the course of the pastyear, including the use and accessibility of health careservices, and ended it with a subjective assessment of ac-tual health status. The following chapter offers a selec-tion of the most interesting findings for the relevant Romapopulation; and as in other sections – also a comparisonwith the geographically close general population or be-tween the different groups of the Roma population. Inview of the fact that in past years several health indica-tors have become a part of regular statistical surveys,1 inthe scope of the boxes the situation for all citizens of Slo-vakia is concurrently outlined.

7.1. Occurrence of chronic illnessesand invalidity

One of the basic indicators which statistical surveys ori-entated on the health of citizens use is the spread ofchronic illnesses in a population. This data is based on

the personal self-reports of respondents, not on the re-sult of expert assessments, which is a prerequisite ofclaims for socio-political transfers.2 In the survey of theliving conditions of Roma households a similar methodof identifying chronic illness was used. On the basis ofthis, it was shown that the declared occurrence ofchronic illnesses in the Roma population, naturally, dif-fered significantly according to the definition of the ba-sic initial group, because with increasing age it has a rapidgrowth tendency (Table 7.1). Approximately one-fifth ofthe Roma population age 6 years or older sufferedfrom a chronic disease, and with a shift in the age intervalto the group age 15 and older, this was 24.2% and afterrestricting the population to age 15-54 years the shareof individuals with a chronic disease was 18.2% (for thegroup 15-64 years it was 22.0%).

With all groups of the basic population Roma livingdiffused had the highest share of chronic illnesses andresidents from segregated settlements had the lowest.This could be a consequence of the overall younger pop-ulation, of a higher share of children and young peoplein segregated and separated settlements (see Chapter3.2), with whom in general fewer health care problemsof a chronic or long-term character are associated,3 than

81

07 Health status and accessibility of health care

1 Let’s recall for example, the harmonised annual EU SILC survey on the incomes and living conditions of households and individuals, which has a sta-ble group of indicators relating to health and accessibility to health care (EU SILC, 2010), or the specialised survey of the Statistical Office of the Slo-vak Republic from 2009, which Slovakia also participated in, EHIS 2009 – European Health Interview Survey, which was carried on a set of 4,972persons age 15 years and older (EHIS, 2009).

2 Evidentiary and administrative data on morbidity by individual types of illnesses is offered by the National Health Information Centre in its regularhealth care yearbooks or specialised publications (http://www.nczisk.sk/Documents/rocenky/rocenka_2009.pdf), or the Report on the State of HealthCare in Slovakia, published by the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic, the most recent being from year 2011 (MH SR, 2011).

3 The rapid growth of long-lasting or chronic illnesses or long-lasting health problems with increasing of age also applies generally for the entire pop-ulation of Slovakia (see Box 7.1).

Table 7.1Occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population in different defined groups – comparison of subsetsand with the geographically close general population (in %)

Roma population Geographically closegeneral population Segregated Separated Diffused Total

6+ years total 17.5 20.6 22.1 20.0 29.7

16+ years total 23.0 25.4 25.9 24.8 32.6

15+ years total 22.4 24.4 25.8 24.2 32.1

15-64 years total 21.1 21.4 23.6 22.0 24.0

15-54 years total 16.8 16.5 21.3 18.2 17.5

Generational groups

6-24 years 7.6 9.1 9.8 8.8 9.5

25-54 years 20.3 20.7 27.4 22.8 19.3

55+ year 72.5 75.3 64.3 71.2 57.9

Question: Do you have any long-lasting or chronic illness or long-lasting health problem (specified for a period of 6 months or longer)?Note: Health status was surveyed for all members of the selected households age 6 years or older. Respondents who did not answer the question werenot included in the calculations.

82


an expression of an actual difference in the occurrenceof chronic illness between the individual groups definedby type of settlement. This also confirms to a certain meas-ure the mutual comparison of three generations: for theyoungest in the 6-24 years age bracket the occurrenceof chronic illness was approximately equal in all three sub-sets of the Roma population (around 9%); with the mid-dle generation, defined as age 25-54 year, the subset liv-ing diffused had the highest share of chronic illnesses(more than 27% versus about 20% among segregatedand separated); and for the oldest generation, age 55years and older, those living diffused were in contrast thebest (by nearly 10% of chronic illnesses less than in thesegregated and separated). The poor living conditionsin segregated settlements, probably also supported byless consistent approach to personal health and worseaccess to the health care system,4 was expressed in high-er age by the significantly higher occurrence of chron-ic illnesses of their residents.

The age structure, with great probability, also in-tervenes in a comparison with the geographically closegeneral population. In the surveyed general populationchronic illnesses were distributed a great deal more,when the wider initial population was compared with-out a limitation on the right side of the age interval (forthe population age 6+ years the share of chronic illnesseswas 20.0% among the Roma as opposed to 29.7%from individuals representing the geographically closegeneral population; with the population age 15+ yearsthe share was 24.2% versus 32.1 %). After exclusion ofthe oldest age groups, the difference between the

Roma and the general population was practically wipedaway: with comparisons of the population age 15-64years it was lowered to 2 percentage points (22% ofRoma to 24% of the general) and after narrowing thepopulation to 15-54 years it resulted in a moderate ac-celeration in favour of the Roma population (18.2% to17.5%). A still more flexible effect of age composition alsoimplies in this case a comparison of generations: the oc-currence in the youngest group was approximately equalfor the Roma and the general population, but for themiddle generation it then rose on the side of the Romapopulation and for the group older than 55 years therewas significantly more chronic illness among Roma. Sucha result indicates more rapid growth and earlier occur-rence of chronic and long-term illnesses on the side ofthe Roma population.

The occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma pop-ulation age 6+ years was in 2010 higher than in 2005 andwas so on the level of the entire set of persons surveyedas well as on the level of individual groups defined by themeasure of integration of the settlements in whichthey lived (approximately by 3-6% more). The gap be-tween the Roma and the geographically close popula-tion, however, remains more or less unchanged. There-fore, for data from 2010 it is also possible to state whatthe report from five years ago stated: the lower level ofchronic illnesses or long-term poor health in the Romapopulation age 6+ years in comparison with the generalpopulation, as well as its growth with the increase in themeasure of integration of Roma settlements, is difficultto explain as an indicator of better health status of the

4 Another part of this chapter, as well as accompanying research activities of a qualitative character carried out within this project or previous researchstudies, points out the worse access of health care and lower ability to assess the real seriousness of an illness and the overall state of residents of seg-regated Roma settlements (UNDP, 2006; Kolarcik et al., 2009).

Graph 7.1Occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 6+ years by type of settlement and in the geo-graphically close general population – comparison of the situation in 2005 and 2010 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Segregated

Separated

Diffused

Total Roma population


13.717.5

20.614.4

19.822.1

15.8

26.829.7

20.0

Question: Do you have any long-lasting or chronic illnesses or long-lasting health problem (specified for a period of 6 months or longer)?Note: Health status was determined for all members of the selected households age 6 years or older. Those respondents who did not answer the ques-tion were discarded from the calculations.

2005

2010

Roma population. Such a conclusion would not be in ac-cordance with existing knowledge and the absence ofsigns that could lead to some rapid radical change. Forthis reason, it is possible to interpret the data found (from2005 as well as 2010) with awareness of the fact that itcan also involve (besides the influence of different agestructures of the compared groups) a result of the“worse access to health care services (and therefore todiagnosis of illness) in large sections of the Roma pop-ulation, or a different approach to health (ill health is notconsidered to be a problem.” (UNDP, 2006: 32).

The majority of persons from the Roma populationolder than 6 years with long-term health problemsstated that their illness was diagnosed by a profession-al (86.3%). Only 5.6% of them admitted chronic problemswith health without an official diagnosis, and 8.2% didnot reply to the question.5 The most common chronic ill-ness in the Roma population age 6 or older was cardio-vascular disorders, with an occurrence of nearly 30%(Table 7.2). Behind these, with a considerable gap, wererespiratory disorders and allergies 14.3%, disorders of thelocomotive organs with 12.5% and disorders of the nerv-ous system and sense organs with 11.8%. In comparisonwith 2005 the gap between the occurrence of cardio-vascular disorders and the prevalence of other disorderswidened. On the other hand, the order of the most com-mon chronic illnesses in 2010 did not vary much from theorder in 2005. The occurrence of some long-term illnessesdiffered in men and women. The most significant dif-ference appeared with cardiovascular disorders, where

the share for women was higher by more than 6 per-centage points, and with disorders of the locomotive or-gans, which affected more men than women (the dif-ference was again nearly 6 percentage points). In com-parison with 2005, there was a general narrowing of thedifferences between men and women in the occurrenceof chronic illnesses.

Inhabitants living near the surveyed Roma popula-tion showed a different makeup of chronic health prob-lems than that of the Roma population, and upon nar-rowing the age interval to 15-64 years.6 In the generalpopulation age 15-64 years cardiovascular disorders alsohad the highest representation; however, they related toa larger part of the set: the share of persons with car-diovascular disorders was higher by nearly 6 percentagepoints in the geographically close population. Disordersof the locomotive organs also appeared more often, oc-curring in one-fifth of this population (20.8%) in com-parison with 15% of Roma. Endocrine disorders, diges-tive system disorders and nervous system and sense or-gan disorders also showed a moderately higher occur-rence; other disorders occurred more often in the Romapopulation. A significant difference was found in the rep-resentation of mental disorders. While in the Romapopulation every tenth person was affected, among thegeographically close general population this was moreor less marginal (just over 2 %).

Health problems of a long-term character can haveserious impacts on quality of life. As the EU SILC from2009 showed, 11% of the population older than 16 years


83

5 After the exclusion of non-respondents the share of chronic illnesses diagnosed by a physician was 93.9% and 6.1% for undiagnosed illnesses. But inboth cases (after factoring in the exclusion of non-respondents) the share of diagnosed chronic illnesses in the Roma population was smaller whencompared with the general population. The result for the geographically close general population was as follows: 91.1% of illnesses diagnosed by aprofessional; 3.5% not; and 5.3% did not reply to the questions (after exclusion of non-respondents 96.3% of diagnosed illnesses to 3.7% undiagnosed).

6 In view of the different age structure among Roma and the general population, for correctness we are comparing the population defined by the ageinterval of 15-64 years.

Question: What type of chronic illness is involved?Note: Health status was surveyed for all members of the selected households age 6 years or older. The share of chronic illnesses was 20% for the entireRoma population age 6+ years.

Table 7.2Roma population age 6+ with chronic illnesses by type of illness and sex (in %)

Roma men Roma women Total

Cardiovascular disorders 26.4 32.9 29.7

Respiratory disorders 14.6 13.9 14.3

Joint and bone disorders 15.4 9.8 12.5

Disorders of the nervous system and sense organs 12.5 11.2 11.8

Mental disorders 12.9 8.1 10.4

Endocrinal disorders 4.3 7.5 5.9

Digestive system disorders 6.4 4.1 5.2

Urinary tract and genitalia disorders 1.4 6.1 3.8

Oncological illness 2.5 2.0 2.3

Other chronic illness 1.5 1.0 1.5

Doesn’t know, didn’t answer 2.1 3.1 2.6

Individuals age 6+ with chronic illness total 100.0 100.0 100.0

84


had to significantly limit their activities due to somehealth problem, and an additional 23.2% had to proceedwith partial limitations (Statistical Office, 2010: 60). Ac-cording to the EHIS 2009 survey, the share of the pop-ulation age 15 or older greatly limited in common ac-tivities was 6.7% and partially limited was 31.4% (EHIS,2009: 11). Together the share of persons limited in com-mon activities due to health problems was similar ac-cording to both surveys: 35 – 38%. As Table 7.3 shows,according to this study the situation found was signif-icantly different, which was caused by the fact the ques-tion for limitations in common activities was not askedof all respondents but only those who mentionedsome chronic disorder or some long-term health prob-lem. Large limitations in daily activities were reportedby 39% of the Roma population with chronic illnesses;47.5% had to partially limit their activities. Together thenlong-term health problems are negatively expressed inthe daily life of more than 86% of persons. The situationwas moderately different in the geographically close gen-eral population. The share of those significantly limitedwas lower and the share of those partially limited was

again higher. The share of persons suffering fromchronic health problems who did not have to cope withany limitations was also significantly higher. Furthermore,this share corresponded to the situation between in-dividuals from households living diffused. Upon re-stricting to the 15-64 years age group, the share of largelimitations decreased moderately in both compared pop-ulations, but in basic tendencies this did not change thesituation found. The most limitations appeared in seg-regated environments, where at the same time the high-est share of non-respondents occurred.

Let us recall once again that the occurrence ofchronic or long-term illnesses and their implications inthe study were surveyed on the basis of self-report of re-spondents; that is, it did not involve the result of an ex-pert evaluation. It therefore says nothing about possibleclaims for compensation and the like. But on the otherhand, within the scope of the study the drawing of dif-ferent types of social benefits was tracked, including thosewhich are intended for health-disabled persons, whichallows additional information to be obtained about thecontext of the chronic illnesses reported by respondents.7

Graph 7.2Occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 15-64 years by type of disorder – comparison withthe geographically close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cardiovascular disorders

Respiratory disorders

Joint and bone disorders

Disorders of the nervous system and sense organs

Mental disorders

Endocrinal disorders

Digestive system disorders

Urinary tract and genitalia disorders

Oncological disorders

Other chronic disorders

31.236.9

8.912.0

15.020.8

10.1

10.82.4

6.88.3

8.4

3.0

1.8

1.8

6.1

4.2

2.8

1.0

10.7

Question: What type of chronic illness is involved?Note: The listed data is for the 15-64 years age group. The share of chronic illnesses made up 22% of the entire Roma and 24% of the general popula-tion age 15-64 years.

Roma population


7 The drawing of benefits was determined for the past month prior to carrying out the study.

It has been shown that nearly one-quarter of Romaage 6 years or older who suffers from chronic illnesses orlong-term medical problems draws a disability pension.Other types of transfers were represented in this categorya great deal less. The highest share of persons drawinga disability pension was found in the set of Roma from seg-regated settlements (29.7 %). For comparison – in the setof Roma from separated settlements this share was low-er by 11 percentage points, and in the set of Roma fromhouseholds living diffused it was lower by 7 percentagepoints. With other transfers the most significant differencesoccurred in the case of the sickness benefit. The share ofpersons with chronic difficulties who drew a sickness ben-efit was highest among Roma from separated settlements– compared with the two remaining categories this in-volved an approximately two-times higher occurrence ofthese replacements for a working wage. Differenceswere also shown between the surveyed Roma andmembers of the geographically close general population.They related, however, only to the drawing of disability

benefits. The disability benefit among members of thegeneral population with chronic medical problems oc-curred significantly less than among Roma with long-termhealth difficulties – the share of beneficiaries was in thegeneral population lower by 7 percentage points.

7.2. Common illnesses, seeing a doctor,prescription medicine

Common illnesses or health problems,8 which do not havea chronic character also occurred more often in the Romapopulation than chronic problems: they related to morethan half of the study set (52.4%), similarly as with theset from the geographically close general population(52.1%). They occurred most often among individuals liv-ing in segregated settlements (55.3%), least oftenamong persons from households living diffused (48.5%).Half of the Roma population (50.5%) reported that as aconsequence of common health problems it had to in-


85

Table 7.3Degree of limitation of daily activities of the Roma population with chronic illnesses – comparison withthe geographically close general population (in %)

Roma population Geographically closegeneral population Segregated Separated Diffused Total

Population 6+ years

Large limitations 40.8 39.3 37.0 39.0 27.0

Limitations but not great 45.4 48.8 48.0 47.5 57.8

No limitations 5.7 4.5 13.0 7.8 13.1

I don’t know 8.0 7.5 2.0 5.7 2.1

Total 6+ years 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population 15-64 years

Large limitations 40.0 35.4 35.3 36.8 25.7

Limitations but not great 45.0 54.4 49.7 49.8 57.3

No limitations 5.7 6.1 12.4 8.2 15.8

I don’t know 9.3 4.1 2.6 5.2 1.2

Total 15-64 years 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Question: To what extent are you limited in your daily activities because of this chronic illness?Note: Health status was surveyed for all members of selected households age 6 years and older. The share of chronic illnesses was 20% for the entireRoma population age 6+ years and 29.7% of the entire general population age 6+ years; and 22% of the total Roma population age 15-64 years and 24%of the general population age 15-64 years.

8 The flu, toothache as well as injuries and the like are considered as health problems and common illnesses.

Note: Percentage values in the table show the share of Roma with chronic health problems that draw a relevant social benefit. Respondents who didnot respond to the question about the drawing of a social benefit or who did not know how to answer were not included in the calculations.

Table 7.4Drawing of selected social transfers by members of the Roma population age 6+ years suffering with chronicillnesses (in %)


Disability pension 29.7 18.7 22.7 23.4

Benefit for compensation 3.2 4.8 2.0 3.3

Benefit for increased expenditures 2.5 5.4 1.0 3.0

Sickness benefit 3.2 7.6 3.6 4.8

86


terrupt its activities – they had to stop going to work orschool or had to stop performing other common dailyactivities. The monitored subset of the Roma populationdid not significantly differ in this regard. Common dai-ly activities were interrupted more commonly in the ge-ographically close general population (57.5%). Thestudy data showed that seeing a doctor in the case ofa health problem were a common thing in the Roma pop-ulation, although not every health problem was consultedin this way. Approximately half of the Roma populationsaw a doctor with every health problem (Table 7.5). About41% sought out a doctor only in some cases. Seeing adoctor each time a health problem was discovered wasprevalent particularly among individuals from Romahouseholds living diffused (their share was about 10 per-centage points higher than the value for the entire setof Roma population – 56.3% versus 45.8% for segregated).The highest share of those who saw a doctor only oc-casionally despite health problems (with some problemyes and with another no) occurred in segregated set-tlements and then in separated Roma communities.

The most common reason for not seeing a doctorin the Roma population was the conviction that the giv-en health problem didn’t require it. Such a position in-terested one-third of the relevant9 examined set (32.8%).Approximately one-fifth (21.7%) reported waiting on aspontaneous improvement in health status. The thirdmost common reason was a lack of financial resourceswhich related to 17.7%. The first of the reasons namedwas the most widespread among the population in seg-regated (39.4%) and separated settlements (33.2%). Inthe Roma population living in diffused settlements, thereason for not seeing a doctor was in particular the ex-pectation that the problem would improve all by itself(27.4%). An unfavourable financial situation as a barri-er to seeing a doctor (upon the occurrence of a healthproblem) was found most often in separated settlements(19.9%), and this played the smallest role in the popu-lation living diffused (13.7%). The presented patterns ofbehaviour differed from those which it was possible toidentify among residents belonging to the geograph-ically close general population. The personal layman’s

Graph 7.3The drawing of selected social transfers by members of the Roma populations age 6+ years suffering witha chronic illness – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Disability pension

Benefit for compensation

Benefit for increased expenditures

Sickness benefit

16.423.4

3.33.6

1.13.0

3.04.8

Note: Percentage values in the fields of the table show the share of Roma and the general population with chronic health problems who drew a rele-vant social benefit. Respondents who did not respond to the question about the drawing of a social benefit or who did not know how to answer werenot included in the calculations.

Roma population

General population

9 Let us remember that we are talking in this part about Roma with health problems who only visited doctor sometimes or never.

Table 7.5Frequency of seeing a doctor upon the occurrence of a health problem – comparison of the situation in the setof Roma population and the geographically close general population (in %)

Roma population Geographically closegeneral populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

Yes, with each problem 45.8 47.7 56.3 49.5 58.9

With some yes, with some no 47.2 45.3 30.2 41.7 33.7

No, with none 4.0 4.0 9.1 5.4 5.8

No reply 3.1 2.9 4.4 3.4 1.6

Total 6+ years 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00

Questions: Have you had visited with these health problems doctor?Note: Health status was determined for all members of the selected households age 6 years and older.

opinion that it is not necessary to see a doctor with anillness, was given by 46.7%, and waiting for the spon-taneous improvement of health status was actually26.5% in this population. We see that in both sets theunwillingness to see a doctor occurred most often forthe same two reasons. However, insufficient financesplayed only a marginal role in the geographically closegeneral population: it related to only 1.4% of the mem-bers of the surveyed set.

Perhaps then to sum up, that avoiding seeing a doc-tor was caused most often by a “natural” attempt at han-dling a problem oneself, and this was so in both the Romaand the general population. In comparison with the ge-ographically close general population, however, finan-cial limitations very often entered into the decision in theset from the Roma population.

In the case of seeing a doctor, a large majority (85%)was prescribed medicine which it was necessary to pur-chase at a pharmacy. This share changed only moderatelyin the monitored subsets. Keeping in mind several lim-itations and risks which members of the Roma ethnici-ty must face, respondents were asked whether they hadacquired the prescribed medicines. A total of 70.5% ofthe Roma population acquired all of the prescribed med-icines that were prescribed. One-fifth of them acquiredonly some of the medicines and 2.3% none. The share ofpersons who after seeing a doctor obtained all the med-icines was lowest in segregated settlements (63.7 %), andit gradually increased with growing spatial integration– among those living diffused it was 77.7%. It’s possibleto find the opposite tendency with the share of those per-sons with prescribed medicines who acquired only


87

Graph 7.4Reasons for not seeking out a medical examination in the Roma populating age 6+ with health problems –comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

We couldn’t afford it

Waiting for the problem to improve

It wasn’t necessary

Other

Don’t know, didn’t respond

1.4

21.726.5

46.4

15.812.9

12.012.8

Question: What was the main reason why you did not seek out a medical examination; weren’t you offered an examination or treatment?Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years or older.

Roma population


17.7

32.8

Graph 7.5Structure of the Roma population age 6+ years by reason for not acquiring prescribed medicine and by typeof settlement (in %)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Diffused

Separated

Segregated

All

9.2 15.67.367.9

Question: Why didn’t you acquire all of the prescribed medicine?Note: Data about persons age 6 years and older who upon seeing a doctor received a prescription for medicine and who either didn’t acquire it or ac-quired only some of it.

I thought that I didn’t need the medicine

I had the medicine at home

I couldn’t afford the medicine

Didn‘t know, didn’t reply

8.3 12.5 17.361.9

6.2 10.2 35.648.0

7.6 10.457.6 25.1

88


some of them: the lowest share was shown to be in thediffused population (16.4%) and with declining inte-gration on the basis of settlement type this increased (insegregated settlements it reached 22.8%).10 The situationin the population living in the nearby proximity was muchmore favourable. Here 93.1% of persons always purchasedall of the prescribed medicine and 3.2% only some.

In the part of the Roma population age 6+ yearswhich in 2010 saw a doctor, 22.8% of individuals did notacquire the prescribed medicines (they acquired onlysome or none of them). In segregated settlements thisinvolved one-quarter of those surveyed. The mostcommon reason for such an approach was a lack of mon-ey. The response “I could not afford to give so much mon-ey on medicine” was chosen by more than half ofthose (57%), who had medicine prescribed and who didnot acquire all of them (or none of them). At firstglance the highest share of those persons occurred sur-prisingly in the diffused set, where this was 10 per-centage points higher than the average for the entire setof the relevant Roma population. As Graph 7.5 shows,the least frequent prevalence of financial deficiency asthe reason for not acquiring all prescribed medicines wasfound among residents of segregated settlements. It’spossible to explain this fact by the unusually highshare of those who didn’t know or didn’t want to respondto the given question (35.6%); in comparison with theother two types of settlements, this reluctance or ig-norance was two-times higher. Other reasons played

a much smaller role and did so in all three monitoredgroups of Roma population age 6 years or older.11

The weak interest in professional health care reflectsthe fact that one-fifth of the Roma population12 did notrespond to the question regarding when they last sawa doctor. One to two weeks before carrying out the study19.6% of the set saw a doctor, and 18.9% saw a doctorthree to four weeks prior to the study. The share of thosewho had not seen a doctor for a year and more was 16%.Somewhat surprisingly, the share of persons who werelast at a doctor one year ago or more had the highestrepresentation in the subset living diffused (20.1%). Thisnumber was lower in the separated (15.2%) and seg-regated settlements (13.2%). In segregated settle-ments the last visit to a doctor was most often made 3-4 weeks ago (20.2%). If we were to add to this numberthe share of people who saw a doctor a week or two be-fore, then we arrive at a share of approximately 40% ofpeople whose last visit to the doctor took place duringthe last month before the study. This share was mod-erately higher than in the diffused (36.9%) and separatedgroups (38.7%). In the geographically close general pop-ulation the share of individuals who had not been toa doctor for a year or more was 13.6%. A recent visit inthe last month was given by 43.5% of people. The mostcommon reason given for last seeing a doctor in boththe Roma population (30.8%) as well as in the geo-graphically close general population (29.5%) was fortreatment of an illness.

10 In responses to this question among the Roma population from segregated settlements a moderately high share was found of those who didn’t knowor didn’t want to offer any response (11.5%). This fact must be considered during interpretations of the obtained data. The share of those personsin the entire set of Roma population was 6.7%; in separated settlements and in diffused settlements the figures were below this average value.

11 We did not research the prevalence of individual reasons in the geographically close general population because of the low absolute number of per-sons to whom this related.

12 We are still speaking about the population age 6 years and older.

Graph 7.6Structure of the subsets of the Roma population by total sum associated with the last seeing a doctor – com-parison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Diffused

Separated

Segregated

Roma population

General population

21.1 41.018.111.3

Question: How much did your last visit to the doctor cost you?Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years and older.

Didn’t pay anything EUR 1-3 EUR 4-6 EUR 7-9 EUR 10 and more

22.7 17.8 32.816.2

16.9 24.8 30.317.4

20.3 20.114.9 34.7

17.5 13.98.1

8.5

10.8

10.5

10.0

8.0 52.5

Expenditures associated with seeing a doctor,whether for payments for transport (in the case of longdistance) or payments for medicine and the like, can rep-resent a burden for households. Therefore one part of thestudy was a question regarding the total sum which re-spondents paid out in association with the last visit toa doctor. The expenditures for medicine, transport andother relevant payments were included into the overallsum.13 On one hand 20.3% of persons from the Romapopulation did not pay anything; on the other hand, one-fifth of them paid from EUR 4 to EUR 6, and one-third(34.7%) reported that their expenditures were EUR 10 ormore. Lower expenditures most often were related topeople from segregated settlements: 17.4% of them paidEUR 1 to EUR 3 and one-fifth paid expenditures from EUR4 to EUR 6. A sum from EUR 10 and higher was paid inparticular by Roma living diffused – the share for thisgroup was significantly higher than among respondentsfrom separated and segregated settlements. Patients fromthe geographically close general population paid sucha sum even more often: approximately half of them paidEUR 10 or more the last time they saw a doctor.

The amount of the average sum paid14 changed in theRoma population according to spatial integration. The high-est was among Roma from diffused settlements (EUR 12.50)and this decreased with less integrated settlements: patientsfrom separated settlements paid on average EUR 11.10 andfrom segregated settlements EUR 9.89. The average ex-penditures of persons from the geographically close gen-eral population were a great deal higher than with theRoma; with the last visit to a doctor they represented EUR18.39. A comparison of the significance of differences be-tween the three monitored groups of the Roma popula-tion was done using the ANOVA procedure,15 in which thetesting criterion F had a value of 4.3 for a level of signifi-cance of 0.05. Therefore, it is possible to state that statis-

tically significant differences exist between the types of set-tlements in the amount paid to a doctor. According to theresults of a Bonferroni test, statistically significant differencesoccurred between the subsets of persons from segregat-ed and diffused settlements. Respondents from segregatedsettlements paid for their last visit to a doctor statisticallysignificantly less then respondents living diffused.

As we mentioned, three types of payments were in-cluded in the total sum – payment for transport, medi-cine and for other items. One-quarter of Roma paid noth-ing for transport on their last visit to a doctor.1 Those whodid pay for transport to the doctor most often paid EUR1. The average sum which individuals from the set of theRoma population paid on their last visit to a doctor wasEUR 3.17 Roma living diffused paid the most – a trip to thedoctor cost them on average EUR 4. In segregated set-tlements the average expenditures for transport were EUR3, and in separated settlements this sum was still a bitlower (EUR 2.70). During their last visit to the doctor 32%of Roma (those who answered the question) paid noth-ing for medicine. Among Roma who did pay for medi-cine, the average sum was EUR 9. The same as with trans-port, respondents living diffused also had the highest ex-penditures for medicine – they paid EUR 9.50 on aver-age. In the subset of Roma from separated settlementsaverage expenditures for medicines on the last visit toa doctor was EUR 9. Roma from segregated settlementspaid the least – EUR 8 on average.

7.3. Evaluation of health status

The majority of Roma evaluated their own health posi-tively (Graph 7.7): 22.3% reported it as “very good”and 46.3% as “rather good”; overall this involved 68.6%of the Roma population age 6 and older. A negative eval-


89

Table 7.6Comparison of average sums paid for the last visit to a doctor in the Roma population age 6+ by type of set-tlement (in EUR)

Average sum paid(in EUR)

Standard deviation

Standard error

Confidence interval (95%)


Segregated 9.9 8.9 0.4 9.1 10.6

Separated 11.1 19.9 0.9 9.4 12.8

Diffused 12.5 13.4 0.6 11.4 13.6

Question: How much did your last visit to the doctor cost you?Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years and older. Testing criterion (in the ANOVA procedure) F = 4.3 witha level of significance of α = 0.05.

13 A total of 85% of authorised respondents replied to this question (that is, those who answered the question about when they last saw a doctor).14 The average sum was calculated only from data from respondents who had some expenditures. Therefore, those who paid nothing were not taken

into consideration. If these persons had been included, the average would be significantly lower.15 Levene’s test of variance homogeneity was not statistically significant.16 This involves the share of those who answered the question regarding expenditures for transport.17 Average expenditures for transport were calculated only for those respondents who answered the given question and stated some sum

(higher than zero).

uation of health (replies “very bad” and “rather bad”) wasrecorded in 11.4% of the surveyed set. What’s interest-ing is that positive evaluations occurred most oftenamong Roma from segregated settlements: their ownhealth was reported as “very good” by 21.4% and as“rather good” by 50.3% of them.18 The differences in eval-uations between Roma men and women were not sig-nificant. The representation of persons in the Roma pop-ulation who had chronic medical difficulties increasedwith growing dissatisfaction with their own health sta-tus. Among Roma who considered their own health asaverage, 38.2% suffered from long-term medical prob-lems, and in the group of persons evaluating theirhealth as “rather bad” this was 90%. Chronic difficultiesaffected nearly all persons (97%) in the group of Romawith very bad health status.

With comparisons of the set of geographicallyclose and the Roma population, but reduced to the ageinterval of 15-64 years,19 certain differences appear. With-in the Roma population age 15-64 years a great deal few-er persons assessed their health as “very good”, and con-versely – more often leaned toward the assessment“rather bad” and “very bad”. While 23.3% of the relevantRoma population considered their own health as verygood, among the geographically close general popu-lation this was 29.5% (and was so despite the higher av-erage age); on the other hand 12.8% of the Roma pop-ulation age 15-64 considered their health status as ratheror as very bad, and in the general population this wasonly 8.3% (Graph 7.8).

A direct comparison with the year 2005 is not pos-sible for this question about health, because in 2010 adifferent rating scale was used – it was adapted to thequestion and the variant used in the EU SILC statisticalsurvey.20 If we wanted to get an idea about how the self-evaluation of the health status in the Roma populationends up in the context of the entire population, we cancompare data obtained from the study, for example, withdata from EU SILC 2009 or EHIS 2009 (see Box 7.1).21

Conclusions

On the basis of the subjective opinions of respondents(the occurrence of chronic illnesses and its implicationwere ascertained on the basis of self-evaluation of re-spondents; that is, no expert assessment was involved)the occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma popu-lation age 6+ years was higher in 2010 than in 2005, andwas so on the level of the entire set of surveyed persons,as well as on the level of the individual groups definedaccording to spatial integration of the households inwhich they lived. The gap between the Roma and the ge-ographically close general population, however, re-mained more or less unchanged – the occurrence ofchronic illnesses was higher for the general population.

But with comparisons through individual generationsdifferences did appear: in the youngest generationchronic illnesses were approximately the same for theRoma and the general population, but for the middle gen-


90

18 Again, this probably expresses the lower ability of citizens from segregated settlements to assess their own genuine health status, as well as the over-all smaller measure of attention devoted to questions of health, as has already been stated in the first part of this chapter. Not only does the higherdiscovered occurrence of chronic illnesses in this part of the Roma population speak for such a supposition, but it was also subsequently confirmedby the qualitative research activities which followed the research questionnaire in the scope of the project being carried out.

19 A narrowing of the initial population should in the end minimise the influence of the different age structure for evaluation of health status.20 In 2005 only four degrees of evaluation were used (very good, good, bad and very bad), the share of bad and very bad evaluations of health was 15.9%.21 Before a direct comparison, however, it is necessary to harmonise the data from all surveys, because in the EU SILC only persons age 16 years and

older were asked to evaluate their own health, and in the case of EHIS 2009 this was 15+ years and in the scope of the findings of the living condi-tions of Roma households it was 6+ years.

Very good Rather good Average Rather bad Very bad

Graph 7.7Subjective evaluation of health in the Roma population age 6+ years by type of settlement (in %)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Segregated

Separated

Diffused

Roma population

21.4 6.314.2 3.450.2

Question: How would you evaluate your health or health status overall?Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years and older. Additional numbers up to 100% represent theshare of those who did not answer the question.

22.4 14.7 3.38.744.3

23.1 15.8 3.99.744.0

22.3 14.9 3.546.3 7.9

eration they were higher in the Roma population and forthose older than age 55 years chronic illnesses were sig-nificantly higher among the Roma. Such a result signi-fies the faster growth and earlier occurrence of chronicand long-term illnesses in the Roma population. This isalso similar for a comparison of the three Roma settle-ment types – in the oldest generation chronic illnessesoccur most often among those living segregated and sep-arated. The poor living conditions in segregated settle-ments, probably also supported by a less consistent ap-proach to personal health and worse access to health care,is expressed at a higher age in the significantly higher oc-currence of chronic illness of their residents.22

The most common chronic illness of the Roma pop-ulation age 6 years and more were cardiovascular disor-ders, which achieved a prevalence of nearly 30%. Somedistance behind them were respiratory disorders and al-lergies with 14.3%, disorders of the locomotive organswith 12.5% and disorders of the nerves and sense organswith 11.8%. The occurrence of some long-term illnessesis differentiated in men and women. The most significantdifference was shown with cardiovascular disorders,where the share of women was higher by more than 6 per-centage points, and with disorders of the locomotive or-gans, which related more to men than women (the dif-ference represented again nearly 6 percentage points).

Common illnesses or health problems which are notof a chronic character occurred more often than chron-ic problems in the Roma population: they related to morethan half of the surveyed set (53%), similarly as in the setof the geographically close general population (52%).These most commonly occurred among individuals liv-ing in segregated settlements (55%), least among those

living in diffused households (49%). Half of the Roma pop-ulation (51%) reported that they had to interrupt theirdaily activities as a consequence of common health prob-lems – they had to stop going to work, school or had tostop performing other common daily activities.

Approximately only half of the Roma population sawa doctor with each medical problem. The most commonreason in the Roma population for not seeing a doctorwas the conviction that the given medical problem didnot require one. Such an opinion was found in one-thirdof those who saw a doctor only occasionally or never(33%). Approximately one-fifth (22%) opted to wait forthe spontaneous improvement of health status. The thirdmost common reason was insufficient finances, whichpertained to 18%. The unfavourable financial situationas a barrier to seeing a doctor upon the occurrence ofa medical problem is found most often in separated set-tlements (20%), and it played the smaller role amongRoma living diffused (14%).

In the case of seeing a doctor, a great majority (85%)were prescribed medicines which had to be bought ata pharmacy. Among those who saw a doctor in 2010were 23% who didn’t acquire the prescribed medicinesat all or who acquired only some of them. This relatedto one-quarter of those surveyed in segregated settle-ments. The most common reason for such an approachwas a lack of money. The reply “I couldn’t afford so muchmoney for medicine” was selected by more than half(57%) of those who were prescribed medicine but did-n’t acquire them (all or none).

Expenditures associated with seeing a doctor thusrepresented a burden for a household, either as paymentfor transport in the case of having to travel a large dis-


91

Graph 7.8Evaluation of health in the set of Roma and geographically close general population age 15-64 years (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Very good

Rather good

Average

Rather bad

Very bad

29.5

45.945.7

16.5

9.06.5

3.81.8

Question: How would you evaluate your health or health status overall?Note: The health status was determined for all members age 6 years and older from selected households; the graph presents an evaluation for thepopulation age 15-64 years. Respondents who did not reply to the question or who did not know how to reply were not included in the calculation.

Roma population


23.3

18.0

22 Available studies also point to the significantly higher and later mortality of the Roma population and lower life expectancy (Vaňo, 2000; UNDP, 2002).

tance or payments for medicines and the like. From thesurveyed Roma population 20% reported that theypaid nothing for medicines. On the other hand, one-fifthpaid from EUR 4 to EUR 6 and one-third reported thattheir expenditures were around EUR 10 or more. Lowerexpenditures most often occurred with people from seg-regated settlements. A sum of EUR 10 or more was paidin particular by Roma living in households which are dif-fused in majority environments – the share of those per-sons here was significantly higher than among personsfrom separated and segregated settlements.

The majority of the Roma population assessed itsown health positively: 22% reported it as “very good”and 46% as “rather good”. A negative assessment ofhealth (the responses “very bad” and “rather bad”) wasrecorded in 11% of the whole set. With growing dis-satisfaction with their own health status the repre-

sentation of persons in the Roma population whohad chronic medical difficulties increased. AmongRoma who considered their own health as average, 38%suffered from long-term medical problems, and in thegroup of persons evaluating their health as “rather bad”this was 90%. Upon comparison of the set of geo-graphically close general population and the Roma pop-ulation age 15-64 years, certain differences appeared.Within the Roma population age 15-64 years respon-dents were more often inclined to evaluate their healthas “rather bad” and “very bad”. While 23% of Roma con-sidered their own health as very good, among the ge-ographically close general population this was 30% andwas so despite the higher average age; on the otherhand 13% of the Roma population considered theirhealth status as rather or as very bad, and in the gen-eral population this was only 8%.


92

According to published data from the EHIS 2009 – European Health Interview Survey the total share of persons with long-lasting or chronicillnesses made up 57.2% of the population age 15 years and older (EHIS, 2009: 9). More chronic illnesses appeared on average in women,which is probably associated with the different age structure of women and men in Slovakia – the share of women in the higher age groupsis significantly greater. This is ultimately confirmed for the individual age categories, which showed a strong trend of growth of chronic ill-nesses with increasing age.

A similar association with age is expressed also with the subjective evaluation of one’s own health: with growing age, the share of positiveevaluations decreases and the share of negative evaluation increases. While on average 26.4% of the population of Slovakia age 15 yearsand older evaluated its own health as good, in the age group of 45-54 years this was only 12.3% and among those older than 74 years onlya negligible percent. On the other hand, an average of 12.2% of residents age 15+ years evaluated their overall health in 2009 as rather bador very bad, and in the case of the youngest this was not quite 2% and for the oldest nearly half.

BOX 7.1: SELECTED DATA ABOUT THE HEALTH STATUS OF RESIDENTS OF SLOVAKIA

Long-term or chronic illnesses or long-term health problems

Yes No Total

Total 57.2 42.8 100.0

Men 52.0 48.0 100.0

Women 62.1 37.9 100.0

Age groups

15-24 years 32.9 67.1 100.0

25-34 years 38.0 62.0 100.0

35-44 years 48.0 52.0 100.0

45-54 years 62.8 37.2 100.0

55-64 years 82.0 18.0 100.0

65-74 years 93.6 6.4 100.0

75 and more years 95.7 4.3 100.0

Source: EHIS, 2009: 9.Note: It is interesting that according to data from EU SILC 2009, 30% of the population age 16 years and older in Slovakia suffered from a chronic ill-ness (EU SILC, 2010: 61). Probably the different definitions of chronic illness and long-term medical problems in both finding had some influence.

In regard to the measure of limitation in common activities due to a medical problem, a total of 38.1% of the overall population of Slova-kia felt limited – of this 31.1% partially and not quite 7% very much so. A higher measure of limitations in normal daily activities was reportedby women, and this also showed rapid growth in relation to age. In the youngest age groups the share of people very limited due to a med-ical problem was only 3% and less and partially limited was 15% and less, so that together less than 20%; in the age 45 – 54 years, however,this was now 40% and for the 65-74 years group nearly 80%.


93

Subjective health assessment

Very good Rather good Average Rather bad Very bad Total

Total 26.4 37.8 23.6 9.0 3.2 100.0

Men 29.5 38.7 22.0 7.4 2.4 100.0

Women 23.5 36.9 25.1 10.5 4.0 100.0

Age groups

15-24 years 57.5 33.1 7.8 1.4 0.2 100.0

25-34 years 42.7 45.7 9.4 1.2 1.0 100.0

35-44 years 26.1 50.8 19.0 3.4 0.7 100.0

45-54 years 12.3 46.0 30.1 9.4 2.2 100.0

55-64 years 6.2 31.3 44.1 13.5 4.8 100.0

65-74 years 1.9 16.9 41.5 31.2 8.6 100.0

75 and more years 1.7 9.3 39.0 31.3 18.6 100.0

Source: EHIS, 2009: 9.

Limitations in common daily activities due to a medical problem

Very limited

Limited, but not very

Not limited at all

Total

Total 6.7 31.4 61.8 100.0

Men 5.8 27.8 66.4 100.0

Women 7.6 34.9 57.6 100.0

Age groups

15-24 years 2.4 13.3 84.3 100.0

25-34 years 2.9 15.5 81.6 100.0

35-44 years 3.6 22.6 73.8 100.0

45-54 years 6.4 36.1 57.6 100.0

55-64 years 8.9 49.9 41.1 100.0

65-74 years 17.7 59.1 23.1 100.0

75 and more years 21.4 68.3 10.3 100.0

Source: EHIS, 2009: 11.Note: According to data from EU SILC 2009, 11% of the population older than age 16 years had to significantly limit their activities due to a med-ical problem, and another 23.2 % had to proceed with partial limitations (Statistical Office 2010: 60).

With an analysis of the educational structure it is necessaryto distinguish three categories which are differentiated bytheir relation to the educational system. First are childrenwho are of preschool age and still only waiting for the startof their compulsory school attendance. A part of them couldparticipate in a preschool education at a nursery school.Second is the group of pupils and students who attendsome type of school within the educational system. Finally,it is necessary to distinguish persons outside the school sys-tem which also includes those who have left the educationalsystem early, that is, before reaching the age when com-pulsory school attendance ends. This chapter is focused es-pecially on the second and third groups. Attention will firstbe devoted to persons outside the school system and thestructure of their achieved education. Subsequently, we’lldevote ourselves to pupils and students, where we will takenote of the conditions under which education runs and theexpenditures associated with it.

8.1. Educational structure of personswho are no longer in the school system

In the set of Roma population were 2,048 persons whosaid that at present they are not attending any school andwho are not of preschool age. In this group, however, were42 children of age 6 years (which is the start of com-pulsory school age) in whom it is justifiable to assumethat they had not yet begun to attend primary school be-cause entry had been “postponed”, which is in no way un-usual. Because compulsory school attendance exists inthe Slovak Republic, we therefore assume that this in-volves children who had not yet begun the process of

compulsory school attendance. To the question aboutthe highest level of education achieved, only those whopreviously reported that they had once attended somesort of school responded.1 In the final result 1,893 rele-vant responses were obtained, which enabled an analy-sis of the educational structure of that part of the Romapopulation found outside of the educational system. Wewill label the group of respondents who provided answersas “persons found outside the school system”. Theirshare represented 52% of the entire set of Roma (for com-parison, in 2005 the share was 56% of the sample Romapopulation). They most often occurred among Roma liv-ing diffused (57%); in separated settlements their rep-resentation was a bit smaller (54%). Among Roma fromsegregated settlements, persons who were already out-side the school system occurred least often (48%).

Important initial information can be obtained by ananalysis of the internal structure of this group. In termsof age, persons in the full productive age of 30-49years were most commonly represented in the monitoredset of Roma. The second most frequent category wasformed by young people age 15 – 29 years; the age cat-egory 50 years and older with a finished education rep-resented approximately one-fifth of those surveyed. Thelow occurrence of children younger than 15 years whoare outside of the educational system is not surprising.2

The age structure of persons found outside the educa-tion system was in the individual types of settlement moreor less alike. The distribution of persons into age groupsvaried by degree of spatial integration or by exclusiononly moderately, perhaps with the exception of the factthat in those living diffused there was a moderately high-er representation of older people.

95

08 Education and expenditures on education

Table 8.1Structure of the Roma population which is outside of the school system by age and type of settlement (in %)


up to 15 years 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

15-29 years 37.2 37.6 34.7 36.5

30-49 years 43.0 43.3 43.4 43.1

50 years and more 19.7 19.1 21.9 20.3

Individuals total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 No question about their achieved level of education and related questions were asked of respondents who responded that they had never attendedschool (n = 37). They proceeded to the reasons why they never went to school; most often this was illness and health disability (21 times), then - I hadto work and help out at home (6 times); other reasons occurred only individually (my parent didn’t let me; there was no money for clothes and shoes;that’s how it was back then; or other reasons).

2 On the other hand, the minimal values which are presented in the table are influenced by the fact that respondents who did not answer the questionon school attendance (a total of 120) were excluded from the analysis; and among them, approximately 40% were children younger than age 15 years.

Note: The question about finished education related to all persons in the set older than age 6 years. The table does not include persons who did not re-spond to the question about highest achieved education.

Among Roma who at the time of the study did notattend any school in the educational system, a low ed-ucation was predominate (Table 8.2). Nearly one-fifthof Roma (18.4%) ended their education without fin-ishing standard primary school, while nearly three-fifthshad finished standard primary school (59.7%). A totalof 17% of the relevant Roma population successfullycontinued with further study at the secondary level. Thelargest category was made up of individuals with fin-ished vocational school 3 (15.2%), while only a smallshare (1.8%) finished secondary school with a school-leaving certificate,4 similarly as holders of a universi-ty education (0.3%). The remaining nearly 5% of the sur-veyed subset attended some type of special school intheir preparation for a profession. The listed percent-age includes persons in special schools at the primaryand secondary levels.5

From the viewpoint of degree of achieved education,men and women showed certain differences. AmongRoma women were significantly more persons whodid not continue with study at a secondary school – thatis, with unfinished primary school or a primary school ed-ucation. Differences were then expressed in the repre-sentation of a higher degree of education: the differencein the share of persons with a finished secondary schooleducation was more than 9 percentage points higher formen than for women. Therefore, on the basis of resultsfrom 2010 it’s possible to state what was also in the re-port on mapping of the situation in 2005: that is, the over-all the educational structure of surveyed Roma womencan be evaluated as moderately lagging behind the ed-ucational structure of men (UNDP, 2006: 62).

The level of achieved education changed with age inthe Roma population. We find the least favourable situ-


96

Table 8.2Structure of the Roma population which is outside the school system by degree of highest achieved educa-tion, sex and age (in %)

Primary schoolnot finished

Primary schoolfinished (ISCED1 and 2)

Secondaryschool finished(ISCED 3)*

Higher than secondary school(ISCED 4+)**

Specialschool***

Total

Sex

Women 19.3 63.3 12.5 0.2 4.7 100.0

Men 17.5 56.2 21.4 0.3 4.6 100.0

Age

16-19 years (n = 155) 9.0 77.5 7.7 — 5.8 100.0

20-26 years (n = 388) 12.4 63.6 18.0 0.3 5.7 100.0

27-35 years (n = 411) 18.5 56.9 18.1 0.2 5.3 100.0

36-64 years (n = 854) 20.0 57.6 18.4 0.4 3.6 100.0

65+ years (n = 76) 47.4 42.1 10.5 — — 100.0

36+ years (n = 930) 22.3 56.3 17.7 0.3 3.3 100.0

16-64 years (n = 1 808) 17.1 60.5 17.3 0.3 4.9 100.0

16-55 years 6 (n = 1 670) 16.0 61.0 17.6 0.2 5.1 100.0

Individuals total 18.4 59.7 17.0 0.3 4.7 100.0

Question: What is your highest achieved level of education?Note: Only those respondents outside the school system who ever attended school responded to the question; among them were only 4 of age 15 years;therefore we did not include this category into the table. Respondents who did not reply to the question (n = 5% of the relevant set) are not included inthe calculations.Annotation regarding the categories of education: *SOŠ and SŠ; **All degrees of university study; ***Persons who attended a special primary orsecondary school. Primary school not finished = ending of school attendance in a lower grade than was the standard length for primary school; primaryschool finished = completion of primary school in standard final year, including respondents with unfinished secondary school (their highest complet-ed education was primary school).

3 The name of the school “SOU” (secondary vocational training school) actually no longer exists. Therefore in this study we refer to this type of study as“SOŠ” (secondary vocational school) operating according to the state educational programme ISCED 3C; i.e. a three- or four-year study of a vocationwithout a school-leaving certificate.

4 A total of 8.9% of respondents outside the school system reported an unfinished secondary school education; with the majority of them this involvedfinished vocational training school (7.5%); but those with finished secondary school were placed in the category of finished primary school (ISCED 2).

5 The educational structure of the surveyed Roma population in comparison with year 2005 shows a certain differentiation, in that the largest changesare related to the growth in the share of persons with a finished primary education and a decline in persons with an unfinished education betweenyears 2005 and 2010. A direct comparison is limited, however, by the higher share of respondents who did not respond to the question in 2010 onachieved level of education. And as we mentioned, 40% of those cases related to children under the age of 15 years, in whom it is possible to assumethat if they really are outside of the school system, after their potential inclusion into the relevant educational category “with finished education” or “with-out an education” the changes for the presented period would not be significant.

6 For illustration: for the equally defined geographically close general population age 16-55 years (n = 476) the shares for individual categories of edu-cation were as follows: unfinished primary school 1.9%; finished primary school (ISCED 2) 7.1%; finished secondary school (ISCED 3) 74.8%; higher thansecondary (ISCED 5+) 15.8%; special school 0.4%.

97


ation in the oldest generation age 65+ years, in which upto 47.4% did not have even a primary school educationcompleted (in the case of a group defined by the age 36years and more this was 22.3%). With the lowering of agethe share of those with unfinished primary school edu-cation rapidly dropped – in the youngest age category,in comparison with the oldest generation, it was lower by39 (or with the group age 36+ years by 13) percentagepoints.7 With the completion of primary school educationit is possible to observe smaller differences: the most pos-itive situation was in the youngest generation; with old-er groups the picture changes – fewer had finished pri-mary school, although with every age interval it had thehighest share. Differences in the representation of finishedsecondary school were less significant; the share movedon a level of 18% in all the defined groups of the middlegeneration, though the very low result (only 7.7%) for theyoungest group with a finished education in the 16 – 19years age group was surprising. The data also shows thatRoma in the younger and younger middle age group inparticular had experience with attending special schools(above 5%), while in older age groups such an experiencewas represented significantly less often (among those old-er than 36 years below 4%).

The distribution of the level of achieved educationdiffers by the monitored types of settlement in some re-spects (Table 8.3). The highest share of persons with anunfinished primary education was found in the popu-lation living segregated – more than one-fifth (23.3%) ofthem left the educational system with unfinished primaryschool. This share was significantly higher than in the oth-er two types of settlement, and with increasing spatialintegration the share of persons with an unfinished pri-mary school fell – up to 14.7% for those living diffused.The difference in the representation of persons with an

unfinished primary education among the diffused andthe segregated population (that is, the population withthe highest and the lowest measure of spatial integra-tion) represented in the year 2010 more than 8 per-centage points. The population living diffused was bet-ter in this also in another regard – Roma women and men

Question: What is your highest achieved level of education?Note: Only those respondents outside the school system who ever attended school responded to the question. Respondents who did not reply to the ques-tion (about 5% of the relevant set) are not included in the calculations.Annotation regarding the categories of education: *SOŠ and SŠ; **All degrees of university study; ***Persons who attended a special primary orsecondary school. Primary school not finished = ending of school attendance in a lower grade than was the standard length for primary school; primaryschool finished = completion of primary school in standard final year, including respondents with unfinished secondary school (their highest complet-ed education was primary school).

Table 8.3Structure of the Roma population which is outside the school system by degree of achieved education andtype of settlement (in %)


primary school not finished 23.3 17.3 14.7 18.4

primary school finished (ISCED 1 and 2) 59.5 58.0 61.8 59.7

secondary school finished (ISCED 3)* 14.2 16.5 20.2 17.0

Higher (ISCED 4+)** 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3

Special school*** 2.8 8.0 2.9 4.7


7 Nearly equal data on the share of Roma pupils who are finishing their compulsory schooling at a level lower than the last year of primary school (inthe 1970s and 1980s this was a stable 20%) is presented by J. Tomatová in her study (Tomatová, 2001; according to Bajo – Vašek, 1994).

Graph 8.1Structure of the Roma population which is outsidethe school system and has only unfinished primaryschool, by year in which they left primary school (in %)

Question: In which class did you finish primary school?Note: Only for respondents who gave “primary unfinished” as their

highest achieved education (n = 347). Respondents who did not answer the question

(4% of the relevant subset) were not included in the calculations.

7.1

17.4

31.0

11.2

2.4

31.0

1-4 year

5th year

6th year

7th year

8th year

9th year

from segregated and separated settlements continuedin education to the next degree less often than in the caseof those living diffused. The highest share of finished sec-ondary education was among Roma living diffused, andthe lowest in segregated settlements (20% versus 14%).The difference was 6 percentage points. Education in spe-cial schools had the highest representation in Roma fromseparated settlements – their share was nearly three-timeshigher than in segregated settlements and in the pop-ulation of Roma living diffused (8% versus 3%). This in-volved particularly Roma who finished their educationat special primary schools.

As is mentioned above (Table 8.2), in the Roma pop-ulation which was already outside the education system,respondents with a primary education together to-talled 78.1%. From this 18.4% left primary school pre-maturely, that is, without proper completion, and theydeparted from primary schools in different years. A to-tal of 7.1% of Roma ended the first degree of primaryschool with an unfinished primary education,8 and17.4% of them ended their education in the fifth class.They left primary school most often in the sixth and sev-enth classes (31%). The data indicates that the amountof knowledge obtained at primary school remains fora large part of the Roma with an unfinished primaryschool education rather limited – they did not acquirethe awareness, skills and abilities development in thehigher years of primary school.

In relation to Roma with declared finished primaryeducation who did not even try any form of secondaryschool education, their share made up 50.8% of the sub-

set of those who were already outside the school system.9

Among the reasons why they didn’t continue in their stud-ies at secondary school were objective barriers likesubjective (de)motivation.

As Table 8.4 presents, the most common reason fornot continuing in studies at a secondary school whichrespondents with finished primary school reported wasa lack of interest in school, or a dislike of learning at thetime of departure from primary school; this reason wasrecorded for 29% of this group. The second most com-monly given reason was insufficient money for clothing,shoes or fees (24%). The fact that the absence of a high-er level of education was not only the result of a personaldecision/characteristic is also indicated by the fact that14% of Roma listed as their reason the “necessity to workor help at home”. Another nearly 14% of Roma did notcontinue on to secondary school because of poor marksin school. The lack of interest in school/dislike of learn-ing was most frequent in segregated settlements (33.6%).On the other hand the share of Roma who did not con-tinue on to secondary education due to lack of interestwas lower in separated settlements (22.7%). Insuffi-cient money as a reason for not increasing education re-lated in particular to the population living in diffused set-tlements; in segregated and separated settlements fi-nancial difficulties were not as common (reported)a reason for low education. As the table show, family be-haviour of the Roma also played a certain role in the senseof activities leading to the founding of one’s own fami-ly. A wedding was listed as the reason for not continu-ing with studies at a secondary school in particular by


98

Table 8.4Structure of the Roma population with a finished primary education by type of settlement and reasons for notcontinuing studies at secondary school (in %)


No interest in school or learning 33.6 22.7 30.9 29.0

Lack of money for fees, clothing, shoes 18.1 24.1 29.2 24.0

Help at home, work 14.3 14.3 13.4 14.0

Bad marks and results 12.1 16.1 13.1 13.8

Wedding 13.2 15.4 3.7 10.6

Birth of a child 2.3 1.7 4.0 2.7

Illness, health disability 1.1 1.7 3.0 2.0

Parents didn’t allow me 3.4 1.0 1.3 1.9

Geographically inaccessible schools 1.5 2.8 0.7 1.6

Other 0.4 — 0.7 0.4


Question: Why didn’t you continue studies at a secondary vocational school or secondary school?Note: Only for respondents who declared a finished primary school education and didn’t try any form of secondary school education (n = 849). Respondentswho did not answer the question were not included in the calculations (8% of the relevant subset).

8 This means that they left school in the fourth class or earlier. By age it appears that this was predominately respondents older than 50 years(younger age years ended their primary school education in the fifth class at the earliest).

9 The remainder to 59.7% of the overall group with the highest achieved degree of education at the level of finished primary school representedrespondents who tried secondary school, but did not complete it; such were 8.9% of the entire Roma population which were already outside theschool system.

99


Roma from segregated and separated settlements. In theset of Roma from diffused settlements weddings playeda much less important role.

The mentioned reasons for not continuing in studiesat secondary school require deeper attention, because heresomewhere may be hidden potential places for a successfulintervention in the interest of increasing the education lev-el of the Roma population, about which a lot is spoken asa prerequisite for success on the labour market.

The high share of responses which saw the reasonfor a finished low achieved education in their own atti-tude toward learning at the time and in the bad resultsat primary school (a total of 42.8% of Roma women andmen with a primary education) could indicate a failureof the system of primary education from the point of viewof its ability to inspire Roma children for education, as wellas in providing support and help to those children in theinterest of better marks at school. The results of the studyimplied that for the group which gave a dislike of learn-ing or bad marks as the reason for not continuing in theirstudies at secondary school in particular, as with thegroup with unfinished primary school, the share with badexperiences with school was the highest (Graph 8.2).

While in these three groups more than 40% reported badexperiences with school, the overall average for the Romapopulation outside the school system moved rightaround the 20% level; and on the other hand those whofinished vocational school (less than 10%) had the leastbad experiences with school, and Roma women and menwith school-leaving certificates and with higher educa-tion had only good memories of school. Thus, bad ex-periences with school to a significant measure are tiedin with bad final results in the field of education – whetherin the form of unfinished primary school, bad marks orpoor relations to learning, and vice versa.10 Due to thelack of space, the study did not further monitor the formof these bad experiences at school; however, qualitativeresearch from segregated and separated settlements ofRoma communities carried out in the previous period cansay a lot about this.11

Such differences in experiences with school by ed-ucation signal two things: negative experiences couldbe one of the reasons for not finishing primary schoolin the standard regime; they could also be dissuasivewhen deciding about continuation in studies at sometype of secondary school. Conversely, positive experi-

All with finished secondary school and more

All with finished secondaryvocational school

All with unfinished secondary school

All with finished primary school

All with unfinished primary school

Reason for not continuing to sec-ondary school – didn’t want to study

Reason for not continuing to secondary school – poor marks

All outside the school system

General population outside the school system

Graph 8.2Experience of different educational groups of the Roma population which are outside the school system withschool – comparison with experience of geographically close general population (in %)

0 20 40 60 80 100

59.5 40.5 0.0

0.031.1 60.8 8.10

28.7 55.6 12.9 2.8

17.4 16.4 4.162.1

11.0 25.2 17.546.3

7.6 30.6 13.048.8

4.4 29.5 13.153.0

19.7 17.0 5.957.4

48.9 2.10.5

48.5

Question: What was your experience with school like (approach of teachers, classmates, etc.)?Note: Only respondents outside the school system.

Very good rather good rather bad very bad

10 The bivariate correlation between achieved education and personal experience with school confirmed the medium strength of dependence (Spear-man’s rank correlation coefficient was 0.287 for the level of significance α=0.01) in the overall expression. A more detailed statistical analysis (adjustedresidual) showed, however, that respondents with finished primary school reported rather bad and even more often very bad experiences withschool significantly more often statistically, and at the same time rarely evaluated their experience as rather good or very good. On the other hand,respondents with a completed secondary school education (with or without a school-leaving certificate) significantly more often statistically eval-uated their experience with school as very good, and at the same time significantly more rarely considered them as rather bad or very bad.

ences during primary school can stimulate Roma chil-dren to continue in their study. The question here aris-es whether our society has done enough (opportuni-ties of the school system, support of informed choice– parents and children, field social work with familiesand the like) so that the bad experiences of Roma chil-dren with school be reduced to a minimum and sup-port around their learning be strengthened; so that theydo not have as a consequence earlier departure fromthe educational system, resignation in regard to an in-terest in learning and bad school results.

The analysis also showed that the group of Romaindividuals who as a reason for not continuing with stud-ies at secondary school gave a dislike of learning, at-tended significantly more than was average a segre-gated class at primary school. Nearly 15% of them werein the last year at primary school in a class where therewere only or almost only Roma children, and an addi-tional 19% in a class, where there were more Roma chil-dren than non-Roma children (a total of 34% of segre-gated); the average for the Roma population outside theschool system was 11% and 14% (a total of 25% in seg-regated classrooms). On the other hand, for thosewho completed some type of secondary school or ob-tained an even higher education, the share attendinga segregated class in the last year of primary school wasonly 11%. It seems as if segregation at primary schoolnegatively influences the achieved level of educationand an interest in studying.

Let’s stop for a moment also with the other reasonsfor quitting studies at secondary school. Aside from in-sufficient finances for educating children other familyreasons had a relatively strong representation, such asgetting married or the birth of a child, non-consent ofparents with studying or the necessity of helping athome (in all up to 29.2% of the Roma population withfinished primary school who did not continue on toa secondary school). As Graph 8.3 shows, relatively largedifferences by sex are evident. While a lack of financesfor fees, clothing and shoes was given in equal meas-ure by Roma women and men, for other groups of rea-

sons this was different. Lack of interest in school and badmarks were most often given as responses by men; thiswas also the case with so-called other reasons (healthstatus and access to school and others), while Romawomen, again a great deal more often, named familyreasons as the reason for quitting school. One-third ofthe relevant Roma women gave some of the family rea-sons, and from Roma men this was only one-quarter.The largest difference was with the reason “I got mar-ried”, which was given by 16% of women and only 4%of men. With other family reasons the difference was notso large, although with women the birth of a child andbeing denied by parents moderately predominated, andin men again the need to help at home. And with spa-tial exclusion the share of family barriers to studyinggrew: from those living diffused 19.3% of Roma menand 25.2% of Roma women; for separated this grew to25.2% of men and 38.4% of women and for segregat-ed this was 28.8% of men and 36.7% of women.

If we wanted to find similar findings in previous stud-ies, it’s possible, for example, to again draw from the al-ready cited study of the Cultural Association of Roma inSlovakia (Data…, 2009). In this study, Roma women andmen of the surveyed non-integrated population, also toa large measure gave different family barriers as a sig-nificant barrier to unfulfilled life plans and dreams. In theend, family problems such as the need of caring for chil-dren and family and the like, became the second mostfrequent barrier to fulfilling one’s career plans (after lackof finances and before barriers based on ethnic mem-bership). And as the report further states, empirical dataconfirmed the stronger feeling of restraints and barriersestablished by parents and the parental family on thepath of lifelong dreams on the side of Roma women.12

From the cited study a much higher measure of inter-ference on the part of one’s own family situation into thedreamed of life path with Roma women also follows (fourtimes more than in men). This primarily involves early part-nerships and parenthood, which either interrupted thestudies of girls or directed their life outside of their owndreams and plans.13


100

11 See, for example, the study of the Cultural Association of Roma in Slovakia from 2009; some of them are detailed in BOX 8.C and 8.D. As it is statedin the mentioned report: “several of the presented problems associated with attending primary school were of a general character (they matteredto many children from the majority population) and not associated with ethnic membership; many, however, had a discriminatory character. Sothat many Roma citizens even as children at primary school already met with prejudices, unequal treatment, segregation and the absence of sup-porting or compensatory measures – from the side of teachers and classmates. The consequences of such experiences in early childhood can vary.They could discourage Roma children from further study despite the existing assumption, to support them in persisting in a known environmentand building in them a fear of leaving their own location and family. They could also label them not only in a period of maturing, but for their entirelife, and influence their life chances and quality of life. It is therefore very important to systematically work on removing similar practices from pri-mary education and on raising children in regard to greater tolerance and respecting differences.” (Data…, 2009: 30).

12 This was primarily the disagreement of parents with further study for girls or a lack of finances for ensuring study: “parents prevented – schooltoo far away“. Roma women also spoke about the lack of support for further education on the part of their parents (“they didn’t take me at theschool and even my parents didn’t ask me to go, so I stayed home”), as well as bad parental relations, which forced girls to put care of the homeahead of school and (“a lot of children in my family, I come from an eight—member family“). Barriers from the side of the parents’ family, how-ever, took still another form – related to the selection of a partner and the founding of one’s own family: “my parents selected a husband for me;I didn’t want him”, “mama forbade it, there were a lot of suitors”. Barriers from the side of parents were also found in the surveyed men, thoughto a smaller measure (Data..., 2009: 55).

101


From the data obtained it appears as if in the stud-ied environment there was still relatively broad interfer-ence of parents into the lives of young people, whetherwith the choice of education or a life partner and a career.And such interference is stronger on the side of women,who are often forced to sacrifice their own future careerto obligations within their parents’ family. The right of chil-dren to an education which would not be limited by theirparents and even by the financial situation of the fami-ly, as well as the right to participate in decisions about mat-ter which related to the child,14 or in children older than18 years the right to freedom of choice, in some casesprobably are not fully asserted. Again the question aris-es, what in such cases should the state do, or whether ithas done enough for the supporting the assertion of hu-man rights for all citizens of the Slovak Republic (includingRoma children)? Where were the school and other insti-tutions when they were unable to override parental ob-jections or financial deficiencies of a family for ensuringaccess of girls to an education? The fears of Roma parentsto release children to study, however, can also be asso-ciated with the bad experiences with school found andthe need of Roma parents to protect children and to doso by closing them into a known environment (for ex-ample, to a school attended by older siblings), althoughan unfavourable one (see also: Data..., 2009).

A problem associated with this is also how a societyensures sexual or parental upbringing for all; what kind

of accessibility does it have in village schools andwhether it is presented on a level and in a way compre-hensible for all. The growth of the Roma underage birthrate has become something of a media hit or more a po-litical bon mot for politicians than an object of seriousanalysis and support for public policy. Public discussionin Slovakia is more devoted to the conflict between sex-ual versus religious education in schools, and thus far noaction plan for sexual or reproductive health has been ac-cepted whose development follows as an obligation fromthe UN Cairo Conference (1994) or from signing the UNConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimina-tion against Women (OSN, 1998). Education regardingplanned parenthood and sexual enlightenment is in Slo-vakia considered as a personal matter of individuals andleft to a great measure to a person’s own initiative; the statehere avoids its “proper” responsibility.

8.2. Persons in the educational system:attending school, conditions of education

The part of the Roma population which at the time of thestudy had still not completed the process of educationmade up 43% of the set of Roma and partly includedpupils attending school (26.4%) and partly children

Graph 8.3Roma women and men with finished primary education by groups of reasons for not continuing on to secondaryschool (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Family reasons together

Lack of finances

Lack of interest in school andbad marks together

Other reasons together

33.3

24.2

46.839.4

4.73.4

Question: Why didn’t you continue studies at a secondary vocational school or secondary school?Note: Only for respondents who declared a finished primary school education and didn’t try any form of secondary school education (n = 849). Respondents who did not answer the question were not included in the calculations (8% of the relevant subset).

Roma men

Roma women

24.2

23.9

13 Roma women examined from a non-integrated community recalled the following among the barriers to fulfilling their life’s dreams: “I fell in love andsoon I had a baby”, “I soon got pregnant”, “soon children”, “because of my partner”, “the partner is jealous - I couldn’t go to school”, “a boyfriend”, “I gotmarried early” and the like. Very often the barrier felt was also the family situation with all of the obligations and cares which go with it, and disap-pointment from a partner’s life: “a lot of children”, “children, along with my own I took care of three siblings”, “children, disappointment in love”, “un-lucky with my husband”, “husband’s inability”, “my husband was bad”, “bad partner”, “finances, husband’s dependence - on gambling, alcohol” andmany others. Men in the scope of family barriers listed more the founding of their own family, the breakup of a marriage or care for their partner: “Istarted to like girls”, “I found a wife“, “I have a family”, “I had a child”, “housing question, finances, bad parental support, early marriage” (Data..., 2009:57).

14 See UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – paragraphs on education and participation, whose twentieth anniversary was celebrated in No-vember 2009 (OSN, 1989).

of preschool age (16.6%). At this point, let’s take a lookat pupils and students, in which we will be able to mon-itor different aspects of the educational process. Amongpupils and students attending school, pupils from com-mon primary schools predominated (72.3%). A total of15% of Roma pupils and students attended special pri-mary school and a special class 3.6%. A total of 19% ofRoma children, therefore, were in the “special regime” atthe primary school level. Among the higher degrees ofeducation the most represented were those attendinga secondary vocational school (5%); secondary schoolwith school-leaving certificate had only half as much rep-resentation. Attendance of special schools and classesat the secondary level even from a distance did not comeclose to their use at the primary school level.

Special schools and classes at the primary school lev-el were most attended by Roma children from segre-gated settlements. Nearly one-quarter of the totalnumber of all Roma pupils and students was assignedto this form of education (children in special primaryschools for the health disabled made up a negligibleshare). On the other hand, among children from set-tlements with the highest measure of integration thisshare was only half as high. The share of children fromseparated settlements who attended special schools waslocated somewhere in the middle.

The choice of a special school or class was resultedfor different reasons. Among the most commonly givenreasons why Roma children attend a special school orclass (at the primary and secondary levels) were the state-ments that “the education programme is easier for thechild” (26.1%) and mental disability of the child (24.5%).With 12% of cases the respondents gave the recom-mendation of professional authorities (“they said that thisis better for the child”).15 As the relevant graph shows, the

reasons which it is possible to consider as objective (men-tal and physical disability, test results), are related to ap-proximately one-third of children in special schoolsand classes. It is necessary to take into consideration, how-ever, the fact that self-reported mental disability by re-spondents themselves was not further examined, andtherefore it is not possible to determine whether this al-ways involved the result of a medical evaluation. Fur-thermore, testing itself carries the risk of incorrect di-agnosis, particularly when Roma children are tested inthe Slovak language, which assumes a certain under-standing and cultural competence which is not neces-sarily developed in the family. It’s possible to consider asalarming the fact that a significant share of those whoresponded indicated that they were assigned to specialschools and classes on the basis of facts which may notreflect the actual needs of the child (easier educationalconditions, nearness of the school, price). The positionof parents, however, isn’t very convincing, as indicatedby responses to the question in regard to satisfaction witha special school/class. Three-quarters of parents expressedsatisfaction with the school – 22.3% said that they are“very satisfied” and 54.3% “rather satisfied”. Only 5% ofparents expressed dissatisfaction; however up to 18.5%didn’t know or were unable to express themselves.

Roma children have limited chances to draw on pos-itive connections with socialisation in heterogeneous peergroups. A significant portion of all Roma children whowere attending school at the time of the study 16 were inclasses with a predominance of Roma pupils. Morethan one-third were being educated in classes wherethere were only (or almost exclusively) Roma children,and 15% in classes where there were more Roma childrenthan non-Roma children. So that half of Roma pupils andstudents took part in the educational process in an eth-


10215 We also included in the calculations those respondents who did not give a specific reason, because we wanted to show how large the group is of

those who were unable to answer or didn’t want to answer the given question. In this case we consider this as important contextual information.16 Any degree with the exception of preschools and day care centres, that is, aside from children of a preschool age.

Table 8.5Structure of the Roma population age 6+ years who are still in the school system, by type of school attendedand type of settlement (in %)


Common primary school 69.8 71.4 77.0 72.3

Special primary school 18.1 16.7 8.2 15.0

Special class in a primary school 5.4 2.6 2.9 3.6

Special primary school for physically disabled 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.3

Secondary vocational school 4.8 4.8 6.1 5.2

Secondary school with school-leaving certificate 1.1 2.6 4.9 2.6

Special secondary school* and special class in a secondary school 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.7

University 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2


Note: *Special secondary school for the mentally and physically disabled. This category (together with the special class secondary school) was createddue to the low numbers involve. Pupils and students for whom no reply was obtained were not included in the calculations.

103


nically homogeneous environment or one with very lit-tle ethnic diversification. Approximately one-third ofRoma children studied in majority environments; 26% ofthem were in classes with predominately non-Roma chil-dren and 6% were in classes where there were only (oralmost only) non-Roma children. As it was possible to as-sume, experience with an ethnically differentiated en-vironment varies by the type of school attended. Pupilsfrom special primary schools (65.2%) and special class-es at primary schools (91%) in particular had experiencewith an (almost) exclusively Roma structure of their class.With regard to the above-mentioned reasons for plac-ing Roma children into these forms of education, it canbe stated that the result often of non-objective princi-

ples of selection lead to the creation of ethnically spe-cific islands of education. Among pupils at common pri-mary schools two situations most often occurred –classes with a predominance of non-Roma pupils (32.2%)and classes exclusively with Roma children (31.1%). Ex-perience with almost exclusively majority classrooms,however, on the primary level (common or specialschools) is almost completely absent. Conversely – for sec-ondary vocational schools – the frequency of educationin classes with almost exclusively majority structure isa great deal higher.17

Graph 8.5 partially indicates how the trends lookfrom the viewpoint of the makeup of children inschool. A generational comparison shows the growth

Graph 8.4Reasons for attending a special school or classroom (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Easier educational programme

Mental disability

They said that this is better for the child

Closest school in the area

Test results

It is cheaper

Other

Physical disorder

Don’t know, didn’t answer

26.1

24.5

12.0

10.3

7.6

6.5

3.3

1.1

8.7

Question: Why is the child attending a special school or special classroom?

Table 8.6Roma children in the school system by type of school attended and structure of classes (in %)

Commonprimaryschool

Special primaryschool

Special classin a primaryschool

Secondary vocationalschool

Total

Only (or nearly) Roma children 31.1 65.2 90.9 14.3 36.2

More Roma children than non-Roma 16.3 15.2 0.0 16.7 15.4

Approximately half Roma and half non-Roma children 15.6 14.4 9.1 21.4 16.4

More non-Roma children 32.2 3.0 0.0 33.3 26.0

Only (or nearly) non-Roma children 4.7 2.3 0.0 14.3 6.0

Individuals total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

17 Very similar shares of Roma children in the individual types of school were also found in a study by the Roma Education Fund (2009), which was car-ried out using a different methodology than the UNDP study.

Note: Only those types of schools in which there were sufficiently large numbers to allow for further classification were included in the table. The valuesfor the total population of Roma children in the last column also include values for other types of schools which are not listed in the table. Respondentswho did not reply to the question about the makeup of classrooms were eliminated from the calculations.

of segregation in education – the highest share of chil-dren who attend a class where Roma children pre-dominate was expressed for the current number ofpupils and students. On the other hand, the least rep-resented were segregated classes for those respondentswho completed school before 1990.

A look at the structure of pupils of individual class-es at primary school by age (Table 8.7) also indicates

a rather different situation for Roma and the geo-graphically close general population. In all school class-es the age range of Roma pupils was much broader thanwas shown for pupils from the general population. Whilefor the general population the age distribution was two,at most three years, with the Roma pupils this was upto eight years. The largest age distribution was shownfor pupils in the fifth class – Roma children from age 9


104

Graph 8.5Structure of children in school in a generational comparison by type of settlement – comparison with the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Finished school before 1990

Finished school after 1990

Attends school at present













Geo

grap

hica

lly

clos

ege

nera

l po

pula

tion

tota

l

Diff

used

Sepa

rate

dSe

greg

ated

Rom

apo

pula

tion

tota

l

Questions: What is the makeup of Roma and non-Roma children in your class? / What was the makeup of Roma and non-Roma children in yourclass (last class at primary school)?Note: Although in the graph a comparison is shown of respondents with a finished education (outside of the school system) the last year at primaryschool and current pupils and students currently attending school or a class, it can still testify to existing trends. If secondary school and university stu-dents are excluded from those currently studying, the share of those attending segregated classrooms is still significantly higher.

only, almost only Roma children

more Roma children than non-Roma

approximately half and half

more non-Roma children than Roma

only, nearly only non-Roma children

11.3 15.8 27.2 38.9 6.8

21.3 22.3 27.4 22.6 6.4

55.1 17.6 10.3 15.51.5

4.9 8.0 18.8 52.9 14.4

12.1 14.1 26.9 38.0 8.9

29.3 12.8 17.8 29.9 10.2

6.6 8.9 17.8 49.5 17.2

8.1 15.2 21.0 41.0 14.7

19.0 15.7 23.0 35.5 6.9

0 8.41.3

23.9 66.5

14.82.60 19.4 63.3

5.86.91.7

18.5 67.1

7.4 10.6 21.3 47.6 13.1

13.9 17.2 25.1 33.8 10

36.2 15.4 16.4 26.0 6

105


to 16 years attended this class. The overall tendency isevident: Roma children much more often repeat class-es at primary school, since in each class there are sig-nificantly more Roma of a higher age, which does notcorrespond to the year attended.18 The age shift also re-sults from the entry to the first class, where it can be as-sumed more postponed entries for Roma children. Asearly as the first class of primary school a broad age struc-ture was found for Roma children – from 6 to 10 years;in comparison, those in the first class representing thegeneral population were exclusively ages 6 or 7 years.The study data, however, was not sufficient to differ-entiate exactly whether Roma children older than 7 yearswere in the first class due to postponed entry to com-pulsory school attendance or because they were re-peating the first grade.19

In association with this the question arises in regardto the zero year of primary school: whether already fromstart of a Roma child‘s entry into the education processit doesn‘t already disadvantage (and doesn‘t stigmatise)the child by shifting the age limit of a child at primaryschool in comparison with others. As several studies haveshown, many Roma children, especially from segregat-ed environments, have a certain deficit upon entry intoprimary school, for example, language or in relation toskills and habits which require a certain type of supportmeasures. It is worth considering whether they shouldachieve such skills after entering primary school orwhether it wouldn’t be a better solution if support wasoffered sooner – while still in the scope of preschool.20

The geographic position of Roma settlements andtheir poor connection with the world of the majority are

Table 8.7Roma pupils in primary school by classes attended and age – comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation (in %)

Age – in years

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total

1st class

RP 33.6 48.4 10.7 4.1 3.3 — — — — — — 100.0

GCGP 37.5 62.5 — — — — — — — — — 100.0

2nd class

RP — 24.1 41.9 20.9 7.0 6.3 — — — — — 100.0

GCGP — 18.2 72.7 9.1 — — — — — — — 100.0

3rd class

RP — — 25.3 36.3 28.6 9.8 — — — — — 100.0

GCGP — — 30.0 50.0 20.0 — — — — — — 100.0

4th class

RP — — 3.3 8.8 46.2 25.2 11.0 3.3 2.2 — — 100.0

GCGP — — — 21.4 42.9 28.6 — — — — 100.0

5th class

RP — — — 2.2 23.7 22.6 30.1 11.8 4—3 2.2 3.2 100.0

GCGP — — — — 37.5 50.0 12.5 — — — — 100.0

6th class

RP — 16.2 35.2 23.8 15.2 4.8 4.8 100.0

GCGP — 25.0 50.0 25.0 — — — 100.0

7th class

RP — 5.7 11.4 42.9 24.3 14.3 1.4 100.0

GCGP — — — 88.9 11.1 — — 100.0

8th class

RP — 1.6 19.7 49.2 19.7 9.8 100.0

GCGP — — 66.7 33.3 — — 100.0

9th class

RP — — 33.3 63.3 3.3 100.0

GCGP — — 42.9 57.1 — 100.0

Note: Size of the total set n = 916. The listed responses include possible errors, because with this question it was not possible to check the correctness ofthe responses. RP=Roma population, GCGP=Geographically closed general population

18 This tendency is clearly shown despite the fact that we are aware that it could come to a certain inaccuracy with the collection of data from the sideof respondents (dictating bad information about a class or the age of a child) or interviewers (incorrectly recording the given data).

19 The questionnaire used was already so extensive that it was not possible to expand data of this type in regard to monitoring additional signs andquestions; for obtaining such information it would be necessary to conduct an independent study.

20 The risk of the zero years was also pointed out by qualitative research carried out in the scope of this project (interviews with social workers oper-ating in marginalised Roma communities).

106


a well know barrier which makes participation in com-mon activities in the majority society more difficult. Oneof these activities is education. As the study data shows,the geographic accessibility of schools was not at all agiven, and with a generally low income level this couldrepresent a serious problem. Half of Roma pupils and stu-dents had a school less than one kilometre from theirplace of residence. More than a quarter had to attenda school one to three kilometres from home. Another6.5% of Roma children attended a school more than 10kilometres away. For comparison, 39.4% of childrenfrom the geographically close general population hadtheir school that far from home. This involves, however,different conditions and choices: children from the ge-ographically close population more often attendedsecondary schools, which are more distant from resi-dences (19.7% of children from the geographicallyclose general population attended secondary school witha school-leaving certificate, in comparison with 2.5% inthe set of Roma pupils and students). These data also candocument a phenomenon which is described by expertsand activists and which consists of the fact that non-Romaparents will register their own children at a differentschool if the number of Roma pupils at the school or inthe class is very high. In such a way, if they can afford itfinancially, they prefer their child attend a geographicallydistant school which as a consequence deepens ethnicsegregation (Kusá - Borovanová – Rusnáková, 2011;NOS, 2011). This also means that Roma children travela greater distance for the purpose of participation in theprimary degree of education and not the secondary,which creates bigger problems and higher costs forhouseholds. The situation in the three types of settle-ments in the given regard did not differ very much.

Up to 62% of Roma children walked to schooland 34% go by bus. The bus was used in particular by chil-dren whose school was 5 kilometres or more awayfrom home (95% of them). Children with school withinone kilometre, in contrast, usually went on foot (95%).

With growing distance, the measure of using the bus rose,naturally: 32% of Roma children with school from 1 to 3kilometres away went by bus, while with schools locat-ed 3 to 5 kilometres from home this was 93% of children.With distances exceeding 10 kilometres not only werebuses used (75%), but also the train (14%) or a car (9%).

A part of the study of the living conditions of Romahouseholds was also ascertaining opinions on differentfacts associated with the education of children. The headof the household answered the given questions, and theanswers were considered as information for the entirehousehold. One of the questions was asked only to thosehouseholds in which there were children of an age whenthey could attend primary or secondary school. Repre-sentatives of the households had to judge whether thechildren in their households “had or have the opportu-nity to attend school or continue their studies in school”.A vast majority of Roma households (91.5%)21 agreed withthe fact that “the children in the household had or havethe opportunity to attend school or continue theirstudies in school”. It was shown that potential problemsassociated with education which some of the obtaineddata mentioned above indicated (for example, the as-signing to special schools, the geographic accessibilityof schools, etc.) are not perceived in Roma householdsas something that would limit the opportunities oftheir children. This statement applies for all Romahouseholds without regard to the degree of integration,even though the occurrence of the conviction thatchildren didn’t have the mentioned opportunities wastwo-times higher in the segregated settlements than inthe diffused settlements.

In the first part of this chapter we showed that in thestructure of the education level of Roma already outsidethe school system there was a strong representation ofpersons who had not continued their studies in sec-ondary school. The fact that the high representation ofpersons with low education is not reflected in the pre-vailing aspirations in relation to the education of chil-

21 Households which were not able or did not want to respond were not taken into consideration.

Table 8.8Structure of the Roma population which is still in the school system by distance of school from place of resi-dence – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

Roma population of pupils and students Geographically close general population of pupils and studentsSegregated Separated Diffused Total

less than 1 km 52.3 48.9 50.4 50.6 29.1

1 to 3 km 29.2 25.2 29.2 27.8 15.4

3 to 5 km 5.0 12.1 6.0 7.8 7.4

5 to 10 im 9.1 7.5 4.8 7.3 8.6

more than 10 km 4.4 6.2 9.6 6.5 39.4

Individual total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Respondents who did not respond to the question were excluded from the calculations.

dren who at the time of the study were attending schoolcan be evaluated positively. This follows from respons-es to the question which was asked of the “heads of thehouseholds” where at the time of the study lived chil-dren attending primary or secondary school. Since thequestion was addressed to representatives of house-holds, we will not speak about the preferences of per-sons when interpreting responses to this question butabout the preferences of households. Three-quarters ofhouseholds which answered the question22 wishedtheir children would continue studying at some sec-ondary school after finishing primary school. Definitiveagreement was expressed by 37%, more cautiousagreement by 39%. Disagreement was expressed by24.3% of households, and the majority of them (16.5%)expressed more cautious disagreement. Parents with theambition that their children continue further in their ed-ucation after completing primary school were most of-ten recruited among households living in diffused set-tlements (79.4%), while the lowest representation wasfound among households from segregated settlements(72.6%). It is necessary to emphasise, however, that intheir case, it also involved a high occurrence of educa-tional aspirations in relation to their children.

Among households which did not plan furtherstudies for their children, the conviction occurred sig-nificantly more often that their children did not have theopportunity to attend school or continue in their stud-ies. The prevalence of such a conviction (26%) wasmore than three-times higher among the mentionedhouseholds than in the entire set of Roma householdswith children at primary school and more than ten-timeshigher in comparison with households which wantedtheir child’s education to continue. To the question of whythey wouldn’t want their children to continue withschool after completing primary school, only part of therelevant respondents replied, which led to their beinga small number of responses and subsequently a limi-tation of the interpretative potential of the obtained data.Among the responses, however, the fear that the house-hold would not be able to handle it financially clearlydominated as the reason for it – more than half of re-spondents (households) which responded to the ques-tion gave this reason.

While for children attending primary school the ma-jority of households leaned toward their children con-tinue further in their education, in the case of studyingat secondary school the situation was different. The ma-jority of Roma households (64%),23 in which a sec-ondary school student lived, would not want their chil-dren to continue studying at university (up to one-fifthof them expressed strong disagreement). The highest

share of households with such an opinion was living indiffused settlements, where it achieved 81%. In segre-gated (65%) and separated (41%) settlements the givenopinion occurred less often. The differences between thetypes of settlements, however, it is not necessary to over-estimate, because the absolute number of householdswhich had children at a secondary school was low. De-spite this fact (with awareness of the given limitation),it is possible to state that what at first glance appears tobe a lack of parental ambition, is according to the re-sponses of the households themselves in particular a mat-ter of economic uncertainty. The most common justifi-cation given for the unwillingness to send a child to uni-versity was namely the fear that the household would beunable to pay for it. Other reasons, among which the re-spondents could choose from, were represented onlymarginally in comparison with the financial reason.

8.3. Literacy

Achieved level of education is only one indicator, what’smore a formal indicator, of the level of education. The ef-fectiveness of the educational process, respectively of theimpact of not enrolling in the school system, was meas-ured in the study by two indicators of literacy focusedon the skills of reading and writing: the ability to read thenews and the ability to write a one-page letter.

Literacy plays a key role in modern society. It is theentry gate to receiving and processing information, toeducation, to access to the labour market and the me-dia, to the use of free time; in short, to functioning inthe whole order of life situations. Individuals should haveskills that allow them to function effectively, to work withinformation, to communicate socially, to be capable ofparticipating in the operation of society. The insufficientliteracy which some individuals and groups of peoplehave even in developed countries is often labelled asa paradox of human development.

Table 8.9 shows us different indicators of literacy ofRoma for different age groups. It follows from the tablethat not even school attendance is a guarantee of liter-acy. In the Roma population age 16-64 years which atpresent no longer attends school but which attendedschool in the past, as many as 28.4% said that they readonly with problems or not at all, and 33.9% in this agegroup expressed the same about their ability to write. Asmany as 36.8% of this group from the Roma populationhad a problem with at least one of the skills which areconsidered as indicators of literacy. As can be further seenfrom the table, the youngest generation of pupils and stu-dents (even after exclusion of those younger than 10


10722 Households which did not respond to the question or gave “other” as an answer were not taken into consideration.23 Households which did not respond to the question or gave “other” as an answer were not taken into consideration.

years) and the oldest generation, age 55 years and old-er, had the most problems in regard to literacy.

Let’s take a closer look at the structure of Roma chil-dren age 10+ currently attending school and who haveproblems with reading and writing. Of all the childrenage 10 years and older who currently attend school andreported having difficulty with reading a newspaper,64.4% attended a common primary school, 26.0% a spe-cial primary school and 5.8% attended a special class ina primary school. The remaining 3.9 % were students fromsecondary vocational schools or special secondaryschools for the mentally disabled. In the case of writinga letter, 67.9% of the defined group of Roma children wasmade up of pupils from common primary schools;23.4% attended a special primary school and 4.4 percenta special class in a primary school24.

A still different view of children age 10 years and old-er is offered by a comparison within the category of com-mon primary school. Of the Roma children age 10+ yearsattending a common primary school 40% reportedproblems with reading a newspaper; among the geo-graphically close general population this was only 5%.As many as 54.4% of children age 10 years and older at-tending a common primary school had problems withwriting a short letter; in the same group of the generalpopulation this was again only 5%. And 56.7% of Romachildren age 10 years and older attending a common pri-mary school had a problem with at least one of the ac-

tivities, while from the general population this was lessthan one-tenth as many children (only 5%).

A comparison of literacy of the Roma population forall age groups with the general population reveals an alarm-ing disparity in the results of the educational process.25

8.4. Attending nursery school before entry into the school system

In connection with the successful adaptation of Roma chil-dren in the educational system, one of the most impor-tant prerequisites mentioned in the professional litera-ture and in policy recommendations is nursery school at-tendance prior to entering primary school. It is spoken ofas a possible way for broad groups of Roma children fromdisadvantaged environments to overcome the lag in theskills and prerequisites for entry to compulsory school at-tendance and for their overall more successful adaptationin the educational process, which their household envi-ronments and socialisation are unable to provide (UNDP,2006; Kusá – Rusnáková – Koželová, 2011). In the studythe attendance of children at a nursery school was mon-itored for a group of current pupils or students who wereasked whether they had attended a nursery school pri-or to entry to primary school and for how long, and thenthe present nursery school attendance for a group of pre-school-age children was ascertained.


108

24 The overall structure of the age 10 years and older group of Roma children was as follows: common primary school = 67.9%; special primary school= 16.3%; special class in a primary school = 3.7%; secondary school for mentally disabled children = 0.8%; remaining 11.4% of this Roma set stud-ied at a common secondary vocational school or secondary school.

25 With interpretations of the results of studying literacy, it is necessary, however, to also observe the large number of non-respondents to these twoquestions. This was 18% of all Roma respondents outside the school system (325 from a total number n = 1,846) and 25% of the geographically closegeneral population outside the school system (196 of the total number n = 777); in the case of current pupils and students the share of non-re-spondents was higher still (59% for the Roma subset and 55% for the general).

Table 8.9Indicators of literacy for different age groups of the Roma population and a comparison with the geographi-cally close general population (in %)

Reads with problemsor not at all

Writes with problemsor not at all

At least 1 problem

Romapopulation

Generalpopulation

Romapopulation

Generalpopulation

Romapopulation

Generalpopulation

Whole set except pre-primary school children 33.8 1.7 40.8 3.0 43.7 3.7

Attended school in past (all) 28.8 1.2 34.8 2.5 33.8 1.7

Attended school in past (16-64) 28.4 0.6 33.9 0.8 36.8 1.1

All 16-64 29.2 0.8 34.6 1.0 37.9 1.7

All 16-24 (Nro = 407; Ngp = 75) 25.8 4 32.6 4.1 37.3 6.7

All 25-34 (Nro = 417; Ngp = 119) 28.8 — 33.2 — 36.0 —

All 35-44 (Nro = 355; Ngp = 89) 29.0 — 35.4 — 38.0 —

All 45-54 (Nro = 271; Ngp = 113) 30.4 — 32.8 — 36.5 —

All 55+ (Nro = 217; Ngp = 245) 38.3 2.4 49.5 5.3 50.2 5.7

Currently attending school (all) 49.6 5.1 59.8 6.4 63.0 7.5

Currently attending school (age 10+ years) 41.5 4.1 53.1 4.2 57.4 5.5

Note: The table presents the combined percentage shares of the given groups of those who have a problem with the given activity or can’t perform themat all. Only respondents who answered the question are included.

As Table 8.10 shows, among Roma children andyoung people who at the time of the study were pupilsat a primary school or students at a secondary school oruniversity, a total of 53.1% of them attended a nurseryschool for at least some minimal time prior to entry intothe school system. Such a level of schooling markedlylagged behind pupils and students from the geo-graphically close general population, 88% of whom hadexperience with a nursery school environment. But thiswasn’t the only difference which was shown between thetwo populations. While with pupils and students repre-senting the geographically close general population theshare of former nursery school pupils grew with increasedperiod of going to nursery school (nearly half of them at-tended nursery school for a period of three years andlonger, more than a quarter two years, and 16% for justone year or less), for Roma pupils and students this wasfully the opposite – the largest share fell to the group at-tending nursery school for a year or less (up to 35% ofthe entire 53% who attended nursery school before pri-mary school) and the least represented were those at-tending for three years and more (6%). Or in other words– only a minimum of Roma children and young people

who at the time of the study were attending primaryschool or a higher level of education had previously at-tended nursery school for a period of three years or more;on the other hand, nursery school attendance for one yearor less was predominant in this group.

The schooling of current Roma pupils and studentsin nursery schools changed according to the type ofsettlement: the highest was among those living diffusedand the lowest for those living separated. From pupilsand students representing Roma households living dif-fused, nearly 61% attended a nursery school prior tostarting primary school; among children and youthsfrom segregated settlements this was only 45%, andthe majority of these attended nursery school only oneyear or less.

Certain comparisons in time which allow the levelof preschool schooling of Roma pupils and students forthe age group up to 10 years and 10 years or older tobe monitored showed a certain decline in the case ofthose living segregated. Pupils up to age 10 years wereshown to have a lower level of schooling than olderpupils and students by nearly 10%. This would signal thatin the last period before the actual carrying out of the


109

Table 8.10Schooling of selected groups of Roma children and youths in nursery schools – comparison of the subsets andwith the geographically close general population (in %)

Roma population Geographically closegeneral population(n=160)

Segregated(n=340)

Separated(n=315)

Diffused(n=245)

Total(n=900)

Pupils and students total Did you attend a nursery school prior to starting at primary school? If yes, for how long?

Didn’t attend 55.0 44.1 39.2 46.9 11.9

Attended 45.0 55.9 60.8 53.1 88.1

Of this: Length of nursery school attendance...

less than a year 11.8 11.4 13.9 12.2 0.6

1 year 20.3 19.4 30.6 22.8 15.6

2 years 7.6 16.5 9.0 11.1 26.3

3 years and more 4.1 7.6 7.3 6.2 45.6

other 1.2 1.0 — 0.8 —

Schooling of pupils and students Total responses “yes, attends”

to 10 years 50.6 60.7 60.4 56.3 88.4

11 and more year 59.4 52.8 61.2 60.5 87.9

Nursery school pupils 3-6 years total This child attends nursery school? If no, please tell why:

Doesn’t attend 97.0 80.4 73.3 80.8 44.1

Attends 13.0 19.6 26.7 19.2 55.9

Of this: Reasons for not attending nursery school:

Parents don’t want it 16.5 26.1 24.4 21.9 5.9

none nearby 16.5 1.1 3.3 7.7 2.9

is often ill 1.7 3.3 2.2 2.4 —

don’t have the money 28.7 13.0 17.8 20.5 2.9

too small 20.9 22.8 18.9 20.9 20.6

other reason 2.6 14.1 6.7 7.4 —

Schooling of preschoolers age 3-6 years Total responses “yes attends”

- age 3-4 years 5.6 14.0 20.4 12.5 40.0

- in age 5-6 years 25.6 26.2 36.1 28.9 78.6

Note: Data is for respondents who responded to the question. With schooling for the individual age groups of preschoolers, if only two years were tracked,the numbers in the individual categories were too low to allow monitoring individual reasons in depth.

field study (around years 2006 – 2009)26 the share of chil-dren from segregated settlements attending nurseryschool was lower than in the previous period. Forthose living separated the level of schooling was high-er in older children, that is, it’s as if the schooling of thesechildren gradually increased with time; in the case of chil-dren from Roma households living diffused and childrenfrom the geographically close general population no dif-ference was evident – the level of schooling of both com-pared groups of current pupils and students was ap-proximately the same.

If we look at the situation for children who at the timeof the study were of the preschool age of 3-6 years, morethan half of those children from the general population(55.9%) attended nursery school at the time of the sur-vey, while from the Roma population this was only one-fifth (19.2%). And again the direction toward excludedsettlements the share of those attending school de-creased: from 26.7% for those living diffused to 13% forthose living in segregated settlements.

And what were the primary reasons for not at-tending nursery school among children age 3-6 years?On average for the Roma population of these childrenthe strongest reason given for not attending nurseryschool was the unwillingness of parents to send them(“we don’t want to send our child to school”); further,a significant group of Roma parents considered a largepart of the defined group of children of age 3-6 years(probably children age 3-4-years) as too young to attendnursery school, and in third place were financial reasons(“we don’t have the money for nursery school”). For thegroup living segregated the order for the reasons for notattending nursery school differed: in first place was a lackof financial resources, in second the perception of thechild as being too young to attend a nursery school, andin third was the absence of a school in the surroundings(together with the unwillingness of parents to senda child to school).

In all of the compared subgroups the level of school-ing of children of a preschool age was significantly low-er for the group defined by age 3-4 years as opposed tothe age group of children age 5-6 years. Calculations showthat older preschoolers representing the geographical-ly close general population attended school two timemore than the younger (nearly 80% to 40%), and in thecase of the overall Roma population the growth whencomparing the younger and older children was more thantriple (from a level of 12.5% percent of schooling in chil-

dren to age three and four to nearly 30% among thoseage 5-6 years), and for the group living segregated the lev-el of schooling eventually grew up to five-times higher(from not quite 6% to over 25%).

The attendance of nursery school turned out to beon the basis of the research data significantly smaller forRoma children versus those from the geographically closegeneral population. In some groups of children this ul-timately involved lagging 3-4 times behind, as an ex-ample, with comparisons of current preschoolers age 3to 4 years or age 5 to 6 years. From Roma children age5-6 years less than one-third attended a nursery school,while from the general population this was nearly four-fifths. With the growth of spatial segregation the school-ing of Roma children decreased. For the most part, ac-cording to the study data, it’s as if the very group of chil-dren who most need nursery school prior to entry to pri-mary school actually utilise it the least. The reasons fornon-attendance of nursery school were insufficient fi-nances, the conviction regarding the child being too im-mature for nursery school, but also – particularly in seg-regated environments – the absence of such a facility inthe surroundings and the unwillingness of parents tosend a child to a school. Interventions aimed at increasingthe schooling of Roma children in a preschool facilityshould focus specifically on overcoming these barriers.27

8.5. Expenditures for education

With school attendance there are always associated cer-tain costs for households whose amount derives from thenumber of children in the household, the type of schoolattended, its distance from the home, etc. The financialdemand of items associated with compulsory school at-tendance and other forms of study strongly resonateamong Roma households. Logically, that which to the ma-jority society could sound like a common, less significantexpenditure for a household, in the environment with theaccumulation of socioeconomic risks becomes a burdenwhich can seriously disrupt living conditions of house-holds or also lead to a decision between “bad andworse solutions” (leaving school and the like). In the studyof living conditions expenditures for the education of chil-dren were approached in two ways. First of all, repre-sentatives of households had to evaluate whether andto what extent their household was capable of coveringthe expenditures associated with the education of chil-


110

26 Since we are speaking about pupils age 6 to 10 years and the study was carried out in the year 2010, it approximately involves the period of one tofour years before the collection of data (around the years 2006 – 2009).

27 As qualitative research activities following the questionnaire survey showed, nearly all experts working directly in Roma communities expressed theneed or even necessity of nursery school attendance by Roma children. Aside from the potential strengthening of Slovak or another official languageof education, here they saw a chance to support the skills of children, which would ease their entry into compulsory education (from hygienic habitsup to holding a pencil, etc.). The resolution of this lag for primary school in the form of a zero year has often been labelled overdue.

dren. Second, an estimate of the total sum of financialresources which the household spends in association withschool attendance was determined. On one hand, we ob-tain an idea about the amount of expenditures, and onthe other hand an image of their subjective perceptions.

The question regarded an estimate of the sum of ex-penditures related to the total sum which householdsspent on the education of children from the start of theschool year. Since the field collection of data took placein the months of November – December, the respons-es obtained cover the period of approximately threemonths. The total sum should have included differenttypes of expenditures: school fees, expenditures for booksand school supplies, transport, meals and the like. It wasshown that Roma households spend for children at-tending school (primary, secondary and university) in thegiven period was on average EUR 58 (the median was EUR35).28 The average costs for education varied by thetracked types of settlements. The highest average sum(EUR 67) we find among Roma in separated settle-ments, while for diffused households this was EUR 63.Segregated settlements in this regard are in a significantlydifferent position – the average sum of expenditures foreducation of a child there represented EUR 46, which wasbeneath the average expenditures for households withhigher spatial integration and beneath the overall av-erage. The ANOVA procedure showed that the averageexpenditures for the education of Roma children differedsignificantly between the individual types of settle-ments on a level of significance of 0.01.29 This means thatthe differences were not caused by a random selectionerror, but possibly can also be found in the primary, to-tal population. On the basis of a Bonferroni post hoc testit is possible to state that statistically significant differ-ences exist between the average expenditures of house-holds in segregated settlements and diffused settlementsas well as between average expenditures in segregatedsettlements and in separated settlements. This means thatexpenditures in segregated settlements were significantlylower than in the remaining two types of settlements.

Information about average sums can be supple-mented with data on the distribution of expenditures intointervals created by the re-categorisation of the sum giv-en by respondents. As Table 8.12 shows, six expenditurecategories were created, with the lowest category limit-ed by an upper limit of EUR 20, and the highest catego-ry defined by a lower limit of EUR 101. The most often rep-resented interval was the lowest – the sum from EUR 2to EUR 20 was spent for more than one-third of Roma chil-dren. With an increasing level of the sums, their repre-sentation dropped. High expenditures in the amount ofEUR 81 to EUR 100 were paid for one-tenth of Roma chil-dren; the same also applies for expenditures in anamount over EUR 100. Together then, in the case of one-fifth of Roma children, expenditures for education totalledover EUR 80. This is a relatively high amount, particular-ly when the high probability that in Roma householdsthere are a number of children attending school is tak-en into consideration. Segregated settlements showedthe highest representation of a sum from the bottom in-terval: for half of Roma children from segregated settle-ments sums in the amount of EUR 2 to EUR 20 were spent,and expenditures for the higher level were representeda great deal less. The education of 6.9% of Roma from seg-regated settlements “cost” over EUR 100. In separated set-tlements expenditures for education most often shiftedin the range from EUR 21 to EUR 40 EUR: such amountswere paid for one-quarter of Roma children. With childrenfrom separated settlements, however, it’s possible to ob-serve a significantly higher representation of higher ex-penditures – expenditures over EUR 80 were paid in near-ly 30% of them. Diffused households from the viewpointof amount of expenditures moved somewhere in the mid-dle between separated and segregated settlements.The lower expenditure intervals were relatively strong-ly represented, as were the highest.

As we have already mentioned, data about thecosts for education were collected in November and De-cember and covered the period from the start of theschool year (thus, the three months from the start of Sep-


111

Table 8.11Average sums spent on education of Roma children (in EUR)

Average sum (in EUR)

Standard deviation

Standard error Confidence interval (95 %)


Segregated 46.1 73.5 4.0 38.2 54.0

Separated 66.6 65.5 3.7 59.3 73.9

Diffused 62.6 76.9 4.9 52.9 72.3

Note: Testing criterion F in the ANOVA procedure had a value of 7.29 with two degrees of freedom.

28 This involves the average value of all obtained responses (not in relation to the number of months, we will deal with average monthly expendituresat the end of the chapter). Responses covered 93% of all children attending school. The confidence interval (95%) for the average of the whole setwas EUR 53.00 – 62.60.

29 Levene‘s test of variance homogeneity was statistically insignificant, thus, one of the key assumptions of this procedure was fulfilled. The testing cri-terion F had a value of 7.29 with two degrees of freedom.

tember). On the basis of this information it’s possible todetermine average monthly expenditures, which stan-dardise the obtained sums to a unified time basis. Theaverage monthly sum of costs for education in Romahouseholds thus represented EUR 23;30 the median hada value of EUR 14. The highest average monthly expen-ditures were in separated settlements (EUR 27), the low-est in segregated (EUR 19).

Questions about perceived expenditures for edu-cation were asked individually of households with chil-dren at the primary and secondary school levels. The ma-jority of Roma households in which children attendingprimary school lived, perceived the costs associated withtheir education as a problem. Half of these householdssaid that they were capable of covering expenditures foreducation of children only with difficulties or with greatdifficulties.31 The highest share of households with suchproblems came from segregated settlements – up to 65%of households here mentioned the occurrence of diffi-culties or great difficulties. For comparison: amongRoma households living diffused difficulties with ex-penditures for education (the response “with difficulties”

and with “great difficulties”) were significantly less fre-quent; their prevalence was lower by 18 percentagepoints. Diffused Roma households showed a greater abil-ity to meet obligations following from compulsoryschool attendance at the primary level. The share ofhouseholds which managed this easily and very easilywas higher than in the other types of settlements. Theoccurrence (or absence) of financial difficulties is also ex-pressed in the perceived chances for children to attendschool or continue in studies. Nearly all households whichsaid that they were able to cover all expenditures forschool easily or only with certain difficulties were con-vinced that the children in their households had the op-portunity to attend school or continue in their studies.Conversely, among households which managed ex-penditures for primary school with difficulties or even withgreat difficulties, only 13% said that their children did-n’t have such an opportunity.

The same questions were also asked of house-holds with children attending secondary school. It wasshown that study at secondary school representeda financial burden for a significant portion of Roma


112

30 The 95-percent confidence interval for the average was EUR 21 – 25.31 We are working with combined variants of responses. The original variants had the following form: very easy, easy, relatively easy, with certain diffi-

culties, with difficulties and with great difficulties. The percentage shares are expressed from the set from which households without children at-tending primary school and those who did not respond were excluded.

32 When interpreting the responses to this question it is necessary to bear in mind the overall low number of responding households (n = 59 house-holds with children at secondary school). We are working with combined variants of responses. The original variants had the same form as with thequestion about children attending primary schools. The percentage shares are expressed from the set from which households without children at-tending secondary school and those who did not respond were excluded. In view of the low number of responses we will not analyse further theposition regarding additional education for children after finishing secondary school.

Note: The table presents the percentage representation of sums which households stated that they paid for a child or children who attended school. Inthe case that there were more children in a household, several sums corresponding to expenditures for each child were recorded.

Table 8.12Amount of expenditures of Roma households for the education of children by type of settlement (in %, average in EUR)


EUR 2 - 20 50.4 24.1 29.0 35.4

EUR 21 - 40 18.8 25.2 16.3 20.3

EUR 41 - 60 16.7 14.2 25.3 18.2

EUR 61 - 80 3.0 6.8 4.9 4.8

EUR 81 - 100 4.2 16.8 11.8 10.7

EUR 101 and more 6.9 12.9 12.7 10.6


Average sum (in EUR) 46 66 63 58

Table 8.13Average monthly sums spent by Roma households for education of children (in EUR)

Average sum (in EUR)

Standard deviation

Standard error Confidence interval (95 %)


Segregated 18.5 29.4 1.6 15.3 21.6

Separated 26.6 26.2 1.5 23.7 29.6

Diffused 25.0 30.7 1.9 21.2 28.9

Note: Testing criterion F in the ANOVA procedure had a value of 7.29 with two degrees of freedom.

households.32 Nearly half of the households (48%) stat-ed that they covered expenditures for education withgreat difficulties or with difficulties. Another 34% spokeabout “certain difficulties”. Similarly as with expendituresfor children attending primary school, in this case dif-ficulties also occurred more often in segregated set-tlements (52.6%). The lowest prevalence was recordedin households living diffused (42.9%).

Conclusions

In the part of the Roma population which at the time ofthe study no longer attended any school in the educa-tional system, low education predominated. Nearlyone-fifth of Roma (19%) ended their education withoutfinishing a standard primary school, and nearly three-fifths of them had finished standard primary school(60%). A total of 17% of the relevant Roma populationsuccessfully continued in further study at a secondaryschool. The most abundant category here was made upof individuals with finished secondary school or voca-tional school (15%) and those with finished secondaryschool with a school-leaving certificate added onlya small share (2%), similarly as with holders of a universityeducation (0.3%). The remaining nearly 5% of the sur-veyed subset attended in their preparation for a pro-fession some type of special school. Men and womenshowed certain differences in terms of degree ofachieved education. Those who did not continue on tosecondary school in their studies occurred significant-ly more often among Roma women. Differences are alsoevident in the representations of the higher degrees ofeducation: the gender difference in the share of personswith a finished secondary education was more than 9percentage points to the disadvantage of Roma women.The educational structure of the surveyed Roma womencan as a whole be evaluated as moderately lagging be-hind the educational structure of men.

Pupils from common primary schools predominat-ed (72%) among the part of the Roma populationwhich at the time of the study had not yet finished theeducational process; 15% of Roma pupils and studentsattended a special primary school and 3.6% a special class.In other words, nearly 19% of Roma children were at theprimary school level of education in a “special educationprogramme”. Among the higher levels of education, themost represented from among the Roma population stillin the school system were those attending a secondaryvocational school (5%), while secondary school with aschool-leaving certificate had half that share (2.6%).

It was shown that even school attendance is no guar-antee of literacy. In the Roma population age 16-64 yearswhich is not attending school, but which attendedschool in the past, 28.4% said that they read only withproblems or not at all; this same group also reported that33.9% had the same problems with writing. In addition,36.8% of them had a problem with at least one of the skillsconsidered as indicators of literacy. A comparison of lit-eracy in the Roma population, for all age groups, with thegeographically close general population reveals analarming disparity in the results of the educationalprocess. Special schools and classes at the primary lev-el were most often attended by Roma children from seg-regated settlements; on the other hand, among childrenfrom households living diffuse, this share only half as high.

On the basis of the study data nursery school at-tendance was significantly smaller for Roma children ver-sus children from the geographically close general pop-ulation. Some groups of children were lagging 3-4-timesbehind, as for example, in a comparison with currentpreschoolers age 3-4 years or age 5-6 years. Less than one-third of Roma children age 5-6 years attended nurseryschool, while from the general population this wasnearly four-fifths. The schooling of Roma children de-creased with a growth in spatial segregation. On thewhole, according to the study data, it’s as if the very groupof children who most need nursery school prior to en-


113

Very easily and easily

Relatively easily

With certain difficulties

With difficulties and great difficulties

Graph 8.6Structure of Roma households by ability to cover expenditures for the education of children for primaryschool and type of settlement (in %)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Roma households

Diffused

Separated

Segregated

5.0 50.335.39.5

7.9 42.9 38.111.1

6.1 37.1 46.210.6

26.87.0 64.81.4

114

One of the key and long-term problems in Slovakia in the area of education of the Roma is their excessive placement into special schoolsand special classrooms. This practice has been confirmed by many studies and non-governmental organisations. According to a study ofthe Roma Educational Fund (REF) from 2009, up to 60% of all pupils in special schools are Roma from marginalised Roma communities(MRC) and in special classes at common primary school ultimately more than 86% of all pupils come from an MRC. Secondary analysis ofdata from UNDP 2005 (Brüggemann, 2011) showed that language strongly influences the probability that a child will be assigned to a spe-cial school or a special class. For Roma children who listed Romani as their mother tongue, the risk of being assigned to this type a facili-ty is 2.9-times higher. According to the Institute of Information and Prognosis in Education (IIPE) in the 2010/2011 school year the shareof pupils from a socially disadvantaged environment (SDE) in special schools was roughly one-third of all pupils. Even though the SDE cat-egory is not completely identical with the MRC category, this data is in itself alarming.The material Strategy of the Slovak Republic for the Integration of the Roma up to 2020 states that: “The gap in the formal educational levelof Roma (especially marginalized) population compared to the majority population is tremendous....The vicious circle of social exclusionis further reinforced by the fact that Roma students from the marginalized communities often fail at the elementary schools because theyare unable to socialize in the current system of schooling (the process of socialization is too short)... or are immediately from the start ofcompulsory school attendance assigned to or shifted into the system of special schools. Those segregated in schools (or special classes)for the medical disadvantaged or mentally disabled obtain a stigma which for them with high probability means the impossibility of get-ting out of their ghettoized environment of the settlement.” (ÚSVPRK, 2012:26).Special schools are intended for pupils with health disadvantages, and these schools are divided into 11 categories by the type of healthdisadvantage. Pupils from an SDE/MRC are most often assigned to classes for students with a light degree of mental disability (variant A).The incorrect assigning of Roma children to special schools is according to non-governmental experts a complex problem which must beresolved by reform of the content and form of psychological-diagnostic tests, by institutional reform of the system of pedagogical-psy-chological consulting, prevention, but mainly the financing and functioning of the special schools themselves. A topical study of the OpenSociety Foundation (OSF, 2011) formulates in this association recommended measures aimed at the inclusiveness of education of all pupilsat schools in Slovakia.

BOX 8.1: ROMA AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS

With the tracking of children attending special schools, it is possible in a comparison of the past two decades to observe a growth ten-dency which shows the increasing frequency of this type of school has intensified significantly over the past four years.

Source: SLOVSTAT database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011.Note: Table shows total numbers of children attending special schools of various kind and of various classification. From total of 36 006 childrenin special schooling 25 112 were attending special schools and 10 894 special classrooms. In 2010 there were 3 734 intellectually gifted children(10,4 %). (For more look: http://www.uips.sk/prehlady-skol/statisticka-rocenka—-specialne-skoly).

BOX 8.2: CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL CLASSROOMS IN STANDARD SCHOOLS (1989 – 2010)

0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

31 348

30 415

29 612

29 205

29 292

29 947

29 914

29 720

29 222

29 816

30 736

30 867

32 244

32 494

32 782

30 566

31 390

31 348

34 351

35 106

35 449

36 006


try to primary school actually utilise it the least. Reasonsfor non-attendance of nursery school were a lack of fi-nances, the conviction that the child was too immaturefor nursery school, but also – particularly in segregatedenvironments – the absence of such a facility in the sur-roundings and the unwillingness of parents to senda child to a school.

With school attendance there are always associatedcertain costs for households whose amount derives fromthe number of children in the household, the type ofschool attended, its distance from the home, etc. The fi-nancial demand of items associated with compulsoryschool attendance and other forms of study strongly res-

onate among Roma households. It was shown that theaverage monthly sum of costs for education in Romahouseholds thus represented EUR 23, and the median val-ue was EUR 14. The highest average monthly expendi-tures were in separated settlements (EUR 27), the low-est in segregated settlements (EUR 19). Half of householdswith children at primary school stated in the survey thatthey are capable of covering the expenditures for the ed-ucation of their children only with difficulties or with greatdifficulties. The highest share of households with suchproblems came from segregated settlements, where upto 65% of households said that they experienced suchdifficulties or great difficulties.


115

According to the study Data on Human Rights of Roma Women from 2009 many Roma men, but more often women, from non-integratedcommunities perceive their own lack of education early departure from the educational system or lack of own studiousness and supportof the surroundings with learning as the main barrier to realising their lifelong dreams. They touched upon two aspects in particular – alack of education and their own lack of effort during their school years, but also the lack of help and support in learning.Men mentioned among the barriers to achieving their life’s goals a lack of education (“I’m not educated”, “I didn’t achieve a higher educa-tion”, “unfinished school”, “I didn’t finish school”, “I didn’t have finished schooling”, “I didn’t go to school much”); as well as their own failure at study-ing (“I was lackadaisical, I don’t have schooling”, “I didn’t want to study”, “I didn’t want to learn”, “I didn’t study”, “I was lazy”, “ bad work at school”“,“poor marks”, “I studied badly”, “not much ability”, “I wasn’t up for it”, “truancy”, “with me – lack of perseverance, irresponsibility in schools”). Thiswas equally the case with Roma women – they commented on their dislike of learning during school attendance with the words: “I hungaround, didn’t do school”, “education, my laziness”, “I didn’t want to study”, “I didn’t study”, “I didn’t learn well”, “ laziness and stupidity”, “ poor schoolresults”, “I studied badly”, “I should have studied better”, “I was stupid - I didn’t go to school”, “I didn’t try”.Some Roma women and men pointed out the lack of help and support with learning: “I didn’t have anyone to advise me”, “I didn’t under-stand the teaching, they didn’t help me at home”, “perhaps because I did so little, but I also didn’t have much support at home”, “because no oneat school supported me and woke me up, so I left school”. (Data..., 2009: 59-60).

BOX 8.3: DEFICITS IN EDUCATION AS A BARRIER TO REALISING DREAMS

According to the study Data on Human Rights of Roma Women from 2009, the share of Roma residents from non-integrated communities,who in their memories of primary school provided some negative experience or problem, was 43% of the surveyed set. The prevalenceof negative experiences and situations related to primary school rather differed depending on the degree of education achieved: from thosewith special school and unfinished primary school about half and more mentioned negative situations from school (nearly 70% of men),and in the upper degrees of education this was significantly less. The negative facts and experiences given were relatively mixed.Some respondents pointed out the poor accessibility of the school; it mattered to them getting up for school or travelling, or the too-longschool-time: “commuting to school”, “the daily commute”, “transport”, “the afternoon learning”, “the long-lasting learning”, “travelling, I often caughtcold”, “I had to get up in the morning”, “it was not possible to commute regularly”, “pretty far away”, “mama saw us off to school part of the wayand then we crossed through the forest on foot... ”.A large portion of the surveyed Roma men and women recalled their classmates negatively (all or individuals); most often this involvedname-calling and mocking (also based on ethnic differences), which sometimes grew into meaningful conflicts (with boys getting in fights).A number of Roma women and men met directly with discrimination or unequal treatment at primary school: “the racism”, “the racist at-tacks”, “derogation of the Roma”, “the teachers had innuendo for Roma, they did not handle it well”, “they treated us differently”, “they threw usall into one pocket”, “prejudices”, “discrimination”, “racism, namely that we didn’t have school supplies, because our younger siblings took them”,“they made distinctions between Roma – non-Roma”, etc.Experiences with segregated practices were not unique: “classmates - they didn’t want to sit with me”, “the whites didn’t want to sit with me”, “Isat in the last seat”, “we always sat in the back and the white kids wouldn’t sit with us”, “we Roma children sat in the corner, away from the others.”The cited study included to the last group of barriers and problems at primary school: language barriers (“I couldn’t speak Slovak”), bar-riers consisting of methodological approaches and dictates (“I didn’t understand what they wanted from me”), unequal chance follow-ing from a lack of abilities of a family to learn with children and support them in studying (“no one explained to me things I didn’t un-derstand”, “I missed a lot and I didn’t know how to catch up”, “I had no one to help me”“), but also barriers consisting of the family and itssocial situation (Data..., 2009: 76-80).

BOX 8.4: STATEMENTS OF ROMA WOMEN AND MEN REGARDING PROBLEMS AT PRIMARY SCHOOL

In general, integration into the labour market and thequality of such integration is considered as the first andmost important prerequisite for prevention of poverty.Employment, or broader participation, and the qualityof activities in the scope of paid work are a fundamen-tal source of the income needed for a household to avoidmaterial or another form of deprivation and exclusion.Conversely, insufficient work opportunities, both qual-itative and quantitative, increase the probability ofa household and its members falling into the risk of pover-ty. Perhaps all studies of Roma households from recentyears have come to the same conclusion: they point outthe weak and insufficient opportunities for employmentfor people of Roma nationality caused primarily by lowqualifications and discrimination, which is perceived asthe main reason for poverty and exclusion (At Risk..., 2005;Poverty..., 2002; Data on..., 2009; De Laat et al., 2009; EK,2005, 2011; Ivanov – Trusaliev, 2006; Mušinka, 2004; Re-venga et al., 2006; Ringold, 2004; Vašečka (ed.), 2002;UNDP, 2002, 2006).

In the study of the living conditions of Roma house-holds several dimensions and indicators from the fieldof relation to the labour market were monitored. The fol-lowing chapter presents them in order from the most

general and subjective to the more specific and more ob-jective. Some captured the current situation at the timeof the study; others tracked the entire “adult” work his-tory of the respondents. The majority of the indicatorsused testify about the population age 15 years and old-er; however, with some a specifically narrower age intervalis used. Aside from a basic description of the situationfor the field of employment of the studied Roma popu-lation, the analysis also tracked the mutual associationsbetween the individual measures of employment or un-employment as well as possible reasons for the existingunfavourable state and the consequences on the eco-nomic situation of households.

9.1. Declared economic activitiesand employment

According to the above-mentioned studies, relations tothe labour market can be determined in different ways.Each features positive sides and also has its disadvantages.Therefore, a combination of several indicators seems tobe the best starting point. Thus, the simplest and broad-est is the self-classification of respondents on the basicof economic status.

9.1.1. Structure of the Roma populationage 15+ years by economic status

With a look at the declared economic status for the Romaset age 15 years and older, this study also showed that thelargest representation was in the unemployed (Graph 9.1).A total of 54.3% of the surveyed individuals were iden-tified as having such a position on the labour market. Theoverall representation of those working, thus far withoutregard to the type of work activity, was approximately one-tenth (9.9%). This means that on the basis of subjectivedeclaration a total of 64.2% of the surveyed Roma set age15+ years are included in the labour force, while the re-maining 35.8% gave a status of economic inactivity – theywere outside the labour market.

Among the economically inactive the most nu-merous category was made up persons on maternity orparental leave, with 10.9%, followed by old-age pen-sioners with 8.3%. The share of disability pensioners was5.2% of the surveyed Roma population age 15 years andolder; 6.9% were still studying at secondary school or uni-versity; the remaining portion was made up of personsin the household (2%), or possibly another status, such 117

09 Exclusion from the labour market

Graph 9.1Structure of the Roma population age 15+ yearsby economic status (in %)

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

9.9

6.9

54.3

10.9

8.3

2.0

5.2

2.3

Pupils, students

Working

Unemployed

At home

Parental or maternity leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension


118


as caring for a household member, long-term work dis-ability, or serving a jail sentence and the like (2.3%).

In comparison with the year 2005 certain differencesappeared in declared economic status, but they were sosmall that they cannot be definitively evaluated as sta-tistically significant (Graph 9.2). First of all, the relative pro-portion of those working and those unemployed changedmoderately: in 2010 more Roma age 15 years and olderdeclared themselves to be working (by 2.8%) and feweras unemployed (by approximately 3%) than in 2005. Thosestudying at secondary school and university recorded adrop (a decline of 2.4%) as did persons on maternity orparental leave (by 1.3%). In contrast, in comparison withfive years ago, there was modest growth in those who de-clared themselves as being at home (by 1%), and the shareof those with another economic status increased (by 1.8%).The proportion of pensioners, both old-age and disabil-ity, remained approximately the same (8% old-age andabout 5% disability pensioners).

As can be seen, overall and in the course of the lastfive years, such small differences are involved that it is dif-

ficult to assess them as any kind of shift in a hopeful orunfavourable direction. In relation to a social programmeimplemented for the purpose of supporting the inclusionof the Roma, growth in the share of working Roma, for ex-ample, would speak to their being a favourable impact,but it remains questionable whether the quality of em-ployment or work performed also increased; a moderatedecline of employment would also speak about the de-sired development, but they could also have shifted tostatuses of economic inactivity (for example, be includ-ed among persons at home1 or another position), not di-rectly among the working; in the context of an “aging“trend of the Roma child population and growth in the cat-egory of pupils and students found in the total popula-tion (see Graph 3.10), a very unfavourable decline in thosestudying at the age of 15 years and more would appearin relation to the implemented programmes for supportof education. It would be possible to mention more sim-ilar examples, but the small range of changes found, how-ever, leaves them in the realm of hypothesis. However, therecorded difference and the type of research data are not

Graph 9.2Structure of the Roma population 15+ years by economic status – comparison with 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home

Parental or maternal leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other (including OCD)

6.99.3

57.4

7.19.9

54.3

1.02.0

10.912.2

8.08.3

4.55.2

2.30.5


2005

2010

1 Here it is necessary to observe that the growth in the number and the share of persons at home in 2010 was also shown in the overall statistics forthe Slovak labour market (see Boxes 9.1 and 9.3). As an analysis of labour statistics indicates, in the crisis years of 2009 and 2010 employment in Slo-vakia worsened, compared with 2008 the number working dropped and the number of unemployed increased, the quality of work also worsenedexpressed by the growth of seasonal labour and underemployment, that is, the involuntary shortening of the work-load, etc. (Filadelfiová, 2010b;Filadelfiová – Bútorová, 2011). With a comparison of year 2010 with 2005, which is the case of this comparison, trends indicated for the Roma part ofthe population are in accordance with the overall development for the Slovak Republic. And according to the overall statistics the number workingmoderately increased and the unemployed decreased, the number of persons at home increased, and in contrast from the preceding, the numberof people on work disability due to illness grew significantly. The one trend which appears differently than for the entire Slovak population and differentfor the surveyed Roma population age 15+ years was recorded, unfortunately, for the category of those studying. While for Slovakia as a whole thenumber of men and mainly women studying grew, for the surveyed Roma population a drop occurred in this group, and did so despite the volumi-nous growth in this very type of the youngest age group.

sufficient for coming to conclusions of this type. Overall,it’s more possible, upon comparison with the state fiveyears ago in terms of economic standing, to evaluate thesituation in 2010 as principally unchanged; which, how-ever, given the number of programmes implemented tar-geted on support for employment or education of theRoma does not appear very favourably. Data would tes-tify more about their minimal or no effect in the studiedenvironment.

The study data on the declared economic activities sig-nalled a certain association between connection to workactivities and segregation on the basis of settlement type(Table 9.1). In the segregated part of the Roma populationthe share working was lower (only 7%), which was near-ly half as much as for the Roma population living diffused(which reached 13.4%) and 3% less than those living sep-arated (9.6%). In relation to the quantitative range of de-clared unemployed, this differed less among individualRoma environments – and was high also for Roma livingdiffused. In segregated environments the unemployed onthe basis of self-reporting made up 56.6%; in separated53.5% and among those living diffused 52.8% (a differenceof not quite just 4% versus segregated). Differences be-tween the three subsets of Roma population were alsofound for other economic positions. Roma living segre-gated had in comparison with the other two environmentsfewer old-age pensioners (6.5% versus 10.2% for separatedand 8.2 for diffused) and a higher share of persons at home(3.7% versus 0.9% for separated and 1.6% for diffused).

According to the declared economic status of theRoma population age 15+ years and the structure for theeconomic activity as a whole it seems as if the chancesto become employed, to find work, in segregated envi-ronments is the smallest. The proportion of working and

unemployed for the aggregate of economically active per-sons confirms this in more relief. Within segregated set-tlements the share of working to unemployed was11.1% to 88.9%; in separated environments this was15.3% to 84.7%; for the group of diffused 20.3% versus79.7%. Meanwhile, only every tenth individual from alleconomically active persons in segregated Roma com-munities reported themselves as working, and amongthose living diffused this was every fifth person. But theproportion of unemployed on the labour force is veryhigh even for Roma living diffused (nearly 80%). In com-parison with the geographically close general popula-tion the proportion of working and unemployed wascompletely different – 85.9% working to 14.1% unem-ployed. Despite the same geographic environment, thechances of being unemployed is many times higher forRoma than for the general population. And living in seg-regated settlements reduces the chances even further.

The three compared Roma environments differed indeclared economic statuses also upon monitoringwomen over the course of five years. As Graph 9.3 indi-cates, the greatest shift in the structure of positions de-fined in relation to the labour market occurred in thoseliving in segregated communities. The drop in the sharestudying was most striking in segregated (and then sep-arated) settlements, where it reached nearly 4%; moresignificantly than in other environments was that the rep-resentation here of persons drawing freely for the careof children showed a decline,2 together with those liv-ing diffused this environment also recorded a drop in de-clared unemployment. And then with some economicpositions in segregated environments growth was evi-dent? Aside from the partial increase in the share of thoseworking (by approximately 3%; in diffused settlements


119


Table 9.1Structure of Roma population age 15+ years by economic status and type of housing (in %)


Students 6.5 8.6 5.6 6.9

Working 7.0 9.6 13.4 9.9

Unemployed 56.6 53.5 52.8 54.3

At home 3.7 0.9 1.6 2.0

Parental, maternal leave 11.4 10.4 11.0 10.9

Old-age pension 6.5 10.2 8.2 8.3

Disability pension 5.6 4.4 5.6 5.2

Other (including OČD) 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.3


Share of working for economically active 11.1 15.3 20.3 15.6

Share of unemployed for economically active 88.9 84.7 79.7 84.4

Total economically active (working + unemployed) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 The study data, however, is not sufficient for a complete response to the questions, because this is a consequence of a drop in the birth-rate and be-cause it is accompanied by possible loss of the claim to a parental social benefit.

120


Graph 9.3Roma population age 15+ years by economic status and type of settlement – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Student

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


Student

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


Student

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


Diff

used

Sepa

rate

dSe

greg

ated

10.36.5

3.87.0

60.456.6

0.93.7

14.811.4

6.55.7

3.65.6

2.50.5

10.28.6

8.89.6

55.153.5

11.810.4

8.4

0.5

10.2

8.2

56.652.8

13.4

1.61.2

11.010.0

10.08.2

5.65.3

1.91.2

5.67.5

2.5

0.90.9

4.34.4


2005

2010

this was increased by 5%) here was multiple-timesgrowth in the share of persons at home (up to 3.7% ofall those surveyed age 15+ years), and in the overall struc-ture of segregated settlements the proportion of disabilitypensioners and other economic statuses expandedmoderately (each by approximately 2%).

Results indicate that it’s as if upon comparisons withthe situation five years ago, change occurred most in seg-regated Roma communities, and involved predomi-nately an unfavourable change (a relatively sharp dropin those studying and growth in persons at home, on adisability pension and other statuses). The one favourabletrend consisted in a strengthening of those working andin a small share of unemployed, however, this could beonly seemingly favourable, it does not have to correspondin the end with a shift from unemployed to working andit says nothing about the quality of the work defined byjob security and social protection (see the following sec-tion). Also, even after growth, the share working in thisenvironment is still very low– only 7%.

Whether such a structure of economic activity is theregional standard can be addressed by a comparison ofthe average values for the selected three types of Romacommunities with the geographically close generalpopulation (Graph 9.4). The share of declared workingand unemployed obtained for both groups was com-pletely reversed: while for the surveyed Roma popula-tion the results showed 9.9% working to 54.3% unem-ployed, in the case of the geographically close general

population this was 44.7% working to 7.4% unem-ployed. Thus, despite the approximately equal conditionsin the external environment, the resultant method of con-necting to the labour market for the compared sets is di-ametrically different. Overall, more surveyed residents ofthe Roma communities (up to 64.2%) were placed in thelabour force (i.e. among the economically active – work-ing and unemployed together) than residents of the ge-ographically close general population (52.1%). While near-ly every other person from the general population waseconomically inactive, among residents of Roma com-munities this was only every third person.

A gigantic difference was also found for the catego-ry of old-age pensioners: in the Roma population theymade up only 8.3%, but for the geographically close gen-eral population this was 29.3%. On the other hand, in thesurveyed Roma population there was again more indi-viduals on maternal or parental leave – by 7.2% (10.9% ofthem drew parental leave for care of a child versus 3.7%from the general population), as well as persons at home(2% versus 0.5%).Those studying had a higher represen-tation in the geographically close general population (9.1%to 69%), despite the incomparable higher share of theyoungest age group in the Roma communities. Disabili-ty pensioners moderately predominated on the side of res-idents of Roma communities (5.2% to 4.3%). Despite thegeographically nearness, the structure by declared eco-nomic status was determined for the Roma and the gen-eral populations was found to be markedly different.


121

Graph 9.4Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with geographically closegeneral population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


9.16.9

9.944.7

54.3

2

7.4

0.5

3.710.9

8.329.3

5.24.3

1.12.3


Roma population age 15+

Geographically close general population age 15+

122


9.1.2. Differences in declared economicactivities of Roma men and women

As many studies from the last decade have document-ed, Slovak society as a whole has long displayed a greatgender difference according to position on the labourmarket (for the whole context, see boxes 9.1 and 9.3; formore details, see: Filadelfiová, 2002, 2007; 2010a; Hol-ubová, 2009, 2010; Tieňová..., 2008; Monitorovacia...,2011). And as empirical data from this study has con-firmed, the Roma population is not in this regard an ex-ception. More the opposite – the differences between theindividual types of economic (in)activity of women andmen are still much deeper among the Roma (Graph 9.5).

From a relative comparison of Roma men andwomen by declared economic activity significant dif-ferences arise, which are related to economic activity, aswell as some statuses of economic inactivity. The shareof Roma men working was more than two-times high-er than with Roma women. From the surveyed Romawomen age 15+ years only 6.1% were identified as work-ing, and from Roma men this was 13.8%. In the subsetof Roma men the representation of unemployed was alsostronger namely by nearly 20% (62.8% versus 45.9% forRoma women). On the other hand, there were in com-parison with Roma men significantly more Roma womenoutside the labour market – economically active. Women

had a higher representation of old-age pensioners (onaverage 10.6% women to 6.1% men), at home (4%women to 0.1% men) and on maternity and parentalleave (up to 20.1% of Roma women and only 1.5% ofRoma men). The share studying was moderately higheron the side of men (7.4% to 6.5% women); equally alsothe share of disability pensioners (6.4% to 4% women).A few more women declared another economic status(2.8% women and 1.8% men).

Roma women are thus incomparably more oftenthan men on parental leave and at home and less areworking as well as unemployed. In all 76.6% of Roma menwere considered as economically active (i. e. working andunemployed together), and this was only 52% of Romawomen (for context for the entire Slovak Republic, seemore box 9.3). On average every other Roma woman iseconomically active while from Roma men three out ofevery four were economically active.

But as Graph 9.6 also shows, gender differences in eco-nomic activities show similar tendencies for the geo-graphically close general population; however, they hada significantly smaller range. The geographically close gen-eral population showed the largest gender disproportionin the share of those working, which was 54.1% for menand only 36.1% for women.3 With the unemployed the dis-proportion was only small and to the disadvantage of men(8.4% of unemployed men to 6.4% of unemployed

Graph 9.5Comparison of Roma men and women age 15+ by economic status (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


6.57.4

62.8

13.86.1

45.9

0.14.0

20.11.5

6.110.6

6.44.0

2.81.8


Roma men 15+

Roma women 15+

3 Although it is not possible to compare the statistical data from Slovakia presented in box 9.1 with this study directly, since it involves different method-ological approaches, in terms of context, a significant lagging behind the results for all of Slovakia is evident in them in the economic activities of thegeneral population living in close proximity to Roma communities. This is probably a consequence of the older age structure of the population liv-ing in the geographic proximity of Roma communities as opposed to the average for Slovakia.

women). In the overall structure on the basis of econom-ic activity women living in the geographically close prox-imity to Roma communities had significantly more old-agepensioners than men (35.3% to 22.7%), which corre-sponds with the overall trend showing the feminisation ofold age and the different conditions for a claim on a pen-sion in the case of men and women in Slovakia, which hasbeen gradually changing since 2004 (see Box 9.1). And fi-

nally, significantly more women than men in the geo-graphically close general population were also on parentalleave – 6.8% to 0.2%. Drawing leave for the care of a childis therefore in both groups living in close proximity almostexclusively an experience for women.

The total share of economically active persons (i. e.working and unemployed together) for the geograph-ically close general population showed a large gender


123

Graph 9.6Comparison of men and women age 15+ years for the geographically close general population by economicstatus (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


8.010.3

54.1

8.46.4

36.1

00.9

6.80.2

22.735.3

3.94.7

1.80.2


Men age 15+

Women age 15+

Graph 9.7Roma men age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with the geographically close general populationof men (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


10.37.4

54.1

8.462.8

13.8

00.1

1.50.2

22.76.1

3.96.4

1.80.2


Roma men age 15+

Men age 15+

124


difference in part (62.5% of economically active men to42.5% of women), but also a lagging behind the level ofeconomic activity of the Roma population (in the caseof men by 14.1% and in the case of women by 9.5%). Inthe Roma population the share of economically activeis well higher – for men and women.

Differences in the declared economic status arerecorded also with comparisons of Roma men andwomen individually, with men and women for the ge-ographically close general population. From a compar-ison of men from the Roma and the general population(Graph 9.7) the largest differences appear in the categoryof working, unemployed and pensioners. While only13.8% of Roma men were reported working, for men fromthe general population this was 54.1%; unemployed menwas in the Roma population 62.8%, while only 8.4% ofmen from the geographically close general population.Together 76.6% of Roma men and 62.5% of men from thegeographically close general population were recordedas being economically active, which means a higherlabour potential on the side of Roma men; in men fromthe geographically close general population the labourforce was reduced primarily by the departure to old-ageretirement. Old-age pensioners had in the general pop-ulation of men a 22.7-percent share, while among Romathey made up only 6.1%. With parental leave, disabilitypensions and other economic status the prevalence washigher on the side of Roma men, the share studying wasin contrast behind men from the general population.

The potential for work activities was clearly and sig-nificantly higher on the side of Roma men versus men

from the geographic proximity, but a large part of it re-mained unused – they end up largely as unemployed. Italso seems as if the economic status of the general pop-ulation was for men more uniform, less heterogeneous.They work or are on an old-age pension or are preparingfor a profession. Only a small part was unemployed andon a disability pension; the other economic statuses hard-ly apply as they were more isolated cases. The structureof Roma men is strikingly different – unemployment dom-inates and only a small part or working or preparing fora profession; only a small portion is on old-age pension,and the rest is distributed throughout all of the remain-ing position in relation to the labour market.

The structure of women from Roma communitiesand women from the geographically close proximity alsodiffered significantly in terms of declared economic ac-tivity (Graph 9.8). A higher potential for economic activitywas also found on the side of Roma women, althoughfor both groups of women this was significantly small-er in comparison with men and with a smaller propor-tional difference. A total of 52% of Roma womenand 42.5% of women from the geographically close gen-eral population were considered to be in the labour force;however for Roma women this remained largely unused.The share of unemployed to working was for Romawomen 45.9% to 6.1%, and in the case of women fromthe geographically close general population this was 6.4%unemployed to 36.1% working.

Approximately half of Roma women and nearly 60%of women from the general population were outside ofeconomic activity. The differences were recorded with ma-

Graph 9.8Roma women age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with the geographically close general popula-tion of women (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


8.06.5

36.1

6.445.9

6.1

0.94.0

20.16.8

35.310.6

4.74.0

2.81.8


Roma women age 15+

Women age 15+

ternity and parental leave and with women at home, ofwhich there were more from among Roma women. Some20.1% or surveyed Roma women age 15+ years were onparental leave, while among women from the geo-graphically close surroundings this was approximatelyone-third as much (6.8%); 4% of Roma were recorded asbeing at home and not quite 1% of women from the near-by surroundings. Obviously, the determined status fol-lowed in great measure from the age structure and thedeparture of women to old-age retirement: the share ofold-age pensioners among the general population wasmore than three-times higher than with Roma women.Equally as in the case of men, the number of women age15+ years studying was also higher in the general pop-ulation. Disability pensioners were also moderatelymore prevalent in women from the general population,while another economic status again occurred more of-ten in Roma women.

As was shown, aside from the fact that many womenare outside the realm of economically active on thelabour market (they are pensioners or are providinghome care), it’s not possible even to use those women whoare active on labour force. This applies for both comparedgroups, but especially for Roma women. In a situation whenless than one-fifth of Roma men making up the labour forceand approximately one-tenth of the female work force areactive on the labour market and such a state is long-term,it’s possible to speak about wasting existing labour potential

(regarding reasons and the specifics of unemployment seethe following section below).

Similarly as for the entire Roma population age 15and more years, upon tracking the subset of Roma menand women individually it was found that that the typeof habitation moderately interferes in the level ofwork activity in both groups of sexes. Only 12.1% of menfrom segregated settlements were ranked among theworking (12.4% from separated), from those livingdiffused this was 17.3% (Graph 9.9). Working womenformed in the segregated subset only a minimal 2.5%,and among women from separated settlements this was6.2% and from women living diffused 9.8% (Graph 9.10).Thus, not quite 3% of surveyed Roma women age 15+years living in segregated settlements had the statusworking, while among Roma women living diffused thiswas nearly one-tenth. Although the “labour” result ofmen and women is very, very low in all three comparedRoma settlement types, it appears as if opportunitiesfor work for Roma men and women living diffused wereonly moderately increased.

In relation to the other economic positions ofRoma men, the data signalled a higher share of un-employed in segregated environments (68% versus 60%for diffused), from the economically inactive statusesfewer old-age pensioners in comparison with the oth-er two types of settlements (not quite 4% versus 8%and 6%), and fewer disability pensioners – equally as


125

Graph 9.9Roma men age 15+ by economic status and type of settlement (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


9.87.0

60.160.8

5.112.112.4

17.3

0.300

67.7

3.8

1.32.1

1.2

8.55.7

4.98.6

5.9

2.12.3

1.2


Segregated

Separated

Diffused

126


with men living separated and different from men liv-ing diffused (5% and 6% versus 9% from diffusedpopulations). The shares of the remaining economic sta-tuses (at home, on parental leave and another position)were only minimally and moderately higher in the caseof separated or segregated men.

Unlike with men, the mutual differences on the ba-sis of settlement type were less significant for the sur-veyed Roma women, aside from the above-mentioneddisproportion in the representation of working women.The share of unemployed was for all three compared en-vironments of Roma women approximately equal (46%),similarly as with the share of women on parental or ma-ternity leave (around 20%), and the so-called other sta-tuses (to 3%) and women studying (6 to 7%). Where a cer-tain difference did appear, this was in pensioners andwomen at home. Old-age pensioners were the leastamong women in segregated settlements, and on theother hand this group of Roma women recorded thehighest share of disability pensioners as well as the high-est representation of women at home.

Despite the fact that gender differences from theviewpoint of economic standing are common on theSlovak labour market (see Box 9.1 to 9.3), in Roma en-vironments this is even more exponential, and is also

so in comparison with women from the geographical-ly close general population. Furthermore, spatial seg-regation also contributes to further deepening of suchdifferences. In segregated environments Roma womenhardly ever become involved in labour activities (ac-cording to this study, on the basis of self-reporting, noteven 3%); they more often remain at home or are ona disability pension. Aside from general factors,4 herethe stronger influence of cultural norms and expecta-tions related to the role of men and women in a fami-ly and in society could be at work (see Box 9.4); in thecase of an increase in the prevalence of disability pen-sioners (including a lower share of old-age pensioners)the data can show the more negative impacts of thepoor quality of life in segregated settlements on thehealth of Roma women from this environment.

9.1.3. Work activities of the Roma populationby type and economic activity in total

As is presented at the start of this chapter (Graph 9.1), thegroup working was for the studied Roma population age15 years and more very small, only 9.9% of the total set.With a closer look at the type of work performed, full-time

Graph 9.10Roma women age 15+ by economic status and type of settlement (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home


Old-age pension

Disability pension


7.46.0

45.745.8

6.02.5

6.29.8

6.81.9

3.2

46.3

9.0

20.019.6

21.0

12.110.6

3.82.6

5.4

3.02.82.6


Segregated

Separated

Difffused

4 For example, demographically (higher fertility, higher and earlier mortality of women and men, lower life expectancy), health (worse health status,higher sickness rate) and work (fewer job opportunities, unqualified work force).

employment predominated with 6.8%, followed by so-called other types of work defined as temporary or sea-sonal work with 1.8%; other types of work activities hadonly a minimal occurrence – self-employed and entre-preneurs 0.8% and part-time employment 0.5%. Incomparison with the geographically close general pop-ulation, despite the significantly lower overall share ofworking individuals (9.9% versus 44.7%), the Roma hadmore representation of the so-called other types of workactivities, that is temporary and irregular work. These ac-counted for 1.8% in the Roma population and only 0.5%of the general population. Thus, from this dispropor-tionately smaller group of working individuals, non-stan-dard types of work are taken away in the case of the Romaset. At the same time this could involve jobs which donot have integrated the foundation pillars of work andsocial protection, like, for example, casual work, seasonalwork, underemployment, forced self-employment (Kalle-berg, 2009; van Berkel – Moller, 2002).

The type of work activities of the Roma populationdiffered not only from the geographically close generalpopulation, but also again with the community on thebasis of type of settlement (Table 9.2). While in the group

of those living segregated those with classic full-timeemployment had only a 3.8-percent share, in those liv-ing diffused this share was 10.2%. In the calculations forall of those working in the given group this meant thatof all working Roma living diffused more than 75% hadfull-time work, of all of those working from segregat-ed settlements not quite 70%, and of those working wholived in segregated settlements the share with full-timework was just over half (54%). Spatial segregationthus lowers not only the general availability of work, butalso influences the accessibility of standard work,which in Slovakia always represents full-time work (forcontext see Box 9.2).

We pass now to a summary look at the economic ac-tivities on the basis of self-classification. And from this per-spective the empirical data repeatedly confirmed themoderately more favourable structure of that part of theRoma population which is spatially integrated. The relativeproportion of economically active and inactive hereturned out to be most favourable (66.2% active to 33.8%inactive); the unemployed made up a smaller share of theeconomically active in this group than for the two non-in-tegrated groups (52.8%), and among those working there


127

Graph 9.11The structure of the working Roma population age 15+ by type of work activity – comparison with the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Self-employed, entrepreneur

Full-time employment

Part-time employment

Other economic activities

6.8

5.90.8

36.9

0.51.6

1.80.5

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?Note: Only the group working (9.9% of the total Roma set and 44.7% of the general population age 15 + years).


Geographically close generalpopulation age 15+

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Table 9.2Declared economic activities of the Roma population age 15+ years by type and type of settlement (in %)


Trade licence, entrepreneur 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.8

Full-time employment 3.8 6.6 10.2 6.8

Part-time employment 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.5

Other work activities 2.1 0.9 2.5 1.8

Share of those working total 7.0 9.6 13.4 9.9

Unemployed 56.6 53.5 52.8 54.3

Share of economically active total 63.6 63.1 66.2 64.2

Economically inactive 36.4 36.9 33.8 35.8


128


were more with full-time employment (10.2% employedfull-time of 13.4% working). Compared to them, Roma fromsegregated and separated settlements had a worse rela-tive proportion between the economically active and in-active (moderately more inactive); for the entire labour forcethe unemployed shared a larger volume, and the result-ant small group of those working in non-integrated envi-ronments was distinguished by higher incidence of non-standard forms of work.

A comparison of the aggregate of economic activ-ity of the surveyed Roma with the geographically closegeneral population showed a different composition.While the share of economically active (i.e. working andunemployed together) in the Roma population age 15years and more was 64.2%, for the set representing thegeographically close proximity this was only 52.1%.5 Therest then fell to the economically inactive: for the Romapopulation not quite 36% and for the general nearly 48%.Of the total share of economically active Roma, however,the unemployed, who represented 54.3% of the entireRoma population age 15+ years, dominated to a deci-sive measure, while they made up only 7.4% of the ge-ographically close general population. Disqualificationfrom the labour market is thus literally enormous in theRoma population.

9.1.4. Comparison of declared economicactivities by age and education

It is obvious that biological age intervenes significant-ly in the economic activities in general, since several sta-tuses are directly tied to a certain age group. Thus, for ex-ample the status studying is on one side of the age in-terval and old-age pensioners on the other, or possiblymaternity or parental leave tied to the age of fertility. Theview through individual age groups, however, can bringuseful information also for the category of working or un-employed, not only for people outside of the labour mar-ket. Table 9.3 presents a reduced 6 structure of individ-ual age groups on the basis of economic activity for se-lected subset of the surveyed individuals.

The most homogeneous structure in relation to eco-nomic activity naturally was in the group of children ofpre-reproductive age (to 14 years); however, accordingto the empirical data it was not fully homogeneous. Un-like children from the geographically close generalpopulation, nearly 1% of Roma children were declaredas being disabled or ill. Because this involved childrenage 6-14-years, that is, at the age of compulsory schoolattendance, but parents did not list them as pupils, thiscould signify that a portion of children from the health

5 The measure of economic activity for the Slovak Republic moved somewhere in the middle – on the edge of 58% in the year 2010 (for more seeBoxes 9.1 and 9.3).

6 For a simpler view several statuses were excluded: children before primary school, pupils and students are in one category; all types of work activi-ties were combined; likewise old-age pensioners, invalids and the ill; under the category “at home” are persons at home, on maternity or parental leaveand those caring for a member of the household.

Graph 9.12Economic activities of the Roma population age 15+ years by type – comparison with the geographically closegeneral population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70





Share of those working total

Unemployed

Share of economically active

Economically inactive

5.90.8

0.51.6

6.836.9

0.51.8

9.9

54.3

64.252.1

47.935.8

44.7

7.4

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Roma population age 15+ Geographically close general population age 15+

disabled or seriously ill remain genuinely outside the ed-ucational system. Verification through responses tothe question about education confirmed that childrenso assigned to school not only didn’t attend school now,but even in the past, and that parents as a reason for notattending school gave illness or health disablement ofthe child. From the viewpoint of type of settlement no

differences are evident – the share of such classified chil-dren was in all three Roma environments equal; the factthat among them were slightly more boys than girlscould be a coincidence.

Although it does not involve large numbers,7 we stillconsider it necessary to emphasise this, so that this seg-ment of the children’s population is not forgotten in pro-


129

Table 9.3Declared economic activities of the Roma population by age groups – comparison of subsets and with the ge-ographically close general population (in %)

0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+Segregated

Children and studying 99.3 23.5 — — — —

Working — 3.6 9.0 11.8 5.7 4.3

Pensioners and the ill 0.7 1.5 4.0 2.2 14.3 81.4

At home — 18.3 26.9 13.2 15.2 1.4

Unemployed — 53.1 60.2 72.8 64.8 12.9

Separated


Working — 6.8 9.2 15.2 16.2 1.0


At home — 15.1 25.2 12.1 8.6 1.0

Unemployed — 46.6 64.4 67.2 61.9 21.0

Diffused


Working — 13.8 13.5 15.6 17.2 1.4


At home — 23.0 20.6 7.8 8.2 1.4

Unemployed — 40.7 62.7 71.6 56.6 19.7


Children and studying 100.0 61.9 3.2 — — —

Working — 19.5 70.1 73.8 74.8 16.5

Pensioners and the ill — 5.1 2.6 6.2 8.6 81.6

At home — 4.2 14.3 6.9 5.8 0.3

Unemployed — 9.3 9.7 13.1 10.8 1.6

Roma population total


Working — 8.0 10.4 14.3 13.3 2.0


At home — 18.7 24.5 11.1 10.5 1.2

Unemployed — 46.8 62.2 70.4 60.8 18.3

Roma women


Working — 5.2 5.1 9.1 10.2 —


At home — 34.1 44.3 19.2 17.5 1.5

Unemployed — 36.1 48.6 68.0 58.4 11.4

Roma men


Working — 10.9 14.9 19.3 16.3 4.4


At home — 3.0 5.4 3.1 3.6 0.9

Unemployed — 57.6 75.9 72.7 63.2 26.3

Explanation of categories: Children and studying = children, pupils and students; Working = self-employed and entrepreneurs, full- and part-time em-ployed and other work activities; Pensioners and the ill = old-age pensioners, disability pensioners and the ill; At home = persons in the household, onmaternity and parental leave and caring for a household member; Unemployed = unemployed.Note: The age group for individual subsets together adds up to 100%.

grammes and policies. For the quality of their life and equal-ly even to the question about to what extent the familybackground and immediate environment of these childrenis capable (economically and from the viewpoint of skillsneeded) of providing them with adequate care for theiroverall spiritual and physical development, and whetherfrom the side of institutions this does not involve the vio-lation of their fundamental human (children‘s) rights, in-cluding the rights of children to an education.

The second youngest age group (15-24 years), un-like the more or less homogeneous children, appearedas more heterogeneous – all of the monitored economicstatuses were represented in it. In the case of the Romapopulation age 15-24 years approximately one-quarterwere classified among those studying, 8% were working,the share of ill and disabled in them increased to 2%, near-ly 19% of them provided care at home, but the most wereunemployed (46.8%). So that among those age 15-24years the unemployed made up nearly half of the Romapopulation. And as was further shown, the structure ofthis youngest part of the productive Roma populationdiffered significantly from the geographically close gen-eral population and differed also within the communi-ty on the basis of type of settlement and sex.

In comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation there was among Roma respondents age 15-24 years only about two-fifths as many studying (only24.5% versus 61.9% from the same age group of the gen-eral population) and two-fifths less working (8% versus19.5%); on the other hand in the Roma subgroup personsproviding care at home had a significantly higher rep-resentation (18.7% to 4.2%) as did the unemployed(46.8% to 9.3%). Young people age 15-24 years in the caseof the Roma population had significantly fewer studyingor working than in their “general” peers from the im-mediate surroundings; more often they cared for the fam-ily and significantly more often were unemployed.

A significant difference also appeared in the struc-ture of young Roma men and women. Already from the15-24 years age group more Roma men than womenwere working (10.9% to 5.2%) and unemployed (57.6%to 36.1%), among women age 15-24 years there was a dis-proportionately stronger representation of “carers for thefamily hearth”, that is, women on parental leave and athome (34.1% to 3%).

And the level of spatial exclusion likewise found its ownreflection in the resultant structure of young population.In the direction toward the segregated environment theshare of unemployed increased (from 40.7% for those liv-ing diffused, through 46.6% among separated, to 53.1% withliving in segregated settlements) and was mirrored by a dropin the representation of those working (from 13.8% to6.8% in the separated and 3.6% in the segregated).

In a mutual comparison for different groups of theyoungest productive age (15-24 years), a different re-productive behaviour of Roma and the geographicallyclose general population is expressed in part, which al-ready at this young age shifts a large portion of Roma res-idents (and primarily women) off the labour market – intothe sphere of unpaid (women‘s) work at home.8 At thesame time the lower measure of young people of Romanationality remaining in the system of education isconfirmed, which is subsequently reflected with greatprobability on the development of their further workingcareers or activities. The high share of unemployed al-ready in this age group and at the same time the lowshare of those working point do the deep exclusion ofthe Roma population from the labour market, to the ab-sence of any, or of suitable opportunities for employment,and signals also the possible ineffectiveness of existingemployment policies for this target group. It’s not onlythat a large group of young people from Roma com-munities are unable to stay in the educational system,but already at a young age existing employment policiesin the end result leave them outside of the labour forceor labour market and force them into a substitute strat-egy for survival. Another influential factor which the ob-tained data point out is the worsening structure by eco-nomic activities with the level of spatial exclusion. Re-gardless whether the immediate reasons for the un-favourable economic structure (fewer local job oppor-tunities, less willingness or ability to work, limited pos-sibilities of choice between employment and home care,etc.), spatial separation, and mainly segregation, the re-sultant situation is still getting significantly worse. In allof the indicated point extensive interventions are need-ed in the interest of achieving a positive change.9

Transition to the older age group meant a significantshift in the proportions of individual statuses of economicactivity and not only as a consequence of the biological

130


7 In the study 8 children were found with such a classification (ill or health disabled and outside of the educational system) from a total number of 854children age 6-14 years; it can be assumed, however, that in reality there could be more.

8 The given type of study data does not allow in this association to speak further about the level of missed opportunities and unfulfilled life desires ofRoma women, or about the measure of freedom of their decisions for early motherhood, as more specialised research studies have emphasised (Dataon..., 2009). But what is certain is that with the creation of policies and instruments of support, however, the standpoint of human rights of womenshould not be forgotten.

9 We’ll name at least a few: prevention of early motherhood; searching for possibilities of harmonising early motherhood with work, so that it doesn’tmean the end of the working career of women; strengthening of Roma women in the interest of expanding space for free decisions about their ownlives; utmost support for keeping young people in the educational system and improving their final result in terms of education achieved; broad effortson the creation of local jobs; reappraisal of the suitability of instruments of support for employment in relation to the real life situation of this targetgroup; to look for and create effective instruments working against spatial separation and segregation and the like.

life cycle. So long as those studying were involved, theresearch of this category among the Roma populationage 25-34 years did not record anyone at all, but in thegeneral population they still made up just over 3%. Theshare of persons outside of economic activity, who aredevoted to home care and nursing, for both comparedgroups populations culminated with the age 25-34years; with the following older groups it gradually de-creased. For the Roma population, however, this movedwith each age category to significantly higher values (forexample, 24.5% for the general and 44.3% for the Romagroup age 25-34 years) and related primarily to women(44.3% of Roma women to 5.4% of Roma men age 25-34 years with this type of economic standing).

The representation of those working likewise in-creased in both compared populations with an age andachieved the highest levels around age 44-45 years, fromthe viewpoint of volume, this involved gigantic differ-ences. In the case of the Roma population the share ofdeclared working grew with access to the 25-34 yearsgroup and with the age 24-44 years those working againdeclined (development from 8% in younger to 10.4 %and 14.3% in middle and 13.3 % and 2% in the older agegroups). For the geographically close general populationover the age of 25 years the share of working increasedfrom 19.5% in the “youngest” up to 70.1% in the age 25-34 years; and this high level is maintained and even im-proved in the middle age groups (to 74.8%); a more sig-nificant decline in those working took place only withthose age 55 years and older – to 16.5%.

Changes in the share of unemployed with growingage had the exact opposite development and proportionsthan for the working; but for the Roma population theirshare in all age categories was incomparably higher. Whilefor the group age 25-34 years the share of unemployedin the general population reached 9.7% and in the fol-lowing two categories 13.1% and 10.8%, the growth inthe share of unemployed for the Roma populationjumped in the age 25-34 years group to 62.2%, and withthe group age 35-44 years it increased even higher to70.4%, and in the oldest groups ended up in a drop (firstto 60.8% in the group age 45-54 years and older than 55years to 18.3%). Directly proportional with a decline in theshare of unemployed in the older groups, however, theproportion of those working did not increase, but con-nected predominately with the growth in disability pen-sioners and later old-age pensioners. In the group age 45-54 years for the Roma population the share of pension-ers and ill was nearly two-times higher in comparison withthe general population: 15.4% versus 8.6%.

A comparison of the economic structure of the old-est age group of 55 years and more between the Romaand the general populations also brought a larger dif-ference. For the Roma set there was significantly fewerworking people in this age group (2% versus 16.5%) andmoderately fewer pensioners and the ill (78.5% versus81.6%); on the other hand an increase was found withthem for older people with the status unemployed(18.3% to 1.6%), and also those at home (1.2% to 0.3%).While the majority of those older than 55 years for thesubset of general population was on a pension or stillworked, among older Roma many were still declared asunemployed or at home.

Analysis of the individual age groups and their mu-tual comparison between the surveyed subsets allows thestatement to be made that the development of economicactivity or a working career in the case of the Roma pop-ulation played a completely different role than in the gen-eral population and does so despite the geographicalmembership to a similar space. It’s as if the presented num-bers tell the story of two fully different countries with a dif-ferent level of development, not about “neighbours”. Thissuggests that the chances and the prerequisites in rela-tion to successful exertion on the labour market are forboth compared groups of citizens completely differentand to the disadvantage of the Roma. On the basis of de-clared economic status the Roma work force remains prac-tically throughout its entire life cycle in all age categories,predominately without any application in employment,and to an increased measure this applies for women andthose in segregated environments.

The glimpse of declared economic activities byachieved level of education, which is presented in Table 9.4,also revealed several interesting associations. Generally, itis stated in the literature that a higher the education sig-nificantly improves the chance of employment (see ref-erences to the literature in the chapter introduction). Thedata obtained for the Roma and the general population10

confirmed the validity of this initial statement – the shareof those working increased with education. But at the sametime it was shown that education as a “lift” for successfulplacement on the labour market works a great deal moreweakly in the case of the Roma population than in the ge-ographically close general population.

Among Roma with an education lower than standardprimary school11 only 5.6% were placed among the em-ployed; with a standard primary school education andunfinished secondary school the share working grew to9.8% and in the scope of additional education further to26.3%; from secondary school students with a school-


131

10 In the interest of a more exact and more intense comparison of educational activities between the individual groups, education was specified forrespondents with finished preparation for a profession and the age range set at 15-55 years. The setting of the age interval was an attempt to min-imise the influence of old-age pensioners – in regard to the different age structure of the compared populations as well as an attempt to primarilyanalyse the productive part of the compared sets.

11 That is, special schools and an unfinished primary education.

132


leaving certificate and higher education those workingmade up 37.5%. For the geographically close general pop-ulation the share of those working increased much moreintensively with a higher degree of education: from 12.5%with the lowest education to 57.5% with a primary ed-ucation and 65.4% with a secondary vocational educa-tion up through 81.6% working among secondaryschool graduates and holders of a higher education.

At the same time the gigantic lag of the Roma pop-ulation on the level of declared employment was validin all educational groups. In the category of less than stan-dard primary school this was approximately half asmany working (a difference of 6.9%), for standard primaryschool and unfinished secondary school up to one-sixththe number (a difference of 47.7%), for vocationalschool two-fifths as many (a difference of 39.1%) and inthe highest educational group represented by second-

ary school with a school-leaving certificate and higherlevels of education also two-fifths as much (and a dif-ference of 44.1%). The largest difference in representa-tion of those working was thus in the standard primaryschool group (including unfinished secondary school) andwith the highest education achieved represented by ob-taining a school-leaving certificate or a higher degree.While the fact that the set of general population had moreuniversity graduates in comparison with the Roma setcould to a certain measure influence the difference in therepresentation of those working between the Roma andthe general population with the secondary school andhigher education,12 which could have an impact on theresultant employment, with a standard primary schooleducation such a hidden factor drops out. But it gener-ally applied that the proportion of those working was inthe studied Roma set significantly smaller compared with

12 Independent comparison of secondary school students with a school-leaving certificate and university students as a special category didn’t makesense because in the case of the Roma the set this involved very small numbers; it was therefore excluded.

Explanation of categories: Working = self-employed and entrepreneurs, full- and part-time employed and other work activities; Pensioners and theill = old-age pensioners, disability pensioners and the ill; At home = persons in the household, on maternity and parental leave and caring for a house-hold member; Unemployed = unemployed.Note: The educational group for individual subsets together /adds up to 100%. The group of secondary schools with a school-leaving certificate and more hadfor the Roma population a very low representation (N = 35), the presented percentage shares by type of settlement are therefore only for orientation.

Table 9.4Declared economic activity of the Roma population with a finished education age 15-55 years by categoryof education – comparison of the subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %)

Less than standardprimary school

Standard primaryschool andunfinished secondary school

Secondary schoolwithout a school-leaving certificate

Secondary schoolwith school-leavingcertificate and more

Segregated

Working 3.7 7.9 17.3 28.6

Pensioners and the ill 10.4 3.3 2.6 —

At home 21.5 19.4 20.0 28.6

Unemployed 64.4 69.4 60.1 42.8

Separated

Working 9.0 8.0 28.6 25.0

Pensioners and the ill 12.7 3.0 2.2 —

At home 20.9 17.6 8.8 25.0

Unemployed 57.4 71.4 60.4 50.0

Diffused

Working 3.4 13.4 31.0 47.1

Pensioners and the ill 14.6 5.7 2.0 5.9

At home 20.2 17.7 15.0 11.8

Unemployed 61.8 63.2 52.0 35.3


Working 12.5 57.5 65.4 81.6


At home 12.5 12.1 8.2 9.8

Unemployed 18.7 15.2 20.1 6.2


Working 5.6 9.8 26.3 37.5


At home 20.9 18.2 14.3 18.8

Unemployed 61.2 67.9 57.1 40.6

133


the set from the geographically close general populationfor each of the four educational categories.

And where in the scope of individual degrees of ed-ucation is the non-working included? To which economicposition do they belong? According to the data obtainedin the case of the Roma population the largest part isplaced among the unemployed (with the exception of thehighest education, around three-fifths). The unemployedwere the most numerous group in all degrees of educa-tion. And this applied for all three compared types of set-tlements, although for those living diffused the chancefor working with a vocational or a higher education grew.For Roma with finished vocational school living diffusedthose working made up 31% and unemployed 52%, forthose with finished vocational school from segregatedcommunities the share of those working was only 17.3%and the share of unemployed was more than 60%. Ap-proximately one-fifth of those surveyed in each educa-tional category from the Roma set was at home or onparental leave, while in the educational groups of the gen-eral population persons at home were about half as many.An interesting disproportion was shown with pension-ers and the ill: from the general population age 15-55 yearswith an education on a lower level than standard primaryschool up to 56.3% where classified as pensioners or ill;from the same Roma group only 12.3% were so declared.A similar difference was also for the standard primaryschool (15.2% to 4%) and vocational school (6.3% to 2.3%of pensioners and the ill).13

Analysis of empirical data showed that with higherachieved education employment of the Roma popula-tion grew, but this does not apply absolutely. Even a largeportion of Roma with higher education remains unem-ployed anyway. Empirical data thus speaks for the hy-pothesis that even though jobs corresponding to qual-ifications are for individual educational groups availablein a region, members of the general population are morelikely to get them than a person of Roma nationality.

It follows overall from analysis of the data on de-clared economic status that the summary measure ofeconomic activity is higher for the Roma population, butunemployment detracts profusely from it. Despite thegeographic proximity, the difference in the declared eco-nomic activity of the Roma and general population ishuge, and as is further shown, other measures used fordefining the relation to the labour market confirmedthis. Fewer studying, more disability pensioners, manytimes fewer old-age pensioners, a great deal morewomen at home, incomparably more unemployed, and

conversely incomparably fewer working – so appearsin brief the difference in structure on the basis of eco-nomic activity between the Roma and the general pop-ulation, despite the geographic proximity. Looking in-ward at the Roma population, the resulting structureby economic activity is influenced by the type of set-tlements based on spatial integration or exclusion. Theshare of the unemployed is high and the share work-ing is low (and at the same time diametrically oppositefrom the general population 14) in all three comparedRoma settlement types, with segregation, however, shift-ing still toward a worse result in terms of successful in-tegration to the labour market. Furthermore, segre-gation on the basis of settlement type follows also forthe type of work activities performed, which is shiftingmore toward non-standard forms of work (temporary,casual work, seasonal work and the like).

The already mentioned partial finding about the po-sition of the Roma on the labour market call for initiativesand programmes focused on removing discriminationin the approach to employment. But they also advocatefor introducing serious measures aimed against spatialsegregation, because with segregation an already poorchance for work is reduced even further and increasesthe risk of precarious work. In the context of the findingsfor the individual age and education groups 15 initiativesand programmes are also obviously needed for strength-ening the qualifications and other prerequisites ofRoma women and men for employment. Gender dif-ferences in economic activities are significantly higherfor the Roma population than for the geographically closegeneral population. This could speak volumes aboutthe significantly worse position of Roma women, aboutthe deeper ingrown and broader activities of genderstereotypes and gender-based insensitive socialisationin the Roma environment. This also requires other typesof programmes (see note no. 9).

9.2. General work experience of the roma population

Declared current economic status tells about only onesmall part of the overall relation of the Roma populationto the labour market and the placement and standingwithin it. One study devoted to the employment of Romawomen and men points out, aside from the small workresults on the labour market, also the problem of non-standard forms of work signalling the weak or no social

13 But the number of respondents with a lower education than standard primary school was in the geographically close general population very small(a total of 23 individuals), which does not allow the underlying conclusions to be formulated.

14 The high unemployment of Roma for all types of settlements, which is diametrically different from the result for the general population from thesame geographic surroundings, can signal the working and exertion of discriminatory practices and an unequal approach on the local labour mar-kets for this group of citizens.

15 As also the findings presented in the previous chapter 8, which presented in more detail the educational structure of the Roma population.

134


protection and the poor working conditions (precari-ousness of work), which are spreading broadly in this verygroup, discusses the question of the depth of exclusionfrom the labour market, influential factors, etc. (At Risk...,2005; Ivanov – Trusaliev, 2006; UNDP, 2002).

The previous section partially pointed out thepresence of unstable forms of work and their higher oc-currence among the Roma work force, even thoughfrom a distance it doesn’t capture all methods of “vul-nerable” types of work and even all associations (for ex-ample, illegal or so-called “black work”). In relation tothe depth of exclusion from the labour market there areseveral possibilities for how to approach measuring it.One of the ways is the tracking of the length of the pe-riod of employment and its specifics; another is fol-lowing the share of unemployed or the measure of un-employment in the individual age or education groups;still another is total experience with work activities andthe development of a working career. In the study at-tention is partially paid to all three angles of view, at leastin the position of independent variables. We’ll stop nowand go into more details with the last mentioned pos-sibilities; the following section is devoted to the over-all experience with work activities and the beginningof a working career as well as the mutual relation withcurrent economic position.

9.2.1. Experience of the Roma population age15+ years with more permanent work

The study about the living and working situation ofRoma households and individuals as opposed to 2005expanded regarding the question determining theexperience with paid work at least one year in duration.On the basis of the obtained responses the surveyedRoma set is divided into two approximately equalparts (Table 9.5).

A total of 47.6% of the entire Roma set had per-formed paid full-time or part-time work (including en-trepreneurial activities) at least 6 months in duration and46,8% at the time of the study did not have such expe-rience (no information was obtained for 5.6% of thosesurveyed). Although according to the current declaredeconomic status those working made up only 9.9% of theentire Roma population age 15 years and more,16 near-ly five-time more of those surveyed had had at least a half-year’s experience with more permanent work in thecourse of their life. At the same time the data in the tableconfirms that on the basis of settlement type the totallife experience with paid work significantly declined withsegregation. While 52% of those living diffused had morelasting experience with paid work, from segregated ar-eas this was only 43.6% (nearly 10% less).

Graph 9.13Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by experience with work activities during their life – compari-son with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Yes

No

Don’t know, not given

47.678.3

46.8

5.6

15.0

6.7

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

Roma population


16 And according to the Sample Survey methodology for the labour force, 15% of the Roma population age 15 years and more were currently employed(see Table 9.8).


Table 9.5Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by experience with work activities during their life and typeof settlement (in %)


Yes 43.6 47.3 52.0 47.6

No 48.5 47.2 44.5 46.8

Don’t know, not given 7.9 5.5 3.5 5.6


135


And in comparison with the geographically closegeneral population (Graph 9.13) the limited standard workexperience of the Roma was lower by nearly 30%. Fromthe Roma population 46.8% had still never had paid workfor longer than half a year and from the geographicallyclose general population only 15%; while the share ofnon-respondents for both compared sets was approxi-mately equal (around 6 %).

9.2.2. Experience with more permanent workby current economic status

How does experience with more permanent work differby current economic status, or which groups of citizenshave not yet worked for a period longer than half a year?Upon searching for the answers to these questions welimit our attention only on the group with finished prepa-ration for a profession and those for whom it was pos-sible to obtain information.

After exclusion of non-respondents and respon-dents age 15 and more who are still preparing for a pro-fession,17 the level of experience with work of durationsix months and longer appears as follows. The groupwith most of such defined work experience were thosemembers of the Roma population age 15+ years withfinished preparation for a profession who lived diffused(56.3%), toward those living segregated the work ex-perience decreased to less than half for segregated(49.3%); the average for the Roma population was near-ly 40% lower than was the work experience of the ge-ographically close general population (52.7% for theRoma population to 90.2% for the general); the differ-ence between Roma women and men was also verystriking – among Roma women only 44.7% had duringtheir life had experience with working for six monthsand more and among Roma men this was 60.8%.

The share of respondents with work experience last-ing at least six months was different with the individualstatuses for current economic activity and also differed

Graph 9.14Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation with work activitiesduring lifetime – comparison with the subsets and with the geographically close general population (in%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



Roma men

Roma women

90.2

52.6

49.3

56.3

52.7

60.8

44.7

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?Note: Only for respondents age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation who responded to the questions (share of non-respondents was 3.3%).

17 For completeness here we recall that the structure of age 15 years and older respondents, who are still preparing for a profession (attendingschool), was for the Roma set significantly different than the set from the geographically close general population. Among Roma age 15+ years,who were still attending school, the most were age 15 years (41.6%), and then those age 16 years (28.2%), 17-year olds made up only 18.1% andthose age 18 years and older only 12,1 %; in contrast among those studying of age 15 years and older in the geographically close general pop-ulation, only 17.9% were age 15 years and 12.8% were age 16 years, while 17-year olds made up 10.2% of them and nearly 60% were studentsage 18 years and older(59,1 %).The opposite idea through individual age years by type of school attended tells of these great differences. Of 15-year old Roma pupils and students,85.5% attended primary school and only 14. % went to a vocational school or another secondary school (at the same time only 38.8% of 15-yearsold primary school pupils in the 9th grade, the remaining 61.2% attended eighth to the fifth class); the ratio of primary and secondary school wasfor the group age 15 years from the general population 64.3% of pupils from primary school to 35.7% of students from a secondary school. Of the16-year olds for the subset of the general population no one was still attending primary school, among 16-year old Roma preparing for a profes-sion 46.2% were still in primary school (at the same time they attended the 8th to the 5th class), the remaining 54.8% were being educated at sec-ondary school (69.6% of them attended a vocational school and only 30.4% a secondary school with a school-leaving certificate). Among 17-yearold Roma youths, no pupils from secondary school were found, but the share of students in vocational schools, however, made up 57% of them.The majority of those age 15+ years and studying from among the Roma population was thus at primary school (at age 15 and 16 years), or at a vo-cational school, secondary school with a school-leaving certificate university formed only a very small share in the surveyed set.

136


in comparison with the general population. While withthose working of a different type the occurrence of ex-perience with more permanent employment was highand the differences between the general and the Romapopulation was not great, with the economically inac-tive groups, such as those on childcare leave, at home,but also with the unemployed, experience with work wasmarkedly reduced and the differences versus the gen-eral population grew significantly.

Those working in a standard understanding (i. e. full-time employees or the self-employed and entrepreneurs)had the most respondents experienced with more per-manent work, which was nearly 100 percent; the re-maining was probably made up of beginners on thelabour market (involving a first job lasting less than 6months). Among those currently employed in part-time work more than 90% had sometime previouslyworked longer than a half year; the remaining 10% hadnever worked for a continuous period longer than halfa year. Experience with more permanent work droppedsignificantly with respondents who reported so-calledother work activities (casual or seasonal work and the like).Less than 80% of these had experience with more per-manent employment, for the remaining 20% currentlyperforming temporary or unstable work in their overallworking career was so far a permanent state.

With the changeover to the economically inactivegroups, the experience of the Roma population with more

permanent employment dropped significantly, whichdeepened the overall lagging behind the geographicallyclose general population. A notably large difference wasfound among them and the unemployed, but also withpersons at home, on parental leave or pensioners.

From the Roma population age 15+ years with fin-ished vocational preparation, which was currently de-clared as unemployed, only half had experience withsome paid work lasting six months or longer, whileamong the unemployed in the general population thiswas 82.5%. Thus, nearly half of the currently unemployedRoma had sometime in their life worked in paid em-ployment lasting a half-year or longer; the other half hadno such experience. Among unemployed members ofthe general population a much smaller share of people(only 17.5%) had no experience with working for sixmonths or longer. With a comparison of persons at homeonly 34.3% of the whole Roma set had more permanentwork experience, but for the general population this was66.7%. Thus, from Roma respondents who in the studywere considered as a “person in the household” (to a pre-dominate measure this involved women), only about one-third had sometime had work lasting a half-year or longer,while for persons in the household from the general pop-ulation this was as high as two-thirds.

A still greater difference appeared with maternity andparental leave: from the Roma population drawing leavefor child care only 14.4% had sometime in life worked longer

Graph 9.15Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation with work activities duringlifetime by current economic status – comparison with the geographically close general population (in%)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120




Other work activities

Unemployed

At home

Parental leave, maternity leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

97.9

85.7

83.9

48.260.6

75.7

82.5

34.366.7

14.4

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?Note: Only for respondents age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation who responded to the questions (share of non-respondents was 3.3%).


99.7

90.992.9

79.575.0

50.0

98.0100.0

137


than half a year, while from the general population this was85.7%. But by contrast – two-thirds of predominately Romawomen went on parental leave without previous longerwork experience, and from women in the geographicallyclose general population this is between one-tenth andone-fifty.18 The reason for the large differences in the lev-el of work experience with paid employment with personson maternity or parental leave is probably the earlier par-enthood of the Roma population, often immediately af-ter completing school, as well as connecting parental leavewithout the possibility of being employed.

In connection with the small share of more perma-nent work experience among Roma women (mainly)drawing maternity or parental leave, attempts at con-ditioning state family benefits (specifically a parental ben-efit) on previous work activities and participation in theinsurance system for this group of population appearsminimally as potential discriminatory. Since this doesn’tinvolve an insurance benefit, but a state grant, an attemptto condition its payment with previous work activities isclearly leading toward the limitation of state support ofparenthood and those groups of residents, which are dis-

tinguished by their reproductive behaviour, charac-terised by early parenthood, rapidly occurring childbirthsone after another and higher birth-rate (Debrecéniová– Filadelfiová – Maďarová, 2010). Furthermore, for a sit-uation when this group of the population of Slovakia re-mains outside of labour activities and has few job op-portunities often through no fault of their own (structuralsettings pushing broader groups of the Roma popula-tion from active connection to the labour market).

An opposite view is also possible over the entire ex-perience with working activities and current economicstanding. Specifically this involves a look at the repre-sentation of individual economic statuses in the part ofthe population which has at sometime work lastinglonger than six months. As Graph 9.16 shows, of thoseRoma citizens who had such experience with paidwork, 55.4% were currently unemployed; from the gen-eral population this was only 7.7% (Graph 9.17). Despitethe experience with paid work during their lifetime, therewere in the Roma population at the time of the researchsignificantly more persons unemployed than in thecase of the geographically close general population.

Graph 9.16Structure of the population age 15+ years with ex-perience with work activities during their lifetime bycurrent economic status – Roma population withfinished vocational preparation (in%)

Note: Only for the Roma population age 15+ years with work experience during their lifetime (47.6%).

13.9

3.0

3.2

55.4

12.8

5.2

1.2

1.82.5

1.0





Unemployed

At home

Parental leave,

maternity leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other

Note: Only for the general population age 15+ years with work experience during their lifetime (78.3%).

7.1

45.2

7.7

3.9

1.9

29.4

3.0

1.1

0.3

0.4





Unemployed

At home

Parental leave,

maternity leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other

Graph 9.17Structure of the population age 15+ years with experi-ence with work activities during their lifetime by cur-rent economic status – geographically close generalpopulation with finished vocational preparation (in%)

18 Let’s recall that the model of starting parenthood and founding a family directly after finishing education without any previous work experience wasalso the case for the majority of women in Slovakia before 1989 (Bútorová et al., 2008; Filadelfiová, 2005a, 2010c). In the Roma population the in-sufficient opportunities to work also limit “pre-reproductive” work experience.

138


With the share of those working the relative pro-portions were reversed: from the Roma populationwith finished vocational preparation age 15 years andmore who had at least six-months work experience intheir lifetime at the time of the study 19.7% wereranked among the working; in the general population54.6% were so ranked. This means that despite past ex-perience with paid work, Roma women and men remainsignificantly more often outside of work activities andwith a status of unemployed.

On the basis of overall work experience during a life-time general indicators of economic activity and em-ployment or unemployment of the Roma population age15+ years with finished vocational preparation also differedsignificantly. While among those who in their lifetimeworked for a period of at least 6 months, the measure ofeconomic activity was on the level of 81.6%, for Roma re-spondents without such experience this was only 45.8%.In addition, then, only 18.4% of those who had a certainexperience with more permanent employment in their life-time were outside the labour market at the time of thestudy, and the share of persons outside the labour mar-ket among respondents without the experience of morepermanent work was 54.2%.

In regard to the measure of employment defined byworking at least one hour in the previous week for a wageor some other remuneration,19 this group achieved 26.9%

for the group of Roma experienced with more permanentwork and for the group without experience only 4.6%. Thiswas the reverse with the measure of unemployment – itwas significantly higher for the Roma population withoutexperience with work activities lasting at least a half-year(90% versus 62.4%). The standard measure of economic ac-tivities also ended up higher for the group of work-expe-rienced Roma population; on the other hand, there werea great deal more respondents in the group outside thelabour market who did not have any experience with morepermanent employment. A “touch” of more permanent em-ployment or entrepreneurship during a lifetime significantlyimproves the chances of the Roma population to find beemployed on the labour market.

9.2.3. Work experience during a lifetime by age and education

As Graph 9.19 shows, the level of experience with work ac-tivities lasting at least six months varies by age, while amongthe Roma and general populations a rather significant dif-ference in trends was recorded. In general it applies thatthe level of work experience with employment or entre-preneurship lasting at least half a year logically increaseswith increasing age. The difference between the Roma andthe geographically close general population is also stable

19 The methodology of a Sample Survey of the labour force – for more details see the following chapter.

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?Note: The presented measures according to the methods of the Labour Force Survey (VZPS).

Graph 9.18Employment, unemployment and economic activities by overall work experience of the Roma population (in %)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Has experience with work lasting at least 6 months

Doesn’t have experience with work lasting at least 6 months

Measureof employment

Measure of unemployment

Measure of economic activity

Outside the labour market

26.9

4.6

62.4

90.0

81.6

45.8

54.2

18.4

– the share of more permanent work experiences is small-er in each age group for the Roma population. But whilefor the general population the volume of work experiencesdiffered significantly with the youngest age group (a lessthan 30% share) and in all other age categories achievedmore than 90%, in the case of the Roma population thisis the opposite – the growth of those experiences with workwith age is a great deal slower and less intensive.

Only 17.5% of the Roma population age 15-24years had sometime performed paid work for at least 6months. With the age group 25-34 years the share in-creased, but only to 38.3%, and in the older age groupof 35-44 years further to 65.2%. And in the two oldest agegroups those with work experience obtained 80%.

While more than 90% of those older than 25 years in thegeneral population had experienced at least a half-year’swork, for the Roma population of the middle age cate-gory a significant lagging appeared. Among the Romapopulation age 25-34 years only 38.3% had previouslyworked for at least a half-year, while in the general pop-ulation this was 91%. Or stated otherwise: while from thegeneral population age 25-34 years 9% of those surveyedhad still not had a job lasting at least 6 months, in thissame category for the Roma population the figure was61.7%. Among Roma representing the 35-44 years agegroup 35% still had not experienced paid work lastingat least half a year, and among the geographically closegeneral population this was less than 5%.

139


Graph 9.19Experience of the Roma population age 15-64 with more permanent work activities during their lifetimeby age – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

15-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

38.3

17.5

91.0

95.5

82.096.5

83.090.4



29.3

65.2

Graph 9.20Experience of the Roma population age 15-64 years with more permanent work activities during their lifetimeby age and type of settlement (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

15-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

14.926.9

38.235.2

41.8

68.9

78.2

68.6

85.782.0

75.586.486.4


9.9

59.4

Segregated

Separated

Diffused

140


A different level of experience with more permanentwork activities appeared also within the Roma popula-tion. On the basis of type of settlement (Graph 9.20) Romaliving diffused had the most work experience, andthose in segregated settlements work experience di-minished. And the largest disproportion appears for theyoungest age group: among Roma age 15-24 -years liv-ing in segregated communities not quite 10% reportedwork experience lasting at least half a year, while with sep-arated communities their share grew to 15%; however,for those living diffused this was 26.9%. The segregatedRoma environment showed not only the smallest currentwork experience, but also showed the least total expe-rience with more stable paid work.

Differences within the Roma population are also ex-pressed on the basis of sex, and again in all age categories(Graph 9.21). According to expectations Roma women hadsignificantly less experience with more permanent em-ployment or another form of paid work than men. Thelargest difference was recorded in the 25-34 years agegroup: only 26% of Roma women from this age group hadsometimes been employed in work lasting at least 6months, while for Roma men this was nearly twice as high(49.2%). Work experience also differed between women andmen in older groups, where the difference was 15-20% tothe disadvantage of Roma women. The smallest gender dis-proportion occurred in the youngest age group – for the15-24 age interval the difference was to the disadvantageof women by only 7% (21.1% of the youngest men withwork experience and 14.1% among the youngest women).

A gender difference in the measure of overall workexperience during a lifetime also rose for the geo-

graphically close general population, but had incom-parably smaller values.20 But where the gender gap at thelevel of the overall work experience of the Roma popu-lation grew, this was upon considering the type of set-tlement. With the exception of the youngest age groupthe gender gap in work experience decreased signifi-cantly in segregated environments: while in segregatedenvironments the longer term work experience of Romawomen lagged behind men by 30% with the 25-34 yearsage group, in separated settlements this was only 14%and with those living diffused by 13%. And similargrowth in the gender gap in the direction of segregat-ed environments was found also for the other agegroups of Roma women and men (Table 9.6).

In relation to the youngest age group, the share ofexperience with longer term work grew here for Romamen and women with spatial integration. But the largestgender gap was also for those living diffused. This is prob-ably the result primarily of the overall low experience withlonger term employment in segregated settlements, andnot only for Roma women but for men, too.

In addition to age the overall work experience withmore permanent employment also associated with thedegree of achieved education: with increasing education,its level sharply rose. The growth of the share of indi-viduals who during their lifetime at some point performedpaid work for at least six months grew for the Roma pop-ulation from 43% with those lower than a primary edu-cation and 50.8% in the group with a standard primaryeducation, to 77.7% for secondary school studentswithout a school-leaving certificate and 83.8% for thegroup of education (Graph 9.22). While in the Roma pop-

20 For example, the largest difference appeared in women and men age from the 25-34 years age group, where 92.2 of men and 89.7% of women hadexperience with more permanent work. In other age groups the difference was even smaller.

Graph 9.21Experience of the Roma population age 15-64 years with more permanent work activities during their lifetimeby age and sex (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

15-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

14.1

49.226.0

57.6

89.874.1

93.473.5


21.1

72.7

Roma men age 15-64

Roma women age 15-64

141


ulation the lower degrees of education the representa-tion of those with work experience was half or less, forthe higher educated this was more than three-quarters.Among Roma with a primary education, which repre-sented the most numerous educational group, half hadstill never had paid work which lasted at least half a year.

Experience with more permanent paid work alsogrew with degree of education for the geographically closegeneral population. Already from the category defined bystandard primary school, it had a much higher value in com-parison with the results achieved by the Roma population.

With a primary education the lag on the side of the Romawas 36%, with secondary school without a school-leavingcertificate this was 14% and with a secondary school andhigher education a 10% difference.21

A comparison of individual groups of education bymore permanent work experience during one’s lifetime wasalso better for the general population – the share of workexperienced was higher here. Not even a higher educationthen is able to completely wipe out the difference in workactivities of the Roma and the general population, even ifthey live in a geographically close environment.

21 The only educational group in which the share of those experienced with work was the opposite – more experience on the side of the Roma pop-ulation – was the group with the lower than primary school education. This group, however, for the general population had only a very small num-ber (n = 23), therefore it is problematic to generalise from this.

Table 9.6Experience of Roma women and men age 15-64 years with more permanent work activities in their lifetime byage and type of housing (in %)


15-24 years

Men 11.7 14.3 37.2 21.1

Women 8.2 15.9 17.7 14.1

25-34 years

Men 51.9 46.3 48.7 49.2

Women 21.8 22.0 35.1 26.0

35-44 years

Men 79.4 66.3 74.3 72.7

Women 59.4 52.4 62.1 57.6

45-54 years

Men 86.3 96.5 86.2 89.8

Women 70.0 72.9 78.1 74.1

55-64 years

Men 85.7 96.9 95.7 93.4

Women 67.9 76.5 76.2 73.5


Graph 9.22Overall work experience of the Roma population by achieved level of education – comparison with the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Lower than standard primary school

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school

Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate

(Secondary vocational school)Secondary school with a school-

leaving certificate and more

26.1

50.886.8

92.1

83.993.9

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?Note: Without responses “I don’t know” (82 non-respondents from a total of 2,677 respondents, which is approximately 3.3%). The number for thecategory “lower than primary school” was for the geographically close general population very small (n = 23)

43.0

77.7


142


9.2.4. Average age of first entryinto the labour market

For those respondents who did have during their life-time experience with more permanent paid work,their age of entry to their first employment or the startof their doing business was surveyed. On average forthe Roma population this age was 18.66 year and forthe geographically close general population 18.96years. In the overall view, a larger difference was notfound, but one was found with a comparison of the in-dividual age categories (Graph 9.23).

The average difference on the level of one year andmore was in the oldest age category (age 65 years andolder), and then with the youngest age groups to 34 years.Roma of older and younger age started their first jobsooner than representatives of the general population,which is in accordance with earlier preparation for a vo-cation for the Roma part of the population – fewer con-tinue on in studies at secondary school and university (seeChapter 8). If we compare the resultant average age forstart of the first job in the two youngest age groups ofthe Roma population with the assumed age of finishingeducation at the primary school level, which is around16 years, this signals the existence of a relatively long timeperiod between the completion of education and thestart of first employment.22 Data indicates that it’s as ifmembers of the Roma nationality must wait for their first

employment a great deal longer than representatives ofthe geographically close general population.

This is also confirmed by a look at the average age forstart of first job by completed education (Graph 9.24). Meas-ured values of average age of entry onto the labour mar-ket for the Roma subset significantly exceeded the aver-age age for the general population in all categories of ed-ucation, aside from the highest. This signifies that Roma withlower degrees of achieved education waited for their firstjob opportunity on average a great deal longer than rep-resentatives of the general population of the same edu-cation.23 In the case of a secondary school education witha school-leaving certificate and higher the average age ofentry of the Roma onto the labour market can be higheras a consequence that for the general population there werein this group more holders of university degrees (they pre-pared longer for a profession).

If at the conclusion we should summarise the overallwork experience, empirical data confirms that more sta-ble employment or entrepreneurship is for the Roma pop-ulation a great deal less accessible than for the geo-graphically close general population. At the same time thissignals that the largest difference between them is with themiddle-age groups. The huge gaps in a comparison withthe geographically close general population in the middle-age groups allow the hypothesis to be stated that more per-manent job opportunities were for the Roma populationmore accessible with those who finished their vocational

22 Let’s recall that here we are analysing only the part of both surveyed sets which had during their lifetime experience with more permanent work;a large part did not get such longer term employment at all.

23 Although possible later or postponed entry to mandatory education, which occurs more often in the Roma population, could play a certain role here,it’s not very probably that it would reduce the overall average difference.

Graph 9.23Average age of start of first job by age group – comparison of the Roma and the geographically close generalpopulation with work experience (in years)

16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5

15-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

65+ years

19.14

18.9619.88

19.02

18.7218.85

18.9518.59

17.4018.45

Question: How old were you when you began to work your first job or do business?Note: Only for individuals 15+ with work experience during their lifetime (for the Roma population this was 47.6% and for the general population 78.3%).

18.16

18.66


143


preparation still prior to 1990 (45-year olds and older), thanfor those who entered onto the labour market after this pe-riod (especially 25-34-year olds). It also showed that ex-clusion on the basis of habitation is very closely tied withthe depth of exclusion from the labour market. Work ex-perience with more permanent employment during one’slifetime was notably lower in the segregated environment,particularly with Roma women. A higher education in-creases the probability of more permanent work, not un-conditionally; in all educational groups the Roma populationis lagging in more permanent work experience behind thegeneral population.

9.3. The roma population and the labour market by labour force survey methodology:24

standing and dependencies

The survey of Roma households tracked, in addition toeconomic activities on the basis of declared status, all ba-sic indicators needed for defining the relation to thelabour market by the methodology of sample surveyingof the labour force. In the surveys all persons age 15 andmore who in the followed (reference) weeks performedat least one hour of work for a wage, payment or workfor obtaining some form of profit were considered asworking, including persons working abroad. At thesame time this can involve full-time or shorter employ-

ment, temporary, casual work or seasonal work, amongthe working are also included those helping membersof the household entrepreneurs, who do not receive anyremuneration for their activities, as well as professionalmembers of armed units. As working are also consideredthose persons who have a job but did not work duringthe monitored week due to illness, holiday, training, badweather, as a consequence of a strike and lockout; withthe exception of persons on long-term unpaid leave andpersons on parental leave (Selected..., 2011, pg. 5).

9.3.1. Performing at least one hour of work per week

As follows from the presented definition of those work-ing, the foundation for determining of this category aretwo questions in a questionnaire. One is focused on theperforming of work lasting for at least one hour in thecourse of the previous week, without regard to the formof employment or contract, but for the purpose of ob-taining a work remuneration or profit, including help-ing with household businesses. The second question de-fines more exactly the position of the working by ex-panding by those individuals who have employment butin the referenced period for different reasons did notwork for even an hour.25

According to the responses to the first question(Graph 9.25) a total of 13% of the surveyed Roma pop-ulation age 15+ years in the reference week worked at

Graph 9.24Average age of start of first job by education – comparison of the Roma and the geographically close generalpopulation with work experience (in years)

16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5

Less than standard primary school

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school

Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate

(Secondary vocational school)Secondary school with a school-

leaving certificate and more

17.50

18.1617.86

18.1719.45

Question: How old were you when you began to work your first job or do business?Note: Only for individuals 15+ with work experience during their lifetime (for the Roma population this was 47.6% and for the general population 78.3%).

19.59

18.80


24 The Labour Force Survey (VZPS) has been running continuously in Slovakia since 1993, it was included into the system of state statistical surveys onthe basis of recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Statistical Office of the EU (Eurostat) according to the sampleof similar surveys in other countries. Full harmonisation of the surveys with EU regulations relating to VZPS was provided by the Statistical Office ofthe Slovak Republic from 2003. The surveying is carried out quarterly, the basis is the random selection of flats covering all districts of Slovakia; thesample includes 10,250 flats, which represents approximately 0.6% of the entire number of permanently inhabited flats. Two types of question-naires are filled out in the selected households: one on the structure of the household and the other is filled out by all members age 15 years andolder (for more about the survey, see: Selected..., 2011).

19.84

144


least one hour, more than three-quarters (79.2%) of theset did not perform such activities, and the remaining7.8% did not respond to the question. In comparison withthe self-categorisation among those working on the ba-sis of declared economic status the share of those indi-viduals who worked at least one hour outside of the

household increased moderately. Only 9.9% of the rel-evant Roma population gave the status working, whichis approximately 3% less (see section 9.1). Thus, re-spondents did not consider every job for remunerationor for a household business as sufficiently qualifying toconsider themselves as working.

As in many previous indicators associated with thelabour market, with the performance of work at leastone hour per week, it also applies that its share was verylow in all three environments and with segregation onthe basis of settlement type it decreased moderately.As follows from Table 9.7, for the subset of Roma livingdiffused the share of persons age 15+ years whoworked minimally one hour in the public sphere wasnearly 15%; in the case of those living segregated itdropped to 10.7%.26

The presented range of performed work for the Romapopulation was gain in comparison with the geo-graphically close general population significantly small-er. In contrast to the presented 13%, this was on a levelof 44.4% for the set of the general population; 47.8% ofthem had not done even one hour of work in the pub-lic sphere during the previous week; the share of non-respondents was for both sets the same.

Classification on the basis of declared economic sta-tus showed that work during the previous week in a vol-ume of at least one hour was given predominately bythose respondents who were identified as working;among the economically inactive work activity so de-fined was very low – in both the Roma and the gener-al population (Graph 9.27). From a mutual comparisonof the Roma and general populations a significantlyhigher involvement in work among the general

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the pur-pose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a busi-ness belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals.

Table 9.7Structure of the Roma population age 15+ by work at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere and type of set-tlement (in %)


Yes 10.7 13.4 14.8 13.0

No 78.1 78.5 81.2 79.2

Don’t know, didn’t say 11.3 8.0 4.1 7.8


25 The question used was as follows: “Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of re-muneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped inthe fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?” Thus, from thosewho gave a negative response, interviewers asked a second question: “Despite the fact that during the previous week you did not do any paid workfor at least 1 hour, are you employed (entrepreneur, self-employed), in which you were only temporarily absent and again that you’ll return to? (Pos-sible reasons for absence: illness, maternity leave, treatment of a family member, holiday, strike, work lockout, not customers, training, bad weather;parental, long-term leave and activation work do not belong here)?” The number of positive replies to the second question was only minimal (44 inthe relevant subset of the Roma population and 13 in the geographically close general population).

26 After the exclusion of individuals from whom it was not possible to get a reply, the shares of those working at least one hour for individual settle-ment types was as follows: 12% segregated, 14.6% separated and 15.4% living diffused.

Graph 9.25Structure of the Roma population age 15+ yearsby working at least 1 hour per weekin the public sphere (in %)

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour ofany type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or

with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets orother products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the

fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of yourhousehold (do not take activation work into consideration)?

Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ yearsrepresented n = 2,160 individuals.

13.0

79.2

7.8

Yes No Don’t know, didn’t say

145


emerged in nearly all statuses of economic activity, withthe exception of employees and persons at home. While5.4% of disability pensioners in the general populationworked at least one hour in the reference week, amongthe Roma disability pensioners this was only 1.8%. Sim-ilarly, this was also the case with old-age pensioners(3.2% to 1.1%), those on parental leave (3.2% to 1.5%)and the unemployed (9.5% to 6.3%). The largest dif-ference appeared in the group which was identified with

other economic activities (brigade work, seasonalwork, etc.), where representatives of the Roma popu-lation lagged in the level of work performed by 16%,and then for the group of self-employed and entre-preneurs, in which the Roma lagged behind by nearly10% in terms of volume. So that even with this view onwork activity it is as if for the Roma population paid workwas less accessible and was so without regard to po-sition on the labour market or outside of it. Represen-

Graph 9.26Structure of the Roma population age 15+ by work at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere – comparisonwith the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Yes

No

Don’t know, didn’t say

13.044.4

79.247.8

7.87.8

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with thepurpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden orat a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals; the number of the same geographically close generalpopulation n = 892.


Graph 9.27Work of the Roma population age 15+ of at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere by declared economicstatus – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100





Unemployed

At home

Parental leave, maternity leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

93.9

3.3

3.2

1.85.4

1.1

9.5

2.30.0

1.5

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with thepurpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden orat a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals; the number of the same geographically close generalpopulation n = 892.


Geographically close general population age 15+

91.8

81.878.6

59.075.0

6.3

98.088.9

146


tation of work involvement of Roma through the formof at least one hour was, despite the geographic prox-imity, lower for the group of disability and old-age pen-sioners and the unemployed, as well as for individualsworking on a trade license or entrepreneurs or thoseperforming seasonal or brigade work.

As expected, the empirical data captured a relativelylarge gap in the level of work activity between Romamen and women. While 17.8% of Roma men age 15+years had worked at least one hour on average, amongwomen this was just under half as many – only 8.2%.27

Roma women gave a negative response more often inregard to working an hour; also, there was moreamong them who didn’t want or were unable to answerthe question.

Analysis also confirmed the relatively large gendergap for the geographically close general population, butthis moved at significantly higher values: some 51.3% ofmen and 38.1% of women age 15+ years worked duringthe previous week at least one hour. The involvement inwork of women is generally much lower in comparisonwith men; in the case of the Roma population, howev-er, despite the close proximity, both genders were in-comparably smaller versus the general population.

9.3.2. The measure of employment,unemployment and economic activity using the Labour Force Survey (VZPS) methodology

For calculation of the basic measure of those relevantfrom the viewpoint of position on the labour market andthe share of persons outside of it, the group workingdefined by working at least one hour for a week was ad-justed by those who did not work even one hour, butstill had work and didn’t work due to illness, a strike,a lockout and the like.28 The measure of employmentis then calculated according to the sample: the num-ber working divided by the total number of persons ofthe given age definition times 100.29 Table 9.8 providesa look at the so-defined measures of employment forindividual compared sets of the Roma and the gener-al populations and for different defined age groups, aswell as in comparison with other indicators and declaredemployment and unemployment.

The measure of employment counted for the Romapopulation age 15 years and older was on average 15%.Such a result for the Roma set differed internally by typeof settlement (13.1% segregated, 15.5% separatedand 16.4% diffused) and differed significantly from the

27 Since in the previous series of surveys of Roma households in 2005 involvement with work was measured in a different way (a differently wordedquestion), it is not possible to compare it directly with data from year 2010. Only for an approximation: in 2005, 15.8% of Roma men and 6.7% of Romawomen reported work outside the household. With calculations of involvement in work for household management and for a member of the house-hold, men had an employment figure of 33.4% and women 22.9%.

28 For the Roma set this meant an increase by 44 individuals and for the general population by 13 individuals.29 The delimitation of other groups defined in relation to the labour market is as follows:

Unemployed are all persons age 15+ years (or a different age range), who at present fulfil three conditions: 1. in the monitored week they did not haveany paid work; 2. they are actively looking for work or have found work and await the start of employment; 3. are capable or want to find work (theydo not belong among the economically inactive and those who do not want to work). These persons can be, but do not have to be, registered at thelabour office as unemployed.All persons of a given age rage who belong among the working or the unemployed are considered to be economically active citizens (the labour force).Economically inactive citizens (persons outside the labour market) are all persons age 15+ years (or a different age range), who are not economicallyactive. This involves persons who are in the monitored week without work because they are preparing for a vocation, are old-age or disability pensioners,on parental leave, caring for the household and the like and who are for the given (or other) reasons not actively looking for employment. Those whodo not want to work are also included here.

Graph 9.28Comparison of Roma men and women age 15+ years by working at least 1 hour per week in the publicsphere (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Yes

No

Don’t know, didn’t say

17.88.2

75.6

6.68.9

82.9

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with thepurpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden orat a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals.

Roma men 15+ Roma women 15+

147


level of employment of the geographically close generalpopulation, which achieved a value of 45.9%.30

With a narrowing of the age interval through the formof shifting the age boundary from the end of productive

age in the direction of productivity, the measure of em-ployment for the general population grew significantly,while in the Roma population it grew only very moder-ately. Thus, for the general population the measure of em-

Roma population Geographically closegeneral populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

Declared employment Share of working in the entire set

15+ years 7.0 9.6 13.4 9.9 44.7

15-64 years 7.3 10.1 14.0 10.4 54.2

15-55 years 7.5 10.9 14.7 11.0 61.4

15-24 years 3.6 6.8 13.8 8.0 19.5

25-54 years 9.0 13.2 15.3 12.5 72.8

55-64 years 6.0 1.4 2.3 3.0 30.9

Employment according to VZPS Adjusted share of working (worked 1 hr.+) for the entire population

15+ years 13.1 15.5 16.4 15.0 45.9

15-64 years 13.5 16.3 16.9 15.5 55.1

15-55 years 13.8 16.7 17.8 16.1 61.3

15-24 years 8.1 9.1 17.1 11.4 20.5

25-54 years 16.3 20.9 18.3 18.5 72.8

55-64 years 10.0 10.0 2.3 7.9 35.5

Declared unemployment As a share of unemployed for the entire set

15+ years 56.6 53.5 52.7 54.3 7.4

15-64 years 58.3 56.1 54.9 56.4 9.0

15-55 years 61.1 59.0 56.5 58.9 10.4

15-24 years 53.1 46.6 40.8 46.8 9.3

25-54 years 65.2 64.9 63.9 64.7 11.1

55-64 years 18.0 31.4 31.8 27.4 3.1

Declared unemployment As a share of unemployed from the declared labour force

15+years 88.9 84.7 79.7 84.4 14.1

15-64 years 88.9 84.7 79.7 84.4 14.2

15-55 years 89.1 84.4 79.4 84.3 14.5

15-24 years 93.7 87.2 74.8 85.4 32.3

25-54 years 87.8 83.1 80.7 83.5 13.2

55-64 years 75.0 95.6 93.3 90.0 9.1

Unemployment according to VZPS Share of unemployed in the labour force

15+ years 75.9 72.1 71.5 73.1 9.9

15-64 years 75.9 72.1 71.7 73.2 10.0

15-55 years 76.5 72.9 71.4 73.5 10.3

15-24 years 81.0 77.3 63.0 73.5 21.2

25-54 years 75.3 71.2 73.5 73.3 9.6

55-64 years 50.0 63.2 92.3 69.0 6.2

Measure of economic activity Share of economically active (working + unemployed) for entire population

15+ years 54.3 55.7 57.6 55.8 50.9

15-64 years 55.9 58.4 59.7 57.9 61.2

15-55 years 58.5 61.5 62.1 60.7 68.3

15-24 years 42.4 40.2 46.2 42.9 26.0

25-54 years 66.0 72.6 69.3 69.3 80.6

55-64 years 20.0 27.1 29.6 25.6 37.8

Outside labour market As a % of the entire population

15+ years 45.7 44.3 42.5 44.2 49.1

15-64 years 44.1 41.6 40.3 42.1 38.8

15-55 years 41.5 38.5 37.9 39.3 31.6

15-24 years 57.6 59.8 53.8 57.1 74.0

25-54 years 34.1 27.4 30.7 30.7 19.4

55-64 years 80.0 72.9 70.5 74.4 62.2

Note: Working including those who did not work even 1 hour, but who have work (they didn’t work due to illness, strike, lockout and the like).

Table 9.8Comparison of different measures of employment and unemployment for individual surveyed groups (in %)

148


ployment grew from 45.9% with age 15+ years to 55.1%for the group age 15-64 years and to 61.3% for the groupage 15-55 years; in the case of the Roma population withthe shift to the group age 15-64 years the measure of em-ployment increased from 15% to 15.5% and subse-quently to age 15-55 years to 16.1%. While with the gen-eral population the exclusion of those older than 64 yearsmeant an increase in employment by 10 points and af-ter exclusion of those age 55 years by an additional 6points, for the Roma population, the narrowing of the ageinterval meant growth in the measure of employment byonly 0.5 point (for the group age 15-64 years) and furtherby only 0.6 points (for the group age 15-55 years). The dif-ference is the differently represented old-age pensionersand the unemployed in both compared groups. Sincethere are a great deal fewer old-age pensioners in theRoma population and a great many more unemployed,the exclusion of the oldest age groups the measure of em-ployment counted as a share of all Roma individuals ofthe given age group hardly changed at all. Conversely, inthe general population each shortening of the age intervalmeans the exclusion of a large group of economically in-active persons, and at the same time from the viewpointof economic activity a more homogeneous basic set. Thisis also confirmed by a look at the change in the measureof economic activities31 in Table 9.8, in whose value for thegeneral population increased for the group age 15-55years as opposed to the group defined as age 15+ yearsby 17 points, while for the Roma this was only 5 points.

In the table the measure of employment of theyoungest, middle-age and oldest age groups are alsocompared. The highest value is found in the middle agegroup defined as age 25-54 years, while at the same timethe largest difference versus the geographically close gen-eral population also appears here. The measure of em-ployment of Roma age 25-54 years achieved a level of18.5% (in segregated areas only 16.3%), for the samegroup of the general population this was 72.8%.32 FromRoma age 25-54 years not quite one-fifth was em-ployed or worked at least one hour outside the house-hold, and from the geographically close general popu-lation this was nearly three-quarters. Thus, there is a gi-ant gap here (by 54.3 points, or a four-fold difference),which is repeatedly confirmed by the different chancesof the Roma population for finding paid work, namelywhile taking into account local or regional conditions.

And this gigantic disproportion persisted with thecomparison of the youngest and the oldest groups. In theage group from 15-24 years the measure of employmentwas in the Roma set 11.4% and for the general popula-tion it was 20.5%; among Roma age 55-64 years thoseworking only made up 7.9%, while in this same groupfrom the general population the figure was still 35.5%.

It was thus confirmed that the declared employmentfor all compared age groups was lower for the Roma pop-ulation according to the VZPS methodology.33 Thismeans that the part of those Roma individuals who sub-jectively perceived themselves as not working, workedin the monitored week at least one hour for a wage orsome other form of profit. Overall the difference wasmeasured at about 5%, and was highest for those livingsegregated or separated. It is interesting that in the gen-eral population the disproportion was minimal: de-clared employment and the measure of employment us-ing the VZPS method were nearly identical for all of thedefined age groups. This could signal a significantly high-er occurrence of different types of random work op-portunities with symptoms of precarious or illegal workon the side of the Roma population, when they are calledfrom the surroundings by individuals or natural personsto work, but more permanent jobs remains inaccessiblefor them; furthermore, this is why they are classified asother economic statuses rather than the status working,or more often to the unemployed.

In relation to unemployment, this emerged as veryhigh for the Roma population even on the basis of cal-culation founded on the absence of work combined withthe willingness and capability of working and with ac-tive searching for work (regarding the VZPS methodol-ogy, see Note 29). The measure of unemployment as theshare of unemployed for the entire number of eco-nomically active persons (the labour force) then achievedfor the Roma population age 15+ years on average 73.1%(the most for the subset living segregated – 75.9%). Witha narrowing of the age interval for the initial group to the15-64 years interval or the 15-55 years interval, the meas-ure of unemployment of the Roma almost didn’t changeat all. The calculated measure of unemployment of theRoma population is more principally different than thedeclared unemployment. Declared unemployment asa share of the whole relevant population emerged sig-nificantly lower (for age 15 years and older 54.3%; high-

30 But as can be seen from the data presented in Box 9.3, the measure of employment found for the geographically close general population alsolagged behind the Slovak-wide average – the measure of employment in 2010 for the whole population age 15+ years achieved 50.5%. Here regionalfactors probably step into the picture – employment in marginalised regions and districts of Slovakia which often overlap with areas with Roma com-munities, is a great deal lower (Falťan et al., 2004).

31 The measure of economic activity as in the percentages expressed share of economically active citizens (working an unemployed) in a certain agegroup from all citizens of the same age group (Selected..., 2011, pg. 7).

32 Let us recall that in comparison with the overall average for Slovakia the geographically close general population also achieved a smaller measureof employment: for the group age 25-54 years the average measure of employment in 2010 was 76%.

33 A similar principle, but in the opposite direction, also applies with a comparison of unemployment – declared unemployment is higher than the meas-ure of unemployment using the VZPS method.


149

est in the case of segregated 56.6%) and declared un-employment as a share of the labour force again a greatdeal higher (for age 15 years and older 79.7%; the high-est for segregated 88.9%).

For the general population a completely different pic-ture of unemployed was generated: the calculatedmeasure of unemployment of the population age 15+years had a value of 9.9%, which is less than one-seventhof the Roma figure; with a narrowing of the age interval,unlike the difference from the measure of unemploymentand equally as with the Roma population, this changedonly a little; it differed very little in comparison with de-clared unemployment (declared unemployment asa share of the overall relevant population was 7.4% andas a share of the declared labour force 14.7%).

From the mutual relations of the calculated and de-clared unemployment figures, it follows that a largegroup of the Roma population which self-reported a sta-tus of unemployed was not included among the un-employed on the basis of the VZPS methodologyfounded on the fulfilment of three conditions (presentedin Note 29). For the general population from the geo-graphically close general population the agreement be-tween the presented two measures is significantlyhigher – the calculated and self-reported unemploy-ment are more in agreement.

As further follows from Table 9.8, the measure of un-employment was very high already in the youngest agegroup of 15-24 years, and ultimately the highest in com-parison with the middle and oldest generation. This ap-plied for both compared populations but on a very differentlevel. With the youngest Roma it achieved on average73.5% and it roughly held this level through the middlegeneration and moderately declined on with the oldestage group of 55-64 years (to 69%). The youngest membersof the geographically close general population showeda measure of unemployment of 21.2%, thus less than one-third that of their Roma peers; for the middle generationa drop by 10% and in the oldest generation still more –to 6.2%. The huge gap in unemployment between theRoma and the geographically close general population isstable according to age and persists in all monitored agecategories. Exclusion from the labour market, more exactlyfrom active inclusion to the labour market, is not only highfor the Roma, but, it seems permanent.

Although the measure of unemployment in theRoma population changed according to the type of set-tlement for almost all of the presented age groups (itgrew with gradual spatial exclusion and the highest lev-el was found among those living segregated), thelargest difference was for the youngest groups: insegregated settlements this was 81%, in separated itdropped to 77.3% and for those living diffused 63%. Thismeans that three-fifth of those living diffused, more thanthree-quarters separated and up to four-fifths segre-

gated young Roma age 15-24 years are unemployed.Such high unemployment among the young Roma pop-ulation can be considered as an alarming finding,which demands immediate and systematic intervention.If already at the start of their working life the majoritybelong among the unemployed, there is a great prob-ability that in their subsequent life phases they will notovercome exclusion from the labour market, at leasta predominate share of them.

All of the connections mentioned with the existingindicators from the field of the labour market apply toa full measure also for the measure of economic activi-ty and its opposite – the share of persons outside thelabour market. The measure of economic activity asa share the economically active (working and unem-ployed) for the whole of the given basic populationachieved for the Roma population age 15 + years on av-erage 55.8%, which was approximately 5% more than forthe geographically close general population. With a di-verse initial age group for the basic calculation the meas-ure of economic activity, more exactly with its narrow-ing by the economically inactive, the resultant levelchanges – for the Roma population again only moder-ately and for the general population more significantly.In the Roma population, upon narrowing the age intervalto 15-64 years the measure of economic activity increasedto 57.9% and for the age group 15-55 years to 60.7%. Themeasure of economic activity of the general populationage 15+ years was approximately 51%, but for thegroup age 15-64 years it was more than 61% and for the15-55 years interval more than 68%. The larger the spec-ification for a productive generation, the higher the eco-nomic activity is. Restricting the age interval from 15+years to 15-55 years increased the measure of econom-ic activity of the Roma population by approximately 5%;in the case of the general population this was nearly 18%.Although the economically active from the entire pop-ulation age 15+ years is larger in the Roma population(56% economically active and the remaining 44% out-side of the labour market) than within the general pop-ulation (51% economically active and the remaining 49%outside the labour market), after restricting to the pro-ductive population age 15-55 years the proportions re-versed and for this age interval the economically activehave a higher share for the general population. From thegeographically close general population age 15-55years, 7 out of 10 persons belonged among the eco-nomically active (and the remaining three were outsidethe labour market), for the Roma population age 15-55years this was 6 people from 10 (the remaining four wereoutside the labour market).

By productive age the middle generation has thehighest measure of economic activity: for the group age25-54 years for the Roma population it approached 70% and for the general population exceeded 80%. The

higher measure of economic activity on the side of thegeneral population persisted also with a comparison ofthe oldest generation age 55-64 years (37.8% general ver-sus 25.6% Roma), with the youngest generation the ra-tio reversed– economically active achieved a higher lev-el for the Roma population (43% Roma to 26% general).The mentioned differences between the Roma and thegeneral population within the three basic generationsfollow in part from the significantly fewer Roma study-ing, which shifts a large group of young people onto thelabour market (even though without successful incor-poration, that is among the unemployed), as well as theon average earlier and more common parenthood,which thus excludes a large group, primarily Romawomen, from the labour market – they are at home oron parental leave (see Table 9.9).

In terms of the type of settlement the measure of eco-nomic activity is lowest (and reciprocally the highest shareof people outside of the labour market) for Roma livingsegregated and this is so for all of the monitored age cat-egories. The total share of the labour force (economically

active) was for the Roma population age 15+ years morethan 54% and nearly 46% were outside the labour mar-ket; for those living diffused this was 58% active to 42%of people outside the labour market. Among young Romaage 15-24 years the ratio of the labour force and peopleoutside the labour market for the segregated settlementswas 42% to 58% and for diffused was 46% to 56%.

But as we can see, the differences between segre-gated and diffused Roma residents are not large. It canbe deduced from this, that the situation of the Roma pop-ulation from the perspective of standing on the labourmarket is in all three compared environments bad andexceptionally different from the general population – ge-ographically close and overall. Such a result of measur-ing signals a different relation to the labour market andits actors regarding the Roma labour force. And perhapseven in contrast – it points out the different relation, con-ditions and chances of the Roma population in regardto the labour market and employment. After weighingequalities of the geographic proximity it indicates: 1) thefunctioning of the discriminatory conditions and ex-


150

Table 9.9Overview of basic measures in relation to the labour market by sex – comparison of Roma and the geographi-cally close general population (in %)


Men Women Men Women

Employment according to VZPS Adjusted share of working (worked 1 hr.+) for the entire population

15+ years 19.5 10.5 52.7 39.6

15-64 years 20.1 11.0 61.2 49.1

15-55 years 20.7 11.4 65.1 57.5

15-24 years 15.2 7.7 23.3 16.7

25-54 years 23.4 13.4 78.5 67.4

55-64 years 11.5 4.7 49.4 23.7

Unemployment according to VZPS Share of unemployed in the labour force

15+ years 71.9 75.1 10.4 9.3

15-64 years 72.0 75.1 10.4 9.5

15-55 years 72.3 75.5 11.1 9.3

15-24 years 73.4 73.3 26.1 10.0

25-54 years 71.8 75.7 9.7 9.6

55-64 years 69.0 69.2 4.9 8.3

Measure of economic activity Share of economically active (working + unemployed) in the whole population

15+ years 69.6 42.1 58.8 43.7

15-64 years 71.9 44.0 68.3 54.2

15-55 years 74.7 46.5 73.2 63.4

15-24 years 57.1 28.9 31.5 18.6

25-54 years 83.0 55.1 86.9 74.5

55-64 years 37.1 15.2 51.9 25.9

Outside the labour market As a % of the whole population

15+ years 30.4 57.9 41.2 56.3

15-64 years 28.1 56.0 31.7 45.8

15-55 years 25.3 53.5 26.8 36.6

15-24 years 42.9 71.2 68.5 81.5

25-54 years 17.0 44.9 13.1 25.4

55-64 years 62.9 84.8 48.1 74.1

Note: For the whole of the Slovak Republic in 2010 average values were as follows: measure of employment for men age 15+ years 58.2% and women43.4%; measure of employment for men age 15-64 years 65.2% and for women 52.3%; measure of unemployment of men age 15+ years 14.2% and women14.6%; measure of economic activity of men age 67.8% and women 50.8%; men outside the labour market 32.2 % and women 49.2 %.

pectations in regard to the Roma population with“providers” of jobs and in the course of selected process-es for them; 2) the weaker disposition and prerequisitesof the Roma labour force in relation to offers on the labourmarket (, educational, qualifications, family or personally).

9.3.3. Employment and unemployment:influential factors

What influences the success or failure of the Roma pop-ulation on the labour market? Many domestic and for-eign studies from the fields of social sciences and eco-nomics have been devoted in recent years to the work-ing, or achieved result of the Roma population on thelabour market. The majority are in agreement and remainby the stated low qualification and education of this partof the labour force (from Slovakia we mention: Hanzelová– Bellan, 2009; Kárász, 2009; National..., 2007). But is thisthe only reason?

If we were to search for lessons from the studies ofmigrants, these usually state that successful integrationand adaptation to the labour market is connected withthe positive influence of the time spent in the receivingcountry (Borjas, 1995). Specifically with the Roma na-tionality in Slovakia this criterion doesn’t fit, because theRoma have lived in Slovakia for centuries and belong tothe structure of the domestic citizenry of the country. Alot of migration studies, however, alongside the lengthof stay of migrants in the receiving country emphasisethe importance of additional characteristics for successon the labour market, such as different individual and cul-turally specifics (Baker – Dwayne, 1994; Reimers, 1985;Schoeni, 1998). With a certain generalisation in can besaid that in summary they point to the role of ethnicityin economic behaviour; ethnic groups differ from one an-other, for example, in their view of the role of women andmen in the family and on the work of mothers outsidethe household, as well as for the basic values of ascribedto children, family size, the structure of a household oron the basis of education of women. These in summar-ily called “cultural” differences (more precisely gender-family) can increase systemic or structural disparities andchange expectations for the role of women and menwhich lead to the strengthening of differences in the be-haviour of women (and men) of different ethnic groups.

Available studies of marginalised Roma communi-ties which have tried to integrate the gender dimension,34

noted the strong influence of family stereotypes in Romasocieties, as well as the higher level of limitations of thehuman rights of Roma women (see Box 9.4). This is sub-sequently shown in their position on the labour market.Differences between women and men in basic indica-tors describing the situation of women in relation to thelabour market are presented in Table 9.9. The data con-firmed the gender disproportions in all compared in-dicators; they were actually in the Roma and the gen-eral population but the “gap” was many times higher forRoma. Employment of Roma women was also with theoverall very low level for the entire Roma population inall age and generational groups minimally half as muchversus Roma men (on average 20% for Roma menand 10% for Roma women).

In comparison with the geographically close gen-eral population the lagging of Roma women was high-er upon comparison with the employment of men. Themeasure of employment of Roma men was in com-parison with men from the geographically close gen-eral population less than one-third as high (20% versus6% and 65%), for Roma women this was in comparisonwith women from the general population 4-5-times less(11% versus 49% and 57%). The “geographical-ethnic”gender gap in employment was in the case of womenlarge already in the youngest generation (7.7% for Romawomen age 15-24 years to 16.7% for the same womenfrom the general population), but with a transition toolder generation still expanded (up to a difference of4.7% to 23.7% for the 55-64 years age category).Specifically, for the population defined by the age in-terval age 15+ years employment of Roma womenreached a level of 10.5% and the employment ofwomen from the geographically close general popu-lation reached a level of 39.6%; for Roma women andgeneral men this was 19.5% to 52.7%.35

Unemployment among men and women, its meas-ure, did not differ within both compared populations asemployment did. The reason was the overall high un-employment for the Roma, and in comparison with thisthe low, but gender equal unemployment for the geo-graphically close general population. In the Roma pop-ulation the difference between women and men rep-resented about 3%; its value for the general population


151

34 It’s necessary to truthfully remark that research and studies attempting to capture the gender dimension in Roma societies are still a fairly rare phe-nomenon in Slovakia. The study of the Cultural Association of Roma Women in Slovakia, located in Banská Bystrica, can also be placed among theoccasional research conducted (Data on..., 2009; KZRS, 2005).

35 The average measure of employment for the entire population of Slovakia reached in 2010, 58.2% in men and 43.4% in the case of women (for moredetails see Box 9.3). This means that not only Roma men and women but also men and women representing the geographically close general pop-ulation showed a rather significantly lower employment than all the men and women in the country. The obtained data repeatedly identified threetypes of reduction in the level of employment: among the whole of Slovakia and the general population from regions neighbouring Roma com-munities; between the general population from areas near to Roma communities and the Roma population; between members of individual typesof Roma communities. In regard to these general geographic and ethnic differences gender differences can still be added.

in comparison with them was one-seventh as much, butby gender the difference was only by 1%. While unem-ployment of Roma men age 15-64 years climbed to 72%and for Roma women more than 75%, for the generalpopulation of the group it had a value for men of just over10% and for women more than 9%. At the same time itfollows from this that for the general population un-employment was higher for men and for the Roma pop-ulation this was the opposite – women had a highermeasure of unemployment than men. Roma women ofthe middle generation had the highest unemploymentof all at 75.7%, while from the geographically close gen-eral population this was again men belonging to theyoungest pre-productive generation (26.1%).

While employment in a mutual comparison betweenand within the compared two populations showed gen-der differences (significantly differing between men andwomen in both the Roma and the general populations),with the measure of unemployment such a clear summarydidn’t apply. Although unemployment differed manytimes over between the Roma and the general population(more than 70% to 10%), in a comparison within the pop-ulations the difference was not large (for men and womenfrom the Roma population over 70% and for the generalaround 10%). Women, especially Roma women, were toa larger measure outside the labour market: 56% of Romawomen age 15-64 years in contrast to 45.8% of women fromthe general population and 28.1% of Roma men.36


152

Table 9.10Basic indicators of work activity of the Roma population age 15-64 years by education – comparison withthe subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %)

Less than standardprimary schoolStandard primary

school and unfin-ished secondaryschool

Secondary schoolwithout a school-leaving certificate

Secondary schoolwith a school-leavingcertificate and more

Segregated

Measure of employment 11.8 14.0 18.2 44.4

Measure of unemployment 77.8 78.5 72.0 42.9

Economically active 53.0 65.0 65.0 77.7

Outside the labour market 47.0 35.0 35.0 22.3

Separated





Diffused





General population










Roma men





Roma women





Note: Indicators used according to VZPS. Economic activity (i.e. labour force – working and unemployed together) and persons outside the labour mar-ket give a total of 100%. The group secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more had for the Roma population only a very low represen-tation (n = 35). The category of education “less than standard primary school” included special schools and an unfinished primary school education.

Exclusion of the Roma population from the labour mar-ket (economically inactive) is large, and successful place-ment on it (working) is low in the overall view, but withRoma women it acquires an exceedingly huge dimension,which further expands with spatial exclusion. One-tenthof Roma women working is a bad result for Slovakia, whichwith great probability will not be fully explained by the freechoice of women for remaining in the household.

But let us return to the effect of achieved educationon the final standing on the labour market. An overviewof the main indicators of the position of different stud-ied groups for four categories of education is presentedin Table 9.10. As follows from the data, the effects of ed-ucation on the growth of economic activity and em-

ployment on one hand and the lowering of employmentand the share of people outside the labour market on theother is confirmed for all monitored subsets of theRoma population.

In relation to the entire Roma population within theage group 15-64 years, similarly as with declared, and onthe basis of employed counted using the VZPS method-ology an increase in the measure of employment wasshown with advancement toward a higher degree ofachieved education. The measure of employment grad-ually grew from 9.2% in the category of less than stan-dard primary school, through 15.6% with a standard pri-mary education and unfinished secondary school, to


153

Graph 9.29Measure of employment of the Roma populationage 15-64 years by achieved education – comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation (in %)


Roma population total80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

09.2

12.5

39.6

56.2

71.3

15.6

29.9

37.8

Graph 9.30Measure of unemployment of the Roma populationage 15-64 years by achieved education – comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation (in %)



Note: The measure of unemployment was according to the VZPSmethodology. The group secondary school with a school-leaving cer-tificate and more had for the Roma population only a very low repre-sentation (n = 35). The category of education “less than standard pri-

mary school” included special schools and an unfinished primaryschool education.

Less

than

sta

ndar

dpr

imar

y sc

hool

Stan

dard

prim

ary

scho

ol a

nd u

nfini

shed

se

cond

ary

scho

ol

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

w

ithou

t a s

choo

l-lea

ving

cert

ifica

te (S

econ

dary

vo

catio

nal s

choo

l)

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

with

a sc

hool

-leav

ing

cert

ifica

te a

nd m

ore

Less

than

sta

ndar

d pr

imar

y sc

hool

Stan

dard

prim

ary

scho

ol a

nd u

nfini

shed

se

cond

ary

scho

ol

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

w

ithou

t a s

choo

l-lea

ving

cert

ifica

te (S

econ

dary

vo

catio

nal s

choo

l)

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

with

a sc

hool

-leav

ing

cert

ifica

te a

nd m

ore

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

81.776.2

59.2

41.7

5.2

17.013.6

33.3

36 With the measure of economic activity this was the exact opposite – Roma women achieved the lowest level (only 44% of economically active Romawomen age 15-64 years in contrast to 54.2% of women from the general population and 71.9% of Roma men).

Note: The measure of employment was according to the VZPSmethodology. The group secondary school with a school-leaving cer-tificate and more had for the Roma population only a very low repre-sentation (n = 35). The category of education “less than standard pri-

mary school” included special schools and an unfinished primaryschool education.

29.9% for finished vocational school, and finally to37.8% for secondary school with a school-leaving cer-tificate and a higher education (Graph 9.29).

The difference between the level of employment ofthe Roma and the geographically close general popu-lations was shown to be stable. The measure of em-ployment for the general population was found to behigher in all four categories and was significantly high-er except for the lowest educational level. With those hav-ing less than standard primary school the difference wason the level of approximately one-quarter, with the re-maining degrees of education the measure of employ-ment of Roma was more-or-less half as much. It remainsonly to repeat the conclusion for declared employ-ment: despite the same geographic environment thework results for the Roma population is significantly low-er in all educational groups.

The measure of unemployment displays a completelyopposite association in relation to education (Graph 9.30);with growing education it is decreased. While with ed-ucation lower than standard primary school the meas-ure of unemployment for the Roma exceeded 81%, withprogression to the group with standard primary schoolfell to 76.2%, with vocational school it fell below 60% andfor secondary school with a school-leaving certificate andhigher it fell further to not quite 42%. In comparison withthe geographically close general population, however,the measure of unemployment found in all education-al categories was also a great deal smaller, including thehighest education (41.7% to 5.2%).

The gains from a higher education in the form of a bet-ter position on the labour market was thus for the Romapopulation smaller than with the general population. It canbe assumed from this that the Roma population, when look-ing for qualified work, must face greater or more problemsalso when they acquire a higher degree of education, be-cause unemployment in the Roma population is very higheven for the group with a higher education.

A more summary view of factors potentially influencingsuccessful or unsuccessful placement of the labour forceon the labour market is made possible by correlation co-efficients. As Table 9.11 shows, among the factors with thestrongest impact on the classification to the working or theunemployed in the case of economically active Roma pop-ulation age 15+ years is the total experience with work ac-tivities during one‘s lifetime, actual education and com-prehensive literacy. The total set indicates a possiblemore significant association also with the education of par-ents, work in an activation programme and the structureof children in school. Indeed, the data for the entire set ofthe Roma labour force indicated a low but statistically sig-nificant association between the quality of placement onthe labour market even with experience with school,completed schooling, the number of children at home andthe index of discrimination. A statistically significant as-sociation with the type of housing, sex and age appears,the reason being be the high share of unemployed in allcategories for these three indicators (in segregated, sep-arated and diffused; in men and women; in the younger,middle and older generations).37


154

Table 9.11Measure of association between the share of working and unemployed economically activity in the Roma popula-tion age 15+ years and selected factors of influence for individual subsets by type of settlement (Spearman‘s rho)


Rho Sign. Rho Sign. Rho Sign. Rho Sign.

Type of settlement — — — — — — 0.040 0.170

Sex -0.03 0.610 0.00 0.958 -0.08 0.108 -0.034 0.238

Age 0.07 0.154 0.09 0.066 -0.05 0.337 0.038 0.182

Education 0.06 0.276 0.12 0.016 0.32 0.000 0.173 0.000

Number of household members -0.06 0.278 -0.08 0.111 -0.07 0.172 -0.072 0.012

Number of children to 14 years -0.13 0.009 -0.13 0.007 -0.10 0.052 -0.122 0.000

Common language 0.01 0.891 0.01 0.907 0.10 0.052 0.038 0.191

Experience with school -0.02 0.718 0.06 0.212 0.21 0.000 0.098 0.001

Structure of children at school 0.17 0.002 0.07 0.192 0.13 0.009 0.130 0.000

Total literacy 0.05 0.351 0.22 0.000 0.30 0.000 0.196 0.000

Education of parents -0.10 0.079 0.06 0.280 0.31 0.000 0.120 0.000

Live in municipality without interruption 0.13 0.011 0.00 0.931 -0.04 0.460 0.027 0.354

Completed training 0.27 0.000 0.01 0.884 0.03 0.603 0.093 0.015

Health status -0.04 0.434 -0.14 0.007 0.01 0.798 -0.055 0.065

Chronic illness and limitation in activities -0.02 0.753 -0.01 0.859 0.00 0.930 -0.010 0.743

Number of doctor visits -0.06 0.256 0.06 0.230 0.04 0.492 0.014 0.623

Work in any activation programme -0.10 0.044 -0.08 0.113 -0.32 0.000 -0.170 0.000

Experience with work 0.21 0.000 0.36 0.000 0.33 0.000 0.304 0.000

Index of discrimination -0.04 0.399 -0.04 0.363 -0.09 0.090 -0.060 0.036

Note: Calculated for the Roma population age 15+ years. The struck out numbers mean that the value is not significant for any level of significance.

Individual factors demonstrated a different inten-sity for the defined subsets of the Roma population bytype of settlement. For the segregated subset theworking of the monitored agents was weak, which tes-tifies about the very homogeneous environment fromthe viewpoint of placement in the labour force on thelabour market (for example, not quite 3% of Romawomen living segregated were working); thus, it is dif-ficult to find here an agent increasing the probability ofemployment. In separated communities differentia-tion increased on the basis of some factors, but thestrongest association appeared for those living diffused.The overall experience with work, actual education andthe education of parents, literacy and experience withschool were differentiated. A negative correlation wasexpressed with work in an activation programme tiedto a work facility; probably a large part of those who atsometime took part in activation activities was made upby the current participants in such a programme, whichis exclusive with paid employment.

An attempt at coordinating the influence of individualpotential factors into a more systematic form generated,on the basis of the statistical processes used, the subse-quent picture (see the Figure 1 to Chapter 9). Overall lit-eracy emerged as the primary differentiating factor in-fluencing whether someone from the available labourforce of the Roma population age 15+ years works or isunemployed. The share of the unemployed increased sig-nificantly and the share working dropped according towhether the surveyed individuals had a problem withreading or with writing (at least one of them), or if theycould handle both of these skills without problems. Theworking of other agents differed in the presented twogroups – other associations were expressed in the Romawith weak literacy (including illiteracy) and others for thegroup who could read and write without problems.

Actual education appeared as the second differen-tiating agent behind the group of problems accordingto literacy – the share of those unemployed significantlyincreased and of those working decreased with holdersof a primary and lower education, for vocational schooland higher education this involved movement in the op-posite direction in the proportions of those working andthose unemployed. The third agent in order was for thegroup with a low degree of education the type of set-tlement according to spatial exclusion; in the group witha higher education the index of discrimination wasfound to be the third most important agent.

For the group without any problems with literacy de-fined by writing and reading, the education of the par-ents was classified as the second level of influence. If bothparents had less than primary school, a third differenti-ating agent was the structure of children in school(segregated education); if at least one parent had a high-er than primary education the number of children in thehousehold impacted the proportion of working and un-employed (with more children the share of working de-creased and the share of unemployed increased).

A list of possible factors of influence on (un)em-ployment of the Roma population is therefore relative-ly broad and diverse according to the specific situationand starting conditions. But for makers of policy this canvery specifically signify, where interventions in the interestof increasing employment of the Roma population arenecessary, which is a basic source of the income neededfor breaking out of poverty (but also personal satisfactionand fulfilment, social contacts and the like). In additionto improving the qualifying prerequisites, this is also animprovement of the educational system, removing spa-tial segregation and discrimination and strengthening op-portunities for harmonising household and work obli-gations also outside of large towns and municipalities.

9.3.4. Quality and stability of work activitiesof the Roma population

For a closer description of the position of some group ofthe population on the labour market, it is not enough tocharacterise only the level of only the connection. In ad-dition to economic activity and employment, other in-dicators which tell of the range and quality of the workperformed are also important. The type of work per-formed, the intensity of the work expressed by the num-ber of hours worked, the stability of employment, the typeof work activity and work contract, are added to themand an important indicator is obviously the amount paidfor the work. All of the listed aspects of work were trackedin the study; Table 9.12 offers a summary overview ofthem for the individual subsets of the Roma populationage 15 years and more and a comparison with the ge-ographically close general population. It was not possi-ble to perform a more detailed classification, however,in regard to the very low measure of unemployment38

and the small number of those working in the surveyedsubsets of Roma population.


155

37 The fact that no statistically significant association was expressed between the method of placement of the labour force on the labour market andthe monitored health factors could be a consequence of the fact that persons with larger health care problems remain outside of the labour mar-ket (the economically inactive were excluded from the calculation).

38 As is presented in Table 9.8, on average only 15% of the Roma population age 15 years and more are classified among working according to the VZPSmethodology; for those living segregated this is only 13%. Therefore, it is necessary to view the presented percentage in the overview of indicatorsof work activity (Table 9.12) only as information about basic tendencies, it is not possible to extrapolate more broadly and even analyse in more de-tail in mutual associations.


156

Table 9.12Selected indicators of work activity or the Roma population age 15+ years – comparison of subsets andwith the geographically close general population (in %)


Segregated(n= 93)

Separated(n=118)

Diffused(n=113)

Total(n=324)

Type of work performed What was the primary work you performed in the previous week, what is your primary job?

Unqualified manual worker 66.7 59.1 35.4 50.6 7.0

Qualified manual worker 22.9 36.1 55.2 41.4 35.2

Operator or service worker 10.4 4.8 5.2 6.2 17.2

Higher qualified position total — — 4.2 1.8 40.6

Number of hours worked per week How many hours did you perform this work in the previous week, or how many hoursper week did you usually work in your primary job?

Less than 20 hours 23.0 14.7 12.8 9.7 1.2

20-39 hours 8.4 8.5 5.3 12.9 9.6

40 hours 47.9 56.1 58.9 55.7 54.6

42 hours — 3.7 8.4 4.9 19.5

43-50 hours 12.5 17.1 5.3 11.0 12.3

51 and more hours 8.4 — 9.5 5.8 2.8

Work performed How many months have you done this work since the start of the year?

1-3 months 13.6 1.2 10.6 7.6 1.6

4-6 months 20.5 13.3 9.5 13.1 2.6

7-10 months 22.8 9.6 14.7 14.5 2.6

Whole year* 43.1 75.9 65.2 64.8 93.2

Position in employment In this work you were...

Employee 87.8 81.0 87.4 85.2 81.5

Self-employed 7.3 12.7 3.2 7.4 15.5

Employer — 1.3 5.3 2.8 2.2

Helping in DH** 2.4 — 4.2 2.3 0.8

Other 2.4 5.1 — 2.3 —

Work contract What kind of contract did you have for this work?

Permanent contract 41.9 50.0 60.5 52.8 89.9

Contract for < 6 mos. 18.6 14.7 7.0 12.2 3.8

Contract for > 6 mos. 9.3 14.7 5.8 9.6 1.9

Work agreement 9.3 7.4 18.6 12.7 2.2

Casual work 14.0 2.9 — 4.1 0.3

Trial job, training 7.0 7.4 5.8 6.6 1.6

For a commission, no contract — 2.9 2.4 2.0 0.3

Type of employer Is your employer...

Private company 59.1 66.2 76.7 69.2 70.6

Public sector 6.8 3.1 5.8 5.1 13.8

Local body 15.9 21.5 7.0 13.8 4.4

State enterprise 9.1 — 5.8 4.6 10.0

Individual and other 9.1 9.3 4.7 7.2 1.3

Payment for work Did you receive payment, a wage or other remuneration for this work from the employerin cash or other forms?

Yes 91.1 90.1 95.3 92.6 99.7

No 8.9 9.9 4.7 7.4 0.3

Amount of wages

EUR 200 and less 25.8 13.0 18.7 18.3 4.3

EUR 201 – 400 60.0 61.1 32.2 49.2 30.7

EUR 401 – 600 8.6 22.2 39.0 25.7 39.6

EUR 601 – 800 5.8 3.8 3.4 4.1 17.1

EUR 801 and more — — 6.8 2.7 8.4

Newness of work Did you start a new job or your own business from the start of the year?

Yes 14.3 5.3 7.2 7.7 3.6

No 85.7 94.7 92.8 92.3 96.4

Note: The presented data only for working individuals age 15+ who responded to the question, according to the VZPS methodology. *Since the collec-tion of data ran in November and December, answers 11 and 12 months from the start of the year are calculated in the “whole year” category. **DH =household management or home business.

In relation to the type of work performed, the studyconfirmed the predominance of manual work in theRoma population, and in the segregated and separatedsettlements even the predominance of unqualifiedmanual work. Among those working from the geo-graphically close general population the share of re-spondents who were classified according to the work per-formed as unqualified manual workers was only 7%; ofall the working Roma, however, it surpassed one-half andfor those living segregated increased to two-thirds. Insummary, 42% of the working general population, but92% of working Roma, were labelled as manual workers.Conversely, only 2% of the entire working Roma popu-lation found worked in higher qualified positions like anoperations worker in service and business (i. e. in ad-ministrative, professional and creative or management;positions); for the geographically close general populationthis was more than 40%.

The work of the Roma population developed less of-ten in the standard regime, that is eight or eight and a halfhours per day (which is 40 – 42 hours worked perweek). While 74.1% of those working from the generalpopulation had such a length for the work day, amongworking Roma this was nearly 10 percentage points less(60.6%). The segregated living level significantly de-creased standard work time – the share working sucha period in this case did not even make up one-half. Work-ing Roma performed work with a shorter work time thanis standard (together more than one-fifth of all workingRoma, form the general working this was one-tenth), inthe end with very short work time (up to 23% of the work-ing population living segregated worked fewer than 20hours for the previous week). The share of a longer worktime was approximately the same according to thestudy in both compared population: 16.8% of workingRoma and 15.1% of the working general population.There can be several subjective reasons for the low num-ber of hours worked (illness, the need to harmonise workwith family obligations, etc.); it could at the same timealso signal a lower measure of accessibility to stable andstandard jobs on the side of the Roma population in thegiven geographic surroundings.

The period of performing current work for a certaintime period also addresses the question of stability ofwork or work performed. Since the data collection wascarried out in November and December, in the ques-tionnaire the period of working from the start of 2010 wasalso surveyed. A notable difference in the performanceof work during the whole year was expressed: while forthose working from the geographically close general pop-ulation the share of working the entire year exceeded93%, the average for working Roma was lower than 65%.In segregated environments this was still significantly less– only 43%; the share of shorter work periods here wasnotably higher than the average for the whole of the

working Roma and incomparably higher in comparisonwith those working from the geographically close gen-eral population. Although the share of new graduates ar-riving on the labour market (for first employment) or anew job enters into the resultant value for this indicator,the huge disproportion found with great probability con-firmed the higher occurrence of temporary and casualwork, that is, unstable work in the scope of the Roma pop-ulation at all and especially in those living segregated.

The higher endangerment or vulnerability of jobdone by the Roma population was also signalled by theposition in the employment and the work contract. Al-though in both compared neighbouring populations theposition of employee predominated among the possi-ble positions in employment and only a small share ofemployers was shown, in the case of the rest of the workstatuses certain differences were expressed. In thoseworking from the geographically close general popu-lation the number of self-employed was two-timeshigher, while in the Roma population again there wasa higher representation of those helping with house-keeping or a family business or other work statuses. Thegroup of employees differed for the Roma populationand the geographically close general population ac-cording to the type of contract. It was also shown thatin the case of work commitment of the Roma popula-tion more temporary work is involved: only half of thesehad an indefinite work contract, while from the gener-al population this contract was strongly dominantat 90%. An entire half of working Roma performed cur-rent work on the basis of a contract closed for a periodof less than a half-year or longer, on a work agreement,occasional work had a high share, along with trainingor work on commission or without any contract. Whilefrom those working from the geographically closegeneral population achieved only a 2% share of the lastthree mentioned possibilities for working Roma it ex-ceeded on average one-tenth and in the subset livingsegregated up to one-fifth. Occasional jobs are signif-icantly widespread in segregated environments.

According to the type of employer, in both comparedpopulations employment in a private firm or companypredominated with a share of 70%; the remaining 30%worked for others types of employers. At the same timeit was shown that jobs in the public and state sector weremore accessible for the geographically close general pop-ulation; Roma worked more often for local bodies or forindividuals or for another subject (for example, a non-prof-it organisation), and more significantly more of them wereamong the separated and segregated.

Less quality and less stable work also brings fewerbenefits in the form of work bonuses, which the studyconfirmed. Although non-payment of a work bonus wasnot widely represented, it did occur almost exclusivelyin the Roma population. More than 7% of working


157

Roma (from segregated and separated nearly one-tenth) declared non-payment of a wage or other pay-ments for work conscripted for an employer; the majorityof them, when asked the reason why they were not paidgave the response “I don’t know”. Payments for workingRoma were in summary significantly lower than for thoseworking from the geographically close general popula-tion. More than 18% of the working Roma population list-ed payment for work up to EUR 200 (more than 14% ofthis was up to EUR 100); among the general populationonly about a 4% share had such a wage. The large pre-dominance of the Roma population was also expressedfor the second lowest wage level defined by the sum EUR200 to EUR 400; with sums above EUR 400 the generalpopulation predominated. A total of 65% of thoseworking from the general population had remunerationfor work of more than EUR 400, in comparison with 32%among working Roma; payment above EUR 600 was list-ed by more than one-quarter of the general working pop-ulation versus not quite 7% for working Roma. In viewof the low number of those working in the Roma pop-ulation it made no sense to further classify the amountlisted as remuneration by other aspect of work performed;the majority, however, involved payments covering anentire month; the share for a shorter period represent-ed 4% of Roma living diffused and one-tenth of segre-gated, while in other subsets this hardly occurred at all.

A total of 8% of all Roma currently working at thetime of the survey began from the start of the year a newjob or a new business and only 4% of the working gen-eral population. The study did not collect informationabout a contribution from the state or a support grantfor the launching of a business; the drawing of such ben-efits was merely given by individuals – from the Romaand the general population. The presence of or the car-rying out of other work along with the given primary em-ployment was also surveyed, and again only a few indi-viduals listed other work.39

The collected empirical data also confirms thatfrom this small group of those working in the Roma pop-ulation there was a great share, significantly larger thanamong the geographically close general population, ofcreating jobs that are not very stable or of much quali-ty. A great deal more often this involved unqualified work,manual work, temporary work, with few work obligations,for fewer standard employees and with low payment forthe work. Such types of jobs usually offer low or no so-cial-work protection and security. And with a shift towardsegregated living the stable and more quality jobs sig-nificantly decreased.

9.3.5. Characteristics of unemployment of the Roma population and experiencewith institutions

As is presented above, the level of unemployment of theRoma population was found to be very high in all threecompared environments and versus the result for the ge-ographically close general population was seven timeshigher in the end. Specifically for the age group age 15years and more the measure of unemployment basedon the VZPS methodology reached 73% on average,while the control sample of the general population wasnot quite 10%. Table 9.13 presents the other charac-teristics of the unemployed from the viewpoint of theregistration of unemployment and its duration, but alsowhat do they think about the approach of the labour of-fice and the effectiveness of available help with lookingfor work, including personal experiences with the ap-proach of employers.

The data speaks about the fact that an absolute ma-jority of identified unemployed was at the time of thestudy registered with the labour office, among the Romaunemployed, however, this share was actually lower incomparison with the geographically close general pop-ulation (88.9% to 97.7% of all unemployed). Of unem-ployed Roma then more than one-tenth were not reg-istered with the labour office while with unemployedfrom the geographically close general this was ap-proximately 2%. Among the reasons why they are notregistered the most commonly given possibility was “it’snot important to me; I don’t care” (more than 35% of un-registered employed Roma). Those living diffused stat-ed this to a greater measure, but those this also occurredin the remaining two subsets. Second in order was thereason “the work office didn’t help me at all with a job”(declared by approximately one-quarter of them), andagain this was most often among those living dif-fused. With nearly equal frequency on the level ofone-quarter followed the response “I didn’t cooperate”;this had a more abundant occurrence with unem-ployed from separated settlements. The reason for notregistering formulated as “they excluded me against mywill” was contained in the responses only rarely, and onlythose from segregated and separated settlement gaveit. A relatively large portion of unregistered unem-ployed Roma (approximately one-fifth of them) was notable or not willing to answer. And those living segregatedrefused most of all to not give a response regarding thereason for not registering at the labour office; 40% of therelated respondents came from this group.40


158

39 Of the Roma population age 15 years and more this was 16 individuals and most involved work in the amount of 2-3 hours per week; from the gen-eral population the number was 19 people who worked 2 to 20 hours at a second job in the last week.

40 Only for completeness: with unregistered unemployed individuals representing the geographically close general population (sporadically) only onepossible response occurred– “I didn’t cooperated”.


159

According to the length of the period registered ata labour office long-term unemployment predominat-ed in the Roma population, and this was despite the sig-nificantly younger population versus the geographicallyclose general population. Approximately one-third of un-employed Roma had registered unemployment of du-ration up to one year (inclusive) and two-thirds had long-term unemployment defined by a period of more thanone year; of this, 17% listed unemployment lasting upto two years, 28% between two and five years and 19%longer than five years. For the geographically closegeneral population the share of shorter and long-termunemployment was the opposite – two-thirds were un-employed for a year and less and one-third longer than

one year; furthermore, in those growing length of reg-istration the proportion of so excluded rapidly de-creased. Unemployment over five years got among un-employed Roma nearly 19%, but in the geographicallyclose general population this was 5%; up to 46% of un-employed Roma had a period of unemployment lastinglonger than two years had together, and for the gener-al population this set was 15%.41 All Roma subsets werestricken with very long-term unemployment, but thestrongest were residents of segregated settlements: thisset accounted for more than half of all the segregatedunemployed (more than 52%) and with declining spa-tial exclusion the share gradually lowered to 45% for sep-arated and 43% for unemployed persons living dif-

Table 9.13Selected indicators for the unemployed Roma population age 15+ years – compared with subsets andwith the geographically close general population (in %)

Roma population Geographically closegeneral population (n= 45)

Segregated(n=293)

Separated(n=305)

Diffused(n=284)

Total(n=882)

Registered unemployment Are you registered as unemployed, applicant for employment at the relevant labour office?

Yes 92.0 90.4 83.9 88.9 97.7

No 8.0 9.6 16.1 11.1 2.3

Period of registration How many months have you been registered with the labour office?

- half-year and less 13.4 12.5 15.5 13.6 17.5

- over ½ year - 1 year 29.5 16.2 22.6 22.8 50.0

- over 1year - 2 years 13.8 18.9 16.8 16.7 17.5

- over 2 years - 5 years 24.8 29.8 29.6 28.0 10.0

- over 5 years 18.5 22.6 15.5 18.9 5.0

Help from labour office* Was the labour office helpful to you personally with looking for work?

Very helpful 2.8 2.0 0.4 1.8 -

Rather helpful 11.6 16.5 27.7 18.3 35.7

Not very helpful 45.6 43.5 35.5 41.7 52.4

Not helpful at all 40.0 37.9 36.6 38.2 11.9

Information from side of labour office* Did the labour office provide you with information which could help you look for work?

Provided sufficient information 8.9 21.3 18.8 16.2 23.8

Did not provide sufficient information 55.2 41.0 47.6 48.0 59.5

Did not provide any information 35.9 37.7 33.6 35.8 16.7

Usefulness of information from labour office* The information offered by the labour office is for you...:

Very usefu 5.0 2.2 2.1 3.1 3.2

Useful 14.2 15.4 22.9 17.6 25.8

Not useful 62.4 66.2 54.9 61.0 67.7

Totally useless 18.4 16.2 20.1 18.3 3.2

Experience on the labour market** Have you experienced during your adult life some of the following situations?

They refused to hire me 23.568.2

8.776.5

16.969.7

16.371.5

20.554.5

Laid off from work 26.551.1

20.447.7

31.635.9

26.145.1

45.235.7

Unpaid wage for recruited work 14.014.0

11.49.9

8.710.2

11.411.4

12.0-

Bad, brusque behaviour of colleagues 14.913.5

1.415.0

7.421.7

8.016.5

2.44.9

Bad, brusque behaviour of a boss 15.115.5

4.413.2

12.718.3

10.815.6

9.516.7

Note: The data presented is only for unemployed individuals age 15+ years using the VZPS methodology, who answered the question. Because the groupof unemployed for the geographically close general population had only a small number, the presented percentages are only informative. *With char-acters marked by one asterisk only data for respondents to whom the question related are presented. ** In this part of the table the one-time occurrenceof the given situation is given in the first line (response “yes, one time”) and in the second line the repeated occurrence (response “yes, more than once”).

fused. Although this involves in the background of thegeneral regional space a significantly higher share of long-term unemployment in all three Roma environments, ex-clusion on the basis of settlement type or the housingsituation is still worse.

So long as an evaluation of the effectiveness of labouroffices by the unemployed themselves is involved, thisis founded on standard questions. It first mapped theopinions on the helpfulness of offices with looking forwork. An absolute majority of the unemployed ex-pressed the conviction that the office is not particular-ly helpful with finding them work. The negative evalu-ation predominated in all compared subsets, but the mostsignificantly critical voice sounded from the side of un-employed Roma. Overall up to 80% of them gave a neg-ative evaluation, and from this approximately halfleaned toward the response “not very helpful“ and theother half expressed a more decisive critical opinion inthe form of “didn’t help at all”. Among unemployed mem-bers of the geographically close general population a crit-ical opinion likewise predominated regarding the abil-ity of the labour office to help a path to employment,though it moved on the level of over 60% and only a smallpart of this was radically critical. From Roma respondentsthe most negative opinion of help from the side of thelabour market was expressed by the unemployed livingin segregated settlement (together only 14% positive re-sponses), followed by separated with 18.5% convincedabout received help, and among those living diffused theshare of positive evaluations was 28%. The opinion onpersonal assistance of offices with searching for work wasthus generally critical, but with worse evaluations ex-pressed by unemployed Roma and with spatial exclusionthe critical voices increased. According to empiricaldata, it’s as if spatial exclusion at the same time also meantexclusion from abilities and possibilities to help.

The second surveyed fact when assessing labour of-fices was the provision of information helping with find-ing work. The same associations follow from the responsesas in the previous case. Unemployed Roma, of whom atleast 35% expressed the conviction that the labour officedid not offer any information which would help them withlooking for work, assessed this aspect more critically; abouthalf as many unemployed from the geographically closegeneral population leaned toward the same response. Themost critical view among the unemployed Roma re-garding sufficient information was again found amongthose living segregated: less than one-tenth of them ex-

pressed the conviction about sufficient information of-fered in the interest of helping them find work, and thiswas around two-tenths from the separated and dif-fused population and for the general population the sharewas closer to one-quarter of all unemployed.

The triad of questions devoted to assessing the ac-tivities of labour offices ended with a question on the use-fulness of information provided, to which only re-sponded those unemployed who received some infor-mation from them. On the basis of a subjective evalua-tion about 20% of those from the group of unem-ployed Roma received useful information at the office andfrom the geographically close general population this wasapproximately 10% less. The usefulness of the informa-tion was most positively evaluated by members of thegeneral population (29%), and then Roma living diffused(25%); in the case of segregated and separated popula-tion the share of positive evaluations fell to 19% and less.

The last two mentioned groups of unemployed Romdeclared not only a smaller range of information providedbut also their smaller usefulness from the perspective offinding work. The connection of spatial exclusion withexclusion from the capability to help is thus expandedby the exclusion from being well-informed. Although thegeneral deficiency of job opportunities in the environsof Roma settlements of the separated and mainly the seg-regated type42 and the low qualification prerequisites foremployment in those groups,43 which labour offices sig-nificantly limit in opportunities to help with finding workprobably affected the status found, the discovered neg-ative evaluation of activities of offices could equally toa certain measure signal also the different approach fromthe side of offices toward different clients, or the worseaccess to offices and the services offer by them for spa-tially excluded groups of the Roma population. The im-pact of the individual named factors or others (unwill-ingness to participate, deficiencies and suitable instru-ments for help, absence of generally affirmative supportevents, deficiencies in work labour and business legis-lation, etc), however, a quantitative survey of sucha broad stroke was not possible to measure. Upon set-ting of programmes, however, it is necessary to consid-er all of the mentioned aspects.

Another strong circle with an impact on the result-ant employment or unemployment which continuous-ly remains unknown is the functioning of the labour mar-ket in relation to the Roma work force. It is here that dif-ferent discriminatory practices and barriers of a structural


160

41 Again it is necessary here to emphasise the information beneath Table 9.13, that the group of unemployed for the geographically close generalpopulation was innumerably smaller, because the given percentages have more of an informative character and serve exclusively for a comparativelook at the situation in the same regional space.

42 All in-depth interviews carried out with experts of different types and focus (offices, local administration, non-governmental organisations, fieldworkers, etc.) that followed in the further stages and are in the processing stage emphasised this aspect.

43 See the previous section of this chapter, or the chapter on education (Chapter 8).


161

Graph 9.31Experience with negative situation on the labour market for the basic group of Roma population age 15+ – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Unemployed Roma population

Unemployed general population

Employed Roma population

Employed general population


General population total
























General population totalBad

beh

avio

ur o

f a b

oss

Laid

off

from

wor

kTh

ey re

fuse

d to

hire

me

Brus

que

beh

avio

ur

of a

bos

sU

npai

d w

ages

16.3 71.5

20.5 54.5

24.9 54.4

19.8 20.7

19.1 61.8

16.1 20.7

26.1 45.1

45.2 35.7

20.0 43.3

18.6 16.9

24.2 40.9

19.2 15.3

11.4 11.4

12 0

16.3 13.8

5.7 2.3

9.9 12.3

5.2 2.2

8.0 16.5

2.4 4.9

12.4 20.2

4.3 4.9

9.1 16.5

4.5 5.2

10.8 15.6

9.5 16.7

11.2 21.5

7.5 8.1

10.5 16.3

7.3 8.6

Note: The data presented is only for individuals age 15+ years who answered the question; employed and unemployed are constructed on the basis ofthe VZPS methodology. Because the group of unemployed for the geographically close general population had only a small number, the presented per-centages are only informative. The presented first number reveals the occurrence of the given situation (response “yes, one time”) and the second num-ber means its repeated occurrence (response “yes, more than once”).

yes, one time

yes, more than once

character can be covered. The researched factor is cap-tured only with great difficulty, even the work inspec-torate and anti-discrimination legislation is not enoughto reveal them. In the study the experience of the Romalabour force with unfavourable experiences on thelabour market which could point out some discrimina-tory practices, particularly on the basis of comparison withthe labour force of the geographically close general pop-ulation, were monitored. The factors monitored were therefusal to hire, being laid off from a job, unpaid wages,and finally the brusque behaviour from the side of col-leagues and a boss. An attempt was made to map outthe overall social environment or climate in the sphereof the labour market for a set of indicators consisting ofthe five most common situations which typically arise inconnection with discrimination.44

Refusal to hire was the strongest for the unemployedrepresenting the Roma population. Nearly 88% of themhad such an experience (92% from segregated); amongthe geographically close general unemployed the shareof refusal was lower at 75%. Overall, an absolute preva-lence of the unemployed repeatedly experienced the re-fusal of being hired, but the share of repeated refusal wasnearly 20% higher for the Roma (71.5% of unemployedRoma versus 54.5% of the general unemployed). Since thisinvolves the experience of the unemployed, the very highoccurrence of being laid off from work is not surprising.This was in the end sum moderately higher for the gen-eral unemployed, and in the case of the Roma labour forcea much higher repeated occurrence of this situation wasexpressed (45.1% versus 35.7% of unemployed), mainlyin those from segregated and separated environments(where it moved around 50%). The remaining three sur-veyed situations were not as frequent as hiring and be-ing laid off from work, but with all three the Roma un-employed recorded higher or at least equal occurrence.Twice as many Roma unemployed experienced duringtheir adult life unpaid wages (22.8% versus 12%); rude be-haviour from colleagues was more than three-timeshigher for the Roma (24.5% versus 7.3%),45 while rude be-haviour from a boss was in both compared groups of un-employed approximately equal (more than 26%).

The more extensive experience of the Roma pop-ulation with negative experiences on the labour marketis also confirmed for that part of the labour force whichwas employed at the time of the study as well as the en-tire population age 15+ years (Graph 9.31). For the em-ployed and for the entire population age 15 years or

more (i. e. including all groups of economically inactiveat the time of the study) experience with negative ex-periences on the labour market differed much more dra-matically between the Roma and the general popula-tion than was the case between compared unem-ployed groups. For example, refusal to hire was in thecase of the compared employed Roma up to two-times more common (80% to 40%) and for the entirepopulation age 15+ the difference was even higher (81%to 37%); being laid off of work with employed Roma andfor the entire population was also two-times higher (ap-proximately 65% to 35%); 30% of currently employedRoma had experienced unpaid wages and more thanone-fifth of the entire set, while for the general set thisoccurrence moved between 7 to 8%; rude behaviourfrom colleagues during adult life was experienced bymore than 30% of employed and a quarter of the entireset of Roma, while in the general population this was lessthan 10%; and finally bad behaviour from a boss wasmentioned by twice as many employed and from the en-tire set of Roma in comparison with the same group ofgeographically close general population (33% and 27%versus 16%). This means that the Roma population faceson the labour market more hurdles and barriers than thegeographically close general population.

Empirical data showed that not only the resultanteffect of the activities of labour offices in the form of theemployment situation of the target group but also thesubjective evaluation of their activities and possibilitiesfor help on their part came out as insufficient. Indicatorsof unemployment, the effectiveness of formal helpand experience with unfavourable experiences on thelabour market, many of which could have a discrimi-natory character, were likewise ranked among a widegroup of indicators confirming the experience that ex-clusion on the basis of settlement type or residence isstill significantly worsens the overall unfavourable po-sition of the Roma population in the scope of geographicspace. The existence of a general disadvantage ofRoma ethnicity in relation to the labour market and em-ployment, but also its escalation for the situation of sep-aration and especially segregation in the geographicspace, can be repeatedly remarked upon. One of the pri-mary assumptions and integral component of pro-grammes focused on overcoming the exclusion of theRoma population from the labour market should there-fore also be the resolution of exclusion based on habi-tation – the removal of segregation and separation. Be-


162

44 See, for example, several outputs and monitoring of the report of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (www.snslp.sk), or studies and pub-lications focused on monitoring discrimination on the labour market from the author’s workshop Institute for Public Affairs (www.ivo.sk) and the non-profit organisation Citizen, Democracy and Accountability (www.oad.sk).

45 The already monitored non-payment of wages for work in the previous month indicates that such a situation is found more often in the Roma pop-ulation (Table 9.12). Expanding its monitoring to the entire adult life repeatedly confirms this – for the Roma population of unemployed such an ex-perience was two-times more common than in the geographically close general population unemployed, and fully most of all was found insegregated settlements (nearly 30% of the unemployed from segregated settlements had experience with non-payment of a wage).

hind them, obviously, should follow essential measuresaimed at overcoming discrimination and breakingdown other identification barriers and hurdles fora better position and strengthening of the position ofthe Roma population on the labour market.

The high share of long-term unemployment in theRoma population despite registration at the labour of-fice indicates that from the viewpoint of the existing gen-erally bad situation on the regional labour market andthe low qualified prerequisites of a wide group of theRoma population for successful working on the labourmarket, obviously the existing instruments of support andhelp are not appropriate and not effective. Together withdiscrimination (on the labour market and possibly on theside of offices and institutions) they can contributemore to reinforcing barriers and hurdles of segregationon the labour market rather than breaking them down.

9.3.6. Impacts of exclusion from the labourmarket on the situation of households

As is stated in the introduction of this chapter, a quali-ty connection to the labour market is considered as themost important prerequisite for overcoming poverty. Onone hand employment is a basic source of the incomeneeded for extricating a household from material dep-rivation and exclusion, and conversely – the absence ofwork and weak job opportunities or the low quality ofwork increases the probability of households and theirmembers falling into the risk of poverty. The previousparts described in detail the range and quality of con-nection of the Roma population to the labour marketand its situation in comparison with the geographical-ly close general population and between differentRoma environments by type of settlement. The gener-


163

Table 9.14Living conditions of Roma households with working and without working members – comparison with the geographically close general population (occurrence of selected indicators in %)

Roma households by number of working members

Geographically close general house-holds by number of working members

1 member(n=96)

2+ mem-bers (n=49)

No one(n=578)

1 member(n=98)

2+ mem-bers(n=122)

No one(n=140)

Excellent and good living conditions in dwellings 48.9 59.1 17.3 89.7 90.2 79.4

Bad and very bad living conditions in dwellings 20.9 12.2 44.6 2.1 — 2.9

Functioning bath or shower in dwellings 68.1 72.9 34.2 98.0 98.3 94.9

Functioning flushing WC in dwellings 66.0 67.3 31.8 96.9 95.1 92.1

Automatic washing machine in households 54.0 73.3 21.2 92.2 96.5 81.7

Telephone in the household 88.0 91.7 64.6 96.7 99.1 87.5

PC or laptop in the household 31.5 41.7 5.8 67.8 76.8 21.7

Internet in the household 26.1 25.5 3.8 57.3 73.2 15.0

Decidedly want children to continuefrom primary to secondary school

67.3 58.1 28.5 82.6 86.1 54.5

Full and partial satisfaction with financial situation of the household

27.4 38.8 4.7 48.5 56.2 39.1

(Very) easily cover outlays for education of children (primary school)

9.8 16.1 3.1 29.2 36.1 30.0

Enough income for basic needs(meals, clothing, housing)

22.1 42.8 3.3 53.7 54.1 35.9

Possibility for entire household to leaveon a week-long holiday

5.2 10.2 0.2 35.7 49.2 20.9

Possibility each day of food from meat or fish... 37.5 53.1 13.0 63.3 70.5 41.7

Possibility each year to buy new seasonal clothing and shoes

29.2 38.8 3.3 56.1 57.4 27.1

Possibility to pay an unexpected expenditure of EUR 300

11.5 34.7 2.3 56.1 69.7 45.7

1 or more times didn’t have food for children 39.8 35.4 60.1 15.6 6.0 12.3

1 or more times had no way cook 31.9 23.4 43.6 10.8 5.8 9.0

1 or more had no heat in the flat 33.3 25.5 44.7 10.9 5.8 11.3

Household is in this (a lot) better...versus relatives in another municipality

24.0 31.3 11.4 20.8 27.8 9.5

...versus neighbours on the street 23.2 31.3 9.2 18.3 25.4 12.0

...versus residents of part of the municipality 21.0 23.4 10.2 14.4 21.2 10.0

...versus residents of neighbouring municipality 8.8 15.6 3.6 17.4 17.3 6.8

...versus a common Slovak family 3.3 3.2 1.4 10.8 11.8 5.3

Note: The summary indicator for a household on the number of working members is counted from individually declared statuses of working (how manyhousehold members were declared as working).

ally very low employment of the Roma population wasstated along with the high level and deep exclusion fromthe labour market – in the form of a large share of per-sons outside of economic activity or the huge level ofunemployment.

The following part presents the consequences of ex-clusion from employment on the living conditions ofRoma households. Selected indicators of the living sit-uation for households without a working member arecompared with those having a working member (one ormore). An overall look at them and comparison with thesame types of households from the geographicallyclose general population is provided in Table 9.14. Alsofollowed were indicators characterising housing condi-tions and household furnishings, the attitude regardingchildren studying at secondary school, subjective eval-uation of the financial situation and covering of basichousehold expenditures, as well as classic indicators ofthe living standard in our society and the extreme ma-terial deprivation. The evaluation of one’s own living sit-uation in comparison with other geographically near en-vironments or the wider surroundings was supple-mented by a set of indicators comparing householdswithout a working member with those having one ormore working members.46

Differences between Roma households withouta working member and with a working member are al-ready expressed in the conditions of living. While fromhouseholds where no one worked 17.3% had excellentand good conditions for living and nearly 45% had bador very bad ; from households with one working mem-ber this was 48.9% of good and 21.9% bad and very badconditions. In the case of Roma households with moreworking members the mutual ration of good and badconditions for living was even higher still: 59.1% to 12.2%.In relation to the basic furnishings of a flat or house, thework of one member already raised the share of func-tioning furnishing for bathing and a flushing toilet two-times (from 30% for Roma households without a work-ing member to 60% in households with one workingmember); with Roma households having more workingmembers this was still higher (over 70%). The share ofRoma households with an automatic washing machineincreased from 21.2% in those where no one worked, totwo and a half times higher in households with one work-ing member (and three and half time higher in house-holds with more working members); with a telephonethis involved an increase from 64.6 % by 20% (or by 30%);furnished with a computer grew five (seven) times; andhaving the Internet nearly eight-fold. With a workingmember and its multiplication the conditions for livingand the furnishing of geographically close general

households improved, but the level was with all items forall three monitored groups of households incomparablyhigher than with the Roma. Living conditions and fur-nishings were in the end higher for the general house-holds without a working member as for the Roma withtwo or more working members. Among general house-holds without a working member nearly 80% had ex-cellent and good conditions for living, while from Romahouseholds with more members working this was lessthan 60%; with functioning bathing facilities the sharesbetween these two groups 94.9% to 72.9%; with afunctioning WC it was 92.1% to 73.3%. The mentionedprinciple did not apply only with the telephone, computerand Internet (working Roma households were better fur-nished with them than non-working general households);however, the mutually compared individual types ofhouseholds came out better for the general population.

With a growing number of working members in Romahouseholds support for children studying also increased.Where no one worked less than 30% wanted children tocontinue in secondary school after finishing primaryschool, but from households with one working memberthis was more than 67%. For the geographically close gen-eral households support for secondary study of childrenwas significantly stronger – going well over 80%.

Work experience of the household also increased sat-isfaction with the financial situation (from not quite 5%to 27.4% and 38.8%), it eased the covering of outlays foreducation of children at primary school (from 3% to 9.8%and 16.1%) and improved the evaluation of sufficient in-come for covering the costs of basic needs (from 3.3%to 22.1% and 42.8%). Already with one, but still more withtwo or more working members the share of Roma house-holds grew meeting the living standard common in oursociety: chances improved for a holiday stay, quality food,dressing and for paying of unexpected expendituresfrom one’s own resources. But although in comparisonwith households without a working member the pos-sibilities of covering basic needs and unexpected ex-penditures with grew incomparably the adding ofworking members, at the same time it’s necessary to em-phasise that even for working households the shares ofthose meeting common living standards was not par-ticularly high. So, for example, with the possibility ofa week-long holiday the share of households increasedfrom 0.2% in the group without a working member to5.2% in the group with one working member and 10.2%in the group with more working; with meats each dayfrom 13% to 37.5% and 53.1%; with new clothing andshoes each year from 3.3% to 29.2% and 38.8%; and withthe capability of covering an unexpected expenditureof EUR 300 from 2.3% to 11.5% and 34.7%. In compar-


16446 Detailed and overall analysis of indicators of living standard, financial situation and material deprivation of Roma households is presented in Chap-

ter 6, and particularly Chapters 10 and 11.

ison with the results for the geographically close gen-eral population the level achieve by Roma householdswith several members working was significantly lower(from general households with a working memberfrom half to 70% met the standard).

A favourable trend with the coming of work toa household was also expressed with the tracking of ex-treme deprivation – Roma households with a workingmember experience this less. While in the group of Romahouseholds where no one worked, up to 60% had at leastoccasional experience with the situation when they did-n’t have food to feed their children, in the group with oneworking member this fell to beneath 40% and for thegroup with multiple working members to 35% (with ex-periences with insufficient possibilities for cooking andheating the share of the deprived dropped from 44%,down below one-third and to one-quarter). However, themeasure of deprivation for working Roma householdswas still incomparably higher in comparison with the sit-uation of the geographically close general households,where it moved roughly around the level of one-tenthand less.47 Households without a working member alsoevaluated their own living situation as worse in com-parison with different defined surroundings, whetherthese were relatives in other municipalities, neighbourson the same street, cohabitants from the same quarter,residents of neighbouring municipalities or a commonSlovak family. Work also improved the view on their ownliving situation, although an overall negative view of thecurrent position greatly predominated. With these eval-uated indicators more principle difference betweenRoma and geographically close general householdswere not expressed – the general population alsolooked on their living situation predominately as worsethan that of relatives living elsewhere, neighbours ora common household in Slovakia.

A comparison of the living conditions of Romahouseholds with a working member and without sucha member pointed to a more favourable situation forhouseholds which have one or more members working.At the same time nearly all of the monitored indicatorshad a better result for households with two or more work-ing members versus those in which only one memberworked. Similar associations are expressed also for thegeographically close general population, individuallymeasured values for the monitored indicators of livinglevel, however, were often many times higher (or lowerwith indicators capturing unfavourable living conditions).In some cases the resulting frequencies for the geo-graphically close general households without a workinghousehold member were well higher even than for Roma

households with two or more working members. Gen-eral households without a working member had, for ex-ample, a higher share of households with a favourableoverall situation with living, households better fur-nished with basic long-term consumer goods or a low-er measure of deprivation and extreme deficiencies thanRoma households with multiple work experience.

The study data clearly confirmed that exclusion fromthe labour market increases the probability of the fall ofsuch households into the risk of poverty, increases thedanger of material deprivation and lowers the qualityof life of their members. Roma households are in this re-gard, in comparison with the geographically close gen-eral significantly worse; in the end even a working wagein Roma households is not enough to overcome thishuge lag in level of living.

Committing to the European Year for CombatingPoverty and Social Exclusion (2010) the strategy Europe2020 staked out in the scope of the main initiative of theEuropean Platform Against Poverty the aim “to ensure eco-nomic, social and territorial cohesion, to raise awarenessand recognise the fundamental rights of people expe-riencing poverty and social exclusion, enabling them tolive in dignity and take an active part in society.” (Europe...,2010, pg. 20). In regard to the depicted situation Slova-kia as an EU member state will have to develop ex-traordinary great effort when ensuring the task “to de-fine and apply measures focused on resolving the spe-cial circumstances of exceptionally endangered groups”,among which, in addition to families with one parent, mi-norities, people with disabilities and people withouta home, Roma are also mentioned. And probably eventhe provision of work, which is also no small task, will notbe enough for the overcoming the unfavourable livingsituation of the Roma population. Many additional sup-port programmes of this type will be necessary.

9.4. Participation in activation programmes

In general, active inclusion is perceive as a process of sup-port for the integration of people who are outside of thelabour market, and in this case also outside the provisionof an adequate level of income and better access to serv-ices with the aim, so that a social protection policy leadsto the mobilisation of people who are capable of work-ing. According to the professional literature the gener-al goal of activation is to strengthen economic inde-pendence and social integration through valid em-ployment or earning activities, in place of unemployment


16547 It is interesting that the level of deprivation was for the geographically close general population was highest in the group with one member work-

ing and not without anyone working, mainly for a lack of food for children and heating in a home. Only with the adding of a second and anotherworking income did the situation of the household more significantly improve.

and an income benefit which is often tied with social ex-clusion (Eichhorst – Konle-Seidl, 2008: 5).

Slovakia enrolled in active inclusion or active inte-gration in the scope of its strategy of social inclusion with-in the OMK. Attention is devoted to it in the National Re-port on Strategies of Social Protection and Social Inclusionfor the Years 2008 – 2010, where it says: “It is essential thatactivation elements in the system of assistance in materialneed are directed at supporting the philosophy of activeinclusion.48 Assistance in material need and protectionshould have the nature of preventive measures and tem-porary solutions only in the case of those whose potentialcan be activated. For this it is necessary that alongsidesocial protection systems, active inclusion in society isintensively supported by means of creating job oppor-tunities supporting the return to the labour market, wherethis means initiating in particular programmes for sup-porting employment growth, strengthening humanresources and capacities for application in the labour mar-ket (including support for education and preparation forthe labour market), because education and paid em-ployment are the most efficient prevention against therisks of poverty. For achieving this objective the SlovakRepublic has some years now been using not only itsstructural reforms for supporting economic growth,but also a broad spectrum of programmes for support-ing employment. These have included also programmesaimed at active labour market measures supporting dis-advantaged groups of jobseekers, and which the SR issuccessfully implementing in a broad scope also by us-ing the respective financial instruments from the Euro-pean Community.” (National..., 2008: 10).

The empirical study carried out was also partially de-voted to this subject; the overall and current work in anactivation programme and educational courses wassurveyed, along with interest in and deciding about place-ment into the programme, period of involvement, as wellas associations with employment and economic stand-ing. The following chapter presents selected results re-garding this specific subject.

9.4.1. Total experience with workin an activation programme

According to the study data less than half of the sur-veyed Roma population – exactly 46% — at some timetook part in an activation programme. From the view-point of type of settlement no differences at all appearedin the measure of overall involvement in activation pro-grammes; in all environments the share of experiencewith activation work was almost completely equal(Table 9.12).

The remainder of the set (53.4%) consisted ofadult respondents who had still never worked in an ac-tivation programme. An absolute majority of those notyet connected with participation in an activation pro-gramme had not even applied for one (more than 70%of them), and approximately 15% (predominately liv-ing diffused) said that they wanted to join but it was-n’t possible because the same programme was not avail-able in the vicinity. Only 7% of those inactive had atsome time applied for social activation.49 Half of thoseapplicants stated that their request was refused; the oth-er half gave a different reason such as, for example, theyare still waiting for an answer, the programme ended,or some other possibility; only two respondents said thatthey left the programme voluntarily. Among the reasonsfor refusing an application,50 the most common givenwas a lack of space due to the great interest; in secondplace was unfulfilled conditions for the chance of con-necting (not in material need), and in third place wasa formal barrier (lacked permanent residence, anoth-er member of the family was already assigned in the ac-tivation work and the like). Very small numbers were in-volved, however; other reasons occurred only occa-sionally (offices don’t like me; connections with place-ment into the programme; I didn’t go to work, etc.).

The level of total connection of the Roma populationto activation work at some point during their adult lifewas disproportionately higher as opposed to the geo-graphically close general population (Graph 9.32). Despite


166

48 The material defines it thus: Active integration (=active inclusion) people most distant from the labour market is based on the integration strat-egy built on three pillars: sufficient support for overtaking social exclusion, an approach for inclusion on the labour market, better access to qual-ity services (National..., 2008: 10).

49 Numerically this was a very small group (n = 66), in which mainly segregated and also separated Roma individuals were found.50 In total only 34 respondents with a refused application for participation in an activation programme.

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. Non-responses are not included (2.5%).

Table 9.15Roma population age 18+ years by work in an activation programme and type of settlement (in %)


Yes 47.3 46.1 46.3 46.6

No 52.7 53.9 53.7 53.4


the geographically close habitation, only 5.1% of the gen-eral population had at some time taken part in activa-tion work; that is less than one-ninth of the populationage 18+ years. In comparison with year 2005 the shareof those experienced with an activation programme inthe Roma population increased by nearly 10% (from37.2% in 2005 to 46.6% in 2010), while for the geo-graphically close general population the opposite shiftoccurred – their share fell (from 11.1% to 5.1%). Accordingto results, it’s as if activation work was specifically intendedonly for the Roma population.

A comparison by sex showed (Graph 9.33) that high-er participation in activation work occurred with Romamen – on average by 10%. From the whole of Roma menage 18 years and older 51.5% had at some pointworked in an activation programme and from womenthis was 41.5%. The largest gender difference accord-ing to experience with activation work emerged fromthose living in segregated communities, where it ex-ceeded 17%. Among segregated Roma men 56% hadworked in an activation programme at some time, andfrom women in the same type of settlements this was

not quite 39%. The control set of the geographicallyclose general population did not show any large dif-ference between women and men.

From the viewpoint of age this experience, com-pletely logically, was most frequent in the middle age cat-egories (Graph 9.34). Among those members of the Romapopulation age 18-29 years the share of those who haparticipate at some time in activation work representedon average 36%, and in the 30-39 years age group theirrepresentation grew to 57%, and in the age group 40-49years it exceeded 62%. After these age limits the shareof activation began to drop: to 51% among those age 50-59 years and 12.5% in the case of those age 60 years andolder. The described “run” according to age was for themost part general – it was copied in all compared envi-ronments of the Roma population and the general set.

A glimpse at the lifetime participation in activationprogramme work in the perspective of current eco-nomic standing at the time of the study confirmed themost experience in the unemployed (Graph 9.35).From the entire Roma population age 18+ years iden-tified with a status of unemployed51 the share of


167

Graph 9.32Roma population age 18+ years working at some time in an activation programme – comparison with the geographically close general population and with year 2005 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Roma population

Geographically close general population 5.1

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. The share of positive responses to the question is presented only after exclusion of non-respondents (fromthe Roma set 2.5% and from the general 2.8%).

11.1

46.637.2

2005

2010

Graph 9.33Overall participation of the Roma population age 18+ years in work in an activation programme by sex andtype of settlement – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Men

Women

43.741.9

38.9


5.8

4.6

49.749.0

56.0

Diffused Separated Segregated Geographically close general population


168

Graph 9.34Total participation of the Roma population age 18+ years in work in an activation programme by age and typeof settlement – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

18-29 years

30-39 years

40-49 years

50-59 years

60+ years

63.553.6

55.2

62.962.6

61.5

55.443.4

53.9

6.714.1

17.1


5.5

6.8

9.8

3.5

0.9

49.733.9

56.0


Graph 9.35Total participation of in an activation programme by current economic status and type of settlement– comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Working

Unemployed

Outside the labour market

68.764.3

69.1

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. The graph shows the share of positive responses to the question after exclusion of non-respondents forthe three basic groups in relation to the labour market as defined in the VZPS methodology.

2.7

44.4

2.120.220.8

25.8

55.833.6

57.6


those who at some time worked in an activation pro-gramme surpassed 67%; among the unemployed rep-resenting the geographically close general populationthis was 44 %. But those currently working also had ex-perience with activation work: the average for the Romapopulation was nearly one-half (49%), in the case of thegeneral this was not quite 3%. For the group outsideof the labour market (the economically inactive at thetime of the study) the average of activation achievedmore than 22% among the Roma, from the generalpopulation this was only 2%.

Connecting the Roma population to work in an ac-tivation programme was therefore expanded in allgroups defined by their position on the labour market,the most experiences of this type, however, was with cur-rently unemployed but also among working Romawere many past participants in this programme –espe-cially residents of separated and segregated settle-ments. The difference versus the general population forall three groups of economic activity was found to behuge. But as was shown in the previous sections of thischapter, which were devoted to the measure of unem-ployment or employment and the overall position on thelabour market, despite the broad connection of largegroups of the Roma population to activation work, it ap-pears as if the specific measure of an active policy of thelabour market for this target group did not have a visi-ble impact on their permanent employment.

9.4.2. Current participation in an activation programme

How the situation looked from the viewpoint of currentparticipation in activation work is presented in more de-tail in Table 9.16. The empirical data showed that not allrespondents who had experience with activation workduring their adult life had connected to such a pro-gramme during the past year. Approximately one-thirdof the Roma set of activation workers had not been pro-gramme participants for a long time; however, two-thirdswere involved in the work during 2010, when data wascollected. And the same such share emerged in allthree compared Roma environments. For the generalpopulation the proportion of past and current partici-pants approximately one to four-fifths, that is, that is therewere more current participants among them.52 In rela-

tion to the period of activation during 2010, long-termparticipants predominated. A total of 41.4% of them werea part of an activation programme for more than half ayear (of these approximately half was activated through-out the whole year), and 27.2% gave activation fora shorter period of the year (only 7.2% was threemonths or shorter).Quarter-year and shorter participantsof the programme were mostly among those living sep-arated (more than 10% versus not quite 4% in the dif-fused) and year-long again with segregated (nearly25% versus not quite 20% in the separated).

Among the group of respondents who were acti-vated at least for some period in 2010, an absolute ma-jority also worked in the month previous to the periodof the survey.53 This was nearly 77% on average for therelevant Roma population (a similar share was alsofound among the newly activated members of the ge-ographically close general population), but a relativelylarge difference was expressed between Roma living dif-fused and segregated on one hand and residents of sep-arated settlements on the other. While the share of lastmonth’s participants in activation work from diffused set-tlements exceeded 84% and from segregated 80%,from the relevant residents of separated settlements thiswas nearly 20% less (66.3%).

According to the period of activation it seems as ifthe opportunity for participation in activation pro-gramme work was less accessible for Roma living in sep-arated parts of municipalities; they had the least year-longand the most quarterly and the shortest period of par-ticipation in the programme and also significantly few-er of them took part in activation work during themonth previous to the survey. This could indicate few-er opportunities for working in activation programmesin municipalities with Roma communities of this type ora higher demand for activation work than is offered inthese settlements.54 To a certain measure the reasons forcurrent inactivation tell the story regarding the lack ofopportunities for activation in separated settlements, butalso in segregated settlements. For the Roma populationthe most frequent reason was “the programme ended”;on average this reason got 31% and for segregated set-tlements nearly 44% of responses from relevant re-spondents. With the general population this reason wasthe weakest, along with formal barriers to participation(not quite 6%), the majority of them did not continue inactivation work because they found work (38.9%). Find-


169

51 The definition of current economic status according to the VZPS methodology is used here, not the declared standing.52 Let us recall that the group with experience with activation for the geographically close general population had only a small number, therefore, the

presented percentages are only informational.53 Data collection in 2010 ran from the end of November to the middle of December; thus responses obtained pertain to the month of October or

November 2010.54 Obviously, here many other factors could come into play, like for example, the share of new entrants onto the labour market (school leavers or after

a period of economic inactivity), the range of unemployment and its duration and the like; but the number of individual for the subsets was not suffi-cient for deeper analysis of them.


170

Table 9.16Current activation of the Roma population age 18+ years – comparison of subsets and with the geographical-ly close general population (in %)

Roma population Geographically closegeneral population(n= 67)

Segregated(n=316)

Separated(n=319)

Diffused(n=303)

Total(n=891)

Period of participation in AP since start of year**

How many months were you a participant in an activation programme since the start of the year?

Not at all 31.2 31.3 31.6 31.4 22.9

1-3 months 7.1 10.4 3.8 7.2 14.3

4-6 months 22.5 18.8 18.8 20.0 17.1

7-10 months 14.6 19.7 24.4 19.7 5.7

Whole year* 24.6 19.8 21.4 21.7 40.0

Work in AP for the last month** Did you work during the past month in a social activation programme?(Presented share of positive responses for all those in activation in 2010 in %.)

Yes 80.6 66.3 84.3 76.8 77.8

No 19.4 33.7 15.7 23.2 22.2

Reasons for current inactivation Why don’t you work now in a social activation programme (only one main reason)?(% of those who didn’t work in an AP in 2010 at all or in the previous month; n = 429)

The programme ended 43.9 32.4 18.5 31.4 5.6

Found a job 7.1 14.2 12.0 11.6 38.9

Family reasons 12.2 16.2 16.7 15.3 11.1

Poor health, Too old 16.3 18.9 25.9 20.3 27.8

Formal reasons 7.1 7.5 9.2 7.9 5.6

Exclusion from the programme 13.3 9.5 11.1 11.0 11.1

Decided to leave — 1.4 6.5 2.5 —

Number of hours worked per month How many hours for the last month did you work to obtain an activation grant?(% of those who worked in an AP during the previous month; n = 529)

20 hours or less 3.0 0.8 1.3 1.7 4.8

21-39 hours 7.5 18.4 14.3 13.3 14.3

40 hours 58.7 37.6 56.5 51.6 57.1

41-79 hours 10.5 8.8 14.3 11.4 —

80 hours 19.5 31.2 11.7 20.1 19.0

81 or more hours 0.8 3.2 1.9 1.9 4.8

Provider of activation work Who organises / operates the activation work in which you took part last month?(% of those who worked in an AP during the previous month; n = 529)

Town, municipality 100.0 95.2

NGO — 4.8

Place of doing activation work Where did you do the activation work?(% of those who worked in an AP during the previous month; n = 529)

In the municipality of residence 99.0 95.2

In a nearby municipality 0.7 4.8

Other 0.3 —

Evaluation of work in AP** Do you think that work in activation activities increased your chances of finding permanent employment?

Certainly yes 2.4 2.7 1.7 2.3 2.6

Maybe yes 11.8 9.2 15.7 12.2 2.6

Maybe no 22.1 25.2 22.4 23.2 28.2

Certainly no 36.7 42.9 39.9 39.8 35.9

Not given 27.0 20.1 20.3 22.4 30.8

Current opportunity for activation in a municipality

Is there an opportunity at present to get involved in activation work in your town/community?

Áno 70.5 72.4 79.2 73.9 93.9

Nie 29.5 27.6 20.8 26.1 6.1

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years who responded to the question. Because the group with experience with activation work from the geo-graphically close general population had only a small number, the percentages given are only informative. *Since the collection of data ran in Novem-ber and December, answers 11 and 12 months from the start of the year are calculated in the “whole year” category. **AP = activation programme.

ing work as a reason for not participating in an activa-tion programme was for the relevant Roma populationup to four times smaller, with those living segregated thisreason received only 7%. From among the other reasonsthe most common given was bad health and old age,family reasons and exclusion from the programme.Their frequency among the Roma and the general pop-ulation did not differ very much.

In relation to the number of hours worked for ob-taining an activation benefit for the last month, thecommon number was 40 hours. More than half of Romaparticipants in the programme gave such a volume oftime and from the geographically close general pop-ulation this was more than 57% of participants. The sec-ond most frequently given time was 80 hours; ap-proximately one-fifth of the relevant Roma and gen-eral populations participated in such a regime. Short-er time of activation was given more often in segre-gated settlements and the longest worked period wasagain in separated settlements.

The providers of activation work were for Roma ex-clusively a town or a municipality, while for general par-ticipants of an activation programme non-profit or-ganisations were also involved in this most widespreadsubject (but only a 4.8% share). The study did not findany other possibilities for AP providers. Domination wasalso expressed by the location of performing the acti-vation work – for 99% this was in the place of their res-idence. Only a few individuals from among Roma re-spondents gave another location, and among AP par-ticipants representing the general population this wasalso less than 5%.

Evaluation of the work in the scope of activation ac-tivities from the viewpoint of increasing the chances offinding permanent work did not come out very posi-tively. Only 14.5% of Roma participants and 5.2% of thegeographically close general population gave a positiveresponse. The general population expressed overall tothese questions more uncertain responses (nearly 31%did not respond), the share of negative responses wasequal for both compared populations and very high: 63%and 64%. A total of 74% of the relevant Roma popula-tion currently saw the availability of a connection to ac-tivation work in their municipality, and in the generalpopulation this was 20% more.

And current participation in an activation workprogramme pointed at the relatively broad connectionof the Roma population to this programme, among whichlong-term participants predominated. On the otherhand, it’s as if the lower availability of such work was ex-pressed in separated and segregated environments. Non-participation in the programme for the reason that theprogramme ended was mentioned particularly in thesetwo environments. Participation in an activation pro-gramme led only rarely in Roma participants to finding

work, the subjective evaluation of this programme alsoended up in a similar spirit – a negative opinion pre-dominated for the contribution of activation work towardincreasing the chance for permanent employment. Ac-tivation work also does not contribute to the trans-gressing local space, mainly the organisation of the mu-nicipality or town, and is performed in the place of res-idence. At the time of conducting the study the possi-bility of connecting to activation work in a municipali-ty end up being a great deal stronger from the side ofthe general population than for the Roma population.

9.4.3. Further education of the Romapopulation with finished vocational training

Another method of activation in the interest of search-ing for a job and successfully connecting to the labourmarket are training and requalification courses. Ac-cording to valid legislation school attendance is manda-tory in Slovakia up to the age of 16. Up to this age all chil-dren should be taking part in the educational system. Allrespondents over age 16 years who had already finishedtheir education, that is, who were not pupils or students,were asked about participation in trainings or educationalcourses. Table 9.17 brings an overview of the basic aspectsof such participation.

As follows from the table, only a very small part ofthem at some point took part in some training or cours-es. From the Roma population this was 8.5% (in seg-regated and separated more than one-tenth) andfrom the geographically close general population only3.4%. Participation from the start of the year was low-er: 3.7% of the relevant Roma population and only 2.5%of the general.

From Roma respondents who took part in a coursethe majority listed a labour office as the organiser (near-ly 86%), and then with a large gap a town or municipality;other possibilities were only occasional. The structure ofattendees of training for the general population was, ac-cording to organisers, completely different: nearly 60%stated an employer, a third gave the labour office andone-tenth secured the course by themselves. By lengthof duration educational courses over 20 days long pre-dominated in the Roma population (nearly 60% on av-erage), general participants gave shorter duration – morethan half of them said shorter than 10 days. In regard toreceiving a benefit, not quite half of Roma participantssaid that they received a benefit for education (from thegeneral only 12%), three-fifths declared as receivers ofa benefit for travel expenditures (from general partici-pants only 17%), in regard to accommodation andmeals in both compared groups more than 28% declaredthey had received them. Other benefits, including a ben-efit for child care, were received only sporadically (4%).


171

The majority of attendees completed the training inthe regular time period, but this response was many timesmore common on the side of the general population thanwith the Roma. It is interesting that nearly one-third ofRoma participants in a course (more than 45% amongthose segregated) gave the answer “I don’t know”. Withan unfinished course (only less than 6%) only one otherreason was given: “it didn’t work out for me”. After com-pletion of a course the labour offered work, according tosubjective declaration, to more than 15% of Roma grad-uates, from the geographically close general populationthis was approximately an equal share – 14.3%. Thus, thoseattending courses who did not receive a job offer fromoffices formed an absolute majority. This involved primarilyresidents of segregated settlements, from which up to 95%of graduates did not receive a job offer. Among the rea-sons, in first place was the response that there is no workin the region, which was given by more than half of therelevant respondents. The second most common was theresponse “I didn’t request them”; from the other possi-bilities the following two repeatedly occurred: “there areothers here whom the labour office gives preference to”and “because of my ethnic origin”.55

In relation to the evaluation of a course from theviewpoint of help with finding work, the answer that thecourse didn’t help at all predominated. From Roma at-tendees approximately one-third gave this response,while from the geographically close general populationthis was only one-tenth. More than half, however, wereunable to respond or didn’t want to respond to this eval-uation question. Residents of segregated and separat-ed settlements saw courses as least useful.

Overall, the participation of the Roma population intraining and courses intended for individual with a fin-ished education was not shown to be very widespread.And also that they participated in some similar type ofeducational, in the majority did not help them find work.According to the data obtained regarding some possi-bilities for connecting with activation programmes, itseems as if the dominating way of activating the Romapopulation was activation work.

If we accept the assumption that an effective activa-tion policy is measured by the returning of the unemployedto the labour market and providing them with permanentlysustainable independence from social benefits, the ob-tained empirical data indicates that Slovakia APTP is not


172 55 Involved very small numbers (for the Roma population n = 54 individuals and for the general n = 11 individuals).

Table 9.17Additional education of the Roma population age 17+ years outside of the school system – comparisonof subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %)


Segregated(n=628)

Separated(n=658)

Diffused(n=626)

Total(n=1912)

Participation in training courses Have you ever taken part in training or a requalification course through the labour office?Have you taken part in some training or requalification course since the start of this year?

Some time at all 10.1 10.7 6.3 8.5 3.4

From the start of the year 6.7 2.6 1.9 3.7 2.5

Attempt at participation 6.3 5.8 3.3 5.5 1.6

Organiser of the course Who provided or offered the course or training?

Labour office 89.7 75.0 90.9 85.7 31.6

Town, municipality 10.3 18.7 — 10.7 —

I myself — — — — 10.5

NGO — 6.3 — 1.8 —

Employer — — 9.1 1.8 57.9

Duration of the course How many days did the course last (with several list the longest?

3 days and less — 7.1 9.1 4.1 33.2

4-10 days 8.3 35.7 27.3 20.4 22.2

11-20 days 16.7 14.2 27.3 18.4 5.6

21-30 days 58.3 14.3 27.3 38.8 16.8

31 days and more 16.7 28.5 9.0 18.3 22.2

Completed in set period Did you finish the educational course in the set time period?

Yes 50.0 88.2 66.7 62.0 90.0

No 4.8 — 16.7 5.6 —

I don’t know 45.2 11.8 16.7 32.4 10.0

Offer of work after completion of course Did the labour office offer you a job after you finished the training or requalification?

Yes 5.3 25.0 36.4 15.4 14.3

Note: Only for individuals age 17+ who are outside of the school system and responded to the questions.

very effective in the case of the Roma population. As is pre-sented in studies from abroad, the effects of APTP every-where in Europe vary according to the target groups – in-dividual measures bring with some groups the desired re-sult, with others not (Eichhorst – Konle-Seidl, 2008: 24). Inthe case of Roma segregated communities, but in a sig-nificant measure with separated, it seems as if this does-n’t work. To these groups of population the entire pack-age of APTP measures and programmes offer only a lim-ited circle; furthermore, despite the broad participationin activation work, they remain further without permanentemployment and on social benefits.

The problem could be that APTP is set generally, uni-versally and the Roma community would require a spe-cific type of measures. APTP is not a cheap and not evenan easy experience; if it doesn’t lead to a decrease in un-employment and doesn’t help with the integration of vul-nerable groups, then it is not suitable for vulnerablegroups. It’s as if it’s not enough for marginalised groupswith a great distance from the labour market. In order forthese groups to achieve sustainable employment, theyprobably require specific help. Furthermore, APTP flex-ible and suitable for individual target groups should havea broader perspective – including ties, for example, to theeducational system and the like. As several authors haveemphasised, “work first” is not enough to achieve a morepermanent working career on the labour market (Eich-horst – Konle-Seidl, 2008; Hanzelová – Bellan, 2009). Slo-vakia should learn from the functioning of APTP thus far(perform an analysis and evaluation from the viewpointof different target groups; subsequently proceed to pre-defined individual programmes and measures, includ-ing the defining of target groups and instruments), i.e.to learn from failure and to determine, why they don’twork with these most vulnerable groups.

Conclusions

The chapter on the labour market has tried to bring clos-er and to monitor in detail the link between employmentand unemployment (a more general result on thelabour market) on one hand and with the vulnerableRoma population on the other. Its intention was toanalyse in detail the influential factors on the final stand-ing of Roma women and men on the labour market. Onthe basis of the results obtained and partial analysis ofindividual indicators which gradually identified problemplaces, recommendations are sometimes offered inthe interest of better setting up and implementing poli-cies focused on this target group.

Study data from the field of characteristic standingof the Roma population on the labour market broughta number of general conclusions. The measured level ofunemployment of the Roma population is significantly

higher (up to seven times higher) than in the surveyedgeographically close general population; on the basis ofself-declaration of unemployment this even more.

Higher unemployment and lower employment in thecase of subjective self-reporting as values calculated by themethodology of selected survey of the labour force indi-cates that for part of the Roma population the absence ofemployment is synonymous with unemployment. But thiscould also indicate the broader connection of the Romapopulation to informal segments of the labour market.

Employment of the Roma population in a relative-ly large volume takes place outside of the official labourmarket and also in the framework of the official is madeup of a large part outside of standard forms of employ-ment (short duties, seasonal or casual work, self-em-ployment and the like). The share of classic full-time em-ployment was significantly lower as in the geographicallyclose general population. Within the scope of classic em-ployment, less qualified work predominated in which itcan be assumed that also with low wages. If Roma alsoobtain a job, this predominately involves low quality workand weak social and job protections. All of this influencesthe source and level of income or Roma households (seeChapters 10 and 11).

Upon determining the vast and deep exclusion of theRoma population from the labour market the mainreason expressed was insufficient employment oppor-tunities, which for a great part follow from the lack of qual-ifications for the needs of the labour market, and couldalso be the result of discrimination and unequal treat-ment. Ethnic membership was repeatedly shown to bea strong differentiating agent – the differences versus thegeneral population were huge in many indicators despitethe geographically nearby environment. Among otherdifferentiating agents it is necessary to mention sex andto a certain measure type of settlement; to a certain meas-ure because indicators worsened with the level of spa-tial exclusion, unfavourable values (high unemploy-ment and low employment), however, were found in allthree compare Roma environments.

Large differences were also recorded on the basis ofeducation and age; age, however, did not play sucha strong role with employment or unemployment of theRoma population as in the case of the general popula-tion. A comparison of unemployment of the youngestand the adult population came out for the general settwo-times higher on the side of the youngest and withthe Roma population the measure of unemployment wasapproximately the same level from entry to the labourmarket throughout an adult lifetime.

Education emerged from the analysis as a strong dif-ferentiation agent. But the “benefit” of higher educationwhich is reflected in the resulting standing on thelabour market, played a less significant role as with thegeneral population. The Roma probably face significant


173

difficulties with searching for qualified work also withachieving higher education; unemployment of theRoma is very high also with higher degrees of education.

And in terms of gender, the unemployment ofwomen was lower than with the general than in the Romapopulation, but for the Roma set for both sexes the meas-ure of unemployment was well higher than the averagefor the general population. Despite the high share ofRoma women outside of the labour market (and recip-rocally the smaller measure of economic activity), theyalso predominately and more often end up in the cate-gory of the unemployed as a labour force (and com-parisons with Roma men and women from the generalpopulation). This is the opposite with employment – thisis for women of both compared populations lowerthan for men, but in the case of Roma women the lag be-hind men is much greater (up to half ).

Not only women from Slovakia but also women fromthe control set of the geographically close generalpopulation lagged far behind the Lisbon goals for theyear 2010 (70% total employment and 60% for women),in the case of Roma women, this involved a radical dis-tance behind the goal – in fact on and order six-fold (areal of 10% versus ideal of 60%).

The recorded differences in the overall economic ac-tivities are in comparison with five years age only verysmall; the share of working further remained only verysmall in the surveyed Roma population, and converse-ly, the share of unemployed again very high, despite thenumber of programmes declared as support for Romaemployment. The year-on-year changes are for the sur-veyed part of the Roma community only very small, tes-timony of which is the ineffective existing programmesin relation to the given goal.

The empirical data showed that not only the result-ing effect of activities of labour offices in the form of theemployment situation of the targeted group but also thesubjective evaluation of their activities and the possibil-ities for help from their side emerged as insufficient. In-dicators of unemployment, the effectiveness of formal helpan experience with unfavourable experiences on the labourmarket, many of which could have a discriminatory char-acter, are likewise included into a broad group of indica-tors confirming the fact that exclusion on the basis of habi-tation or place of residence is still significantly worsens theoverall unfavourable position of the Roma population with-in the geographic space. Thus, not only can the existenceof a general disadvantage of the Roma ethnicity in rela-tion to the labour market and employment be stated, butalso its escalation for the situation of separation and es-pecially segregation in the geographic space.

One of the primary assumptions and an integral com-ponent of programmes focused on overcoming the ex-clusion of the Roma population from the labour marketshould therefore also be the resolution of exclusion basedon habitation; behind them, obviously, should follow es-sential measures aimed at overcoming discrimination andbreaking down other identification barriers and hurdlesfor a better position and strengthening of the positionof the Roma population on the labour market. Thehigh share of long-term unemployment in the Roma pop-ulation, despite registration at the labour office, indicatesthat from the viewpoint of the existing generally bad sit-uation on the regional labour market and the low qual-ified prerequisites of a wide group of the Roma popu-lation for successful working on the labour market, ob-viously the existing instruments of support and help arenot appropriate and not effective. Together with dis-crimination (on the labour market and possibly on theside of offices and institutions) they can contributemore to reinforcing barriers and hurdles of segregationon the labour market rather than breaking them down.

A comparison of the living conditions of Romahouseholds with a working member and without sucha member pointed to a more favourable situation forhouseholds which have one or more members working.At the same time nearly all of the monitored indicatorshad a better result for households with two or more work-ing members versus those in which only one memberworked. The study data clearly confirmed that exclusionfrom the labour market increases the probability of suchhouseholds falling into the risk of poverty, increases thedanger of material deprivation and lowers the quality oflife of their members. Roma households are in this regard,in comparison with the geographically close general pop-ulation, significantly worse, and in the end even a work-ing wage in Roma households is not enough to overcomethis huge lag in level of living.

The strategy Europe 2020 staked out in the scope ofthe main initiative of the European Platform Against Pover-ty the aim “to ensure economic, social and territorial co-hesion, to raise awareness and recognise the funda-mental rights of people experiencing poverty and so-cial exclusion, enabling them to live in dignity and takean active part in society” (Europe..., 2010, pg. 20). In re-gard to the depicted situation of living conditions ofRoma households Slovakia as an EU member state willhave to develop extraordinary great effort. In additionto searching for possibilities for providing jobs, whichis no small task, for the overcoming the unfavourable liv-ing situation of the Roma population many additionalsupport programmes of this type will be necessary.


174


175

For Slovakia the common departure of women from the labour market and their inclusion among the economically inactive is a long-termcharacteristic. This can be seen primarily from the lower measure of economic activity of women versus men, which achieved a record min-imum during the crisis year of 2009 – only 50.3%. Practically, this means that from all women in the Slovak Republic age 15 years and older,only half belong among the labour force (they were working or unemployed; the other half is made up of women outside of economic ac-tivity; every other woman in Slovakia age 15+ years was economically inactive. In the survey from the following year 2010 the difference inthe measure of economic activity of women and men in Slovakia was on a level of 17 points (men 67.8% and women 50.8%), versus year2005 this involve a decrease in both groups (by 0.7% for men and 0.5% for women).

BOX 9.1: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AN THE NUMBER OF WORKING AND ECONOMICALLY INACTIVE WOMENAND MEN IN SLOVAKIA

Measure of economic activity and economic inactivity of women and men by type (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Men - Measure of EA 68.6 69.2 68.5 68.4 68.5 68.4 68.2 67.7 68.3 68.1 67.8

Women – Measure of EA 52.6 53.0 52.6 52.9 52.5 51.3 50.7 50.5 51.1 50.3 50.8

Number of men

Total 654.0 646.7 660.8 661.9 668.7 676.4 687.2 699.9 691.2 700.7 711.0

Students learners 219.1 216.0 229.1 242.7 246.9 259.3 254.5 259.2 258.3 262.2 260.1

Pensioners 395.6 390.5 383.5 374.1 373.2 369.2 373.3 379.2 377.0 382.5 392.2

At home 2.5 1.4 2.8 3.0 4.3 2.9 4.7 8.4 14.8 15.1 13.1

On parental leave 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7

Discouraged 6.2 6.9 8.0 4.6 2.8 4.3 6.8 8.4 7 6.4 6.4

Work disability 19.5 17.5 20.9 21.4 26.4 23.2 28.1 30.6 27.8 30.8 34.3

Other econ. inact. 5.2 7.9 11.3 13.2 13.7 15.6 19.2 13.9 6.2 3.4 4.1

Number of women

Total 1067.1 1067.0 1077.1 1070.1 1092.6 1128.7 1152.9 1160.0 1154.1 1179.0 1171.8

Students. learners 215.9 222.6 235.3 248.2 245 254.6 257.6 263.1 274.4 281.5 275.2

Pensioners 6710 666.1 655.7 644.7 655.9 656.3 661.0 659.7 658.3 661.5 659.9

At home 90.3 86.8 93.1 90.8 97.7 109.0 114.1 117.1 106.7 108.5 111.2

On parental leave 55.1 54.1 49.5 48.0 53.6 64.0 66.2 64.4 68.3 76.6 74.3

Discouraged 4.1 4.3 6.0 2.7 2.3 3.7 6.5 6.7 5.3 5.8 5.1

Work disability 21.9 22.0 24.5 26.0 30.9 30.5 33.4 33.7 32.7 42.2 43.7

Other econ. inact. 4.5 6.8 9.1 8.0 5.5 7.8 14.1 15.2 6.7 2.8 2.4

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Men – at home Men – parental leave Women – at home Women – parental leave

Women and men at home and on parental leave (2000 – 2010, in thous.)


90.3

55.1

54.1

49.5

48.0 53

.6 64.0

66.2

64.4 68

.3 76.6

74.3

86.8 93

.1

2.8

0.4

3.0

0.4 4.3

0.1

2.9

0.4 4.7

0.6 8.

40.

2 14.8

0.1

15.1

0.4

13.1

0.7

90.8 97

.7 109.

0

114.

1

117.

1

106.

7

108.

5

111.

2

2.5

1.1

1.4

0.8


176

In Slovakia the representation of women among entrepreneurs is permanently lower. Despite the moderate growth tendency the share ofwomen up to the year 2008 was in the scope of entrepreneurs with employees only 23.4% and for entrepreneurs without employees 25.1%.In the crisis year of 2009 the representation of women increased significantly (by 0.7% among entrepreneurs with employees and 2.8% forentrepreneurs without employees).In the year the economic crisis culminated Slovakia achieved the highest number and share of womenentrepreneurs in its history. Therefore, doubts exist about whether in this context the mentioned growth can be regarded as the actualeconomic position of women in Slovakia and their free choice; employers could have requested the transfer of their employees to workingon a business license, also so-called anti-crisis measures of the government trying to reduce the rapid growth of unemployment in thisway could have supported the establishing of business licenses (Cviková ed., 2010a; 2010b).Such an assumption also supports the fact that immediately in the following year of 2010 the number of entrepreneurs decreased by 6 thou-sand and the data for the first quarter of 2011 suggested an additional drop (SO SR, 2011); at the same time with men and entrepreneurswith employees no drop was recorded. In 2010 the total number of male entrepreneurs was 272.2 thousand and women 94.8 thousand;women therefore made up 25.8% of the total number of entrepreneurs.

BOX 9.2: NON-STANAR FORMS OF WORK IN SLOVAKIA – SELF-EMPLOYMENT AND SHORTENED WORKING TIME

The difference is also expressed with comparisons of the entire number of economically inactive men and women. In 2010 Slovakia had 711thousand economically inactive men and up to 1,171.8 thousand women; women made up 62.2% of the economically inactive. The over-balance of women is indicated in almost all groups of the inactive, the largest excess, however, was achieved in pensioners and those onparental leave. Female pensioners are nearly double males (392.2 thous. men and 659.9 thous. women), which is a consequence of the dif-ferent demographically higher and early morbidity of men and the higher expected lifespan of women, but also the last pension system,which defined the retirement age as earlier for women and its additional lowering for each child born. Reform of the system in 2004 meant,among others, a shift in the age of retirement and its simplification for men and women to 62 years. For men this meant an extension oftheir working life by 2 years and in the case of many groups of women by up to 8 years.But as the graph shows, the largest difference in the number of women and men has long been with the status “on parental leave” and “athome”. In relation to parental leave intended for the care of a small child, although access to it is equal for both parents in Slovakia, womenalmost exclusively draw it: in 2010 this was 74.3 thous. women and only 0.7 thous. men; the share of men reached only 0.9%. Up to 111.2thous. women and 13.1 thous. men had the status of a person at home in 2010, which meant the share of men was 10.5% (Filadelfiová, 2007,2010a, 2010b; Filadelfiová – Bútorová, 2011).

In regard to those working in the Slovak Republic: for men in 2008 a long-term growth trend in the number of working reversed, for womena decline was also recorded, despite the overall significantly lower number in comparison with men. In 2010 there were 1,284.5 thousandworking men in Slovakia and 1,033.0 thousand working women; women made up 44.6% of all working women. However, as opposed tothe state in 2005 the numbers for both groups was higher (by 4% more of working men and by 5% more of working women).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1,600.00

1,400.00

1,200.00

1,000.00

800.00

600.00

400.00

200.00

0.00

Men Women

Development in the number of working women and men (2000 – 2010, in thous.)


1,13

7.3

1,14

5.8

977.

9 1,15

6.8

970.

2

1,17

7.1

987.

5

1,19

3.7

976.

6

1,23

3.0

983.

1

1,01

0.3

1,03

5.6

1,07

0.0

1,03

9.4

1,03

3.0

1,29

1.1

1,32

1.6

1,36

3.7

1,32

6.4

1,28

4.5

964.

4


177

Slovakia also prior to the crisis recorded a phenomenon when employers persuaded their employees to switch over to a business license(a more suitable situation for the employer, since it has no responsibility for an employee on a business license in the sense of paying oblig-atory insurance and other social protection and benefits. In general the so-called forced business license or “compelled entrepreneur” rankamong the forms of precarious work (Fudge – Owens, 2006; Kalleberg, 2009), the statistical office also began to appear account for themand they became a topic of public discussion (Pacherová, 2011; Šimková, 2011). According to the newest data from the Statistical Office ofthe Slovak Republic there are in Slovakia approximately 100,000 business license holders(about one-quarter of all entrepreneurs), whowere forced into this form of work and their number shows a growth tendency (SO SR, 2011).In relation to the last group of self-employed – assisting in a home business – this group also permanently shows gender differences. In themajority of cases most women have such work arrangements: in 2010 this was 1,100 men and 2,000 women, which in comparison with 2005meant a growth for both men and women.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

250

200

150

100

50

0

Entrepreneurs with employees

Entrepreneurs without employees

Helping members of household businesses



Helping members of household businesses

Self-employed men and women by type (2000 – 2010, in thous.)


37.3

1.0

84.8

14.8 27

.62.

1

39.9

1.2

89.3

16.5 29

.61.

6

39.6

0.5

97.3

12.2 32

.11.

5

44.5

0.6

107.

515

.540

.52.

3

54.1

0.8

136.

317

.648

.72.

3

53.5

0.5

157.

318

491.

1

52.5

0.5

162.

218

.954

.50.

6

53.2

0.9

173.

920

.454

.11.

4

59.7

1.2

190.

518

.263

.71.

9

61.5

0.9

206.

819

.579

.72.

4

61.6

1.1

210.

621

.173

.72.

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Men – shorter work time

Men – underemployed

Women – shorter work time

Women - underemployed

Women and men with employment for shorter working times and underemployment(2000 – 2010, in thous.)


11.7

28.8

11.1 12

.62.

633

.214

.8

11.9

1.6

25.9

11.7 13

.72.

335

.013

.5 15.4

3.4

38.1

14.5

14.7

4.7

37.1

17.8

14.5

5.3

43.6

17.5

13.0

4.2

42.5

15.6 17

.910

.641

.619

.8

33.5

24.2

45.8

27.4

33.0

24.0

53.1

32.4

1.7


178

In comparison with other EU countries the Slovak labour market has a very low share of shortened work relations; with a share of 4.4%(men 3.3% and women 5.7% of all employed) it is in next-to-last place (Bútorová et al., 2008; Filadelfiová – Bútorová, 2011). According to sta-tistical data last year brought a change in this characteristic of employment, the share of employed on shorter work time changed and wasshortened. Women tend to work a shorter work time than men, in 2010 this was 53,100 women and 33,000 men.The last two years have also seen a significant increase in shorter work ties; in view of the fact that the growth tendency was discovered dur-ing the crisis, it is not surprising that involuntary shortening of work ties primarily increased. Underemployed women totalled 32.4 thou-sand in 2010 and men totalled 24 thousand. Of all men, 72.7% had such a contract and 61% of women were employed for a shorter worktime. The difference could indicate that the “free choice” for shorter working time is somewhat higher in the case of women who thus re-solve the tension between work and family obligations, which is, however, also a certain form of compulsion.In comparison with 2005 the number of underemployed men increased five-fold (from 4.7 to 24 thousand) and the number of underem-ployed women nearly doubled (from 17.8 to 32.4 thousand).

In the development of employment and unemployment Slovakia recorded a more principle turnaround in the year 2009: the measure ofemployment of men age 15-64 years in 2010 after long-term grown decreased to 65.2% and the employment of women to 52.3%; the lag-ging on the side of women is by 13%. From the viewpoint of measure of employment of women Slovakia is in last place among the EU-27countries (Employment in..., 2010); the employment of Slovak women with a child age 3-5 years is also very low, lagging behind the aver-age for the OECD countries by more than 10% (Babies..., 2007).Differences in employment of women and men are expressed in all agegroups but for the group age 30 – 34 years (by 22.5%), women are “trimmed off” from employment by caring for children, and for age 55 –59 years (by 26.9%), when the difference is the result of women leaving the labour force for retirement in the past.

Unemployment had the opposite development – after a period of striking decline it began to grow again. The measure of unemploymentexpressed as a percentage share of the labour force age 15+ (VZPS methodology) grew in 2010 for men to 14.2% and for women to 14.6%.In the long-term perspective the measure of unemployment of women is consistently higher than the unemployment of men (with the ex-ception of years 2000 and 2001). Although unemployment among men grew faster, the gender gap to the disadvantage of women was alsopreserved in 2010. The reason for the slower growth of unemployment of women could be their overall resignation on the labour market(their departure among the economically inactive); many women are also excluded from the system of protection in unemployment for aninterrupted work career and insufficient number of days in the social insurance system connecting to the drawing of parental leave and thelike. (A claim for an unemployment benefit arises if the insured during the last three years before being registered among applicants for em-ployment was insured in unemployment for at least two years – see: http://www.socpoist.sk/davka-v-nezamestnanosti/1361s#kto-ma-narok). This is indicated also in the number of those drawing an unemployment benefit – the share of women is consistently lower incomparison with men: while among unemployed women 46.7% drew an unemployment benefit, among unemployed men this was 53/7%.Furthermore, the average amount of the benefit was lower for women, because it is derived from the previous wage, and women on aver-age earn about one-quarter less.In 2010 the average number of unemployed men reached 212.8 thousand, and the number of unemployed women was 176.2 thousand;overall women made up 45.3%. But upon comparisons with the year 2005 the number of unemployed in 2010 was smaller – for womenby 27.6 thousand and for men by 10.8 thousand.

BOX 9.3: THE MEASURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN SLOVAKIA

Measures of employment and unemployment (2000 – 2010, in %)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Men - Measureof employment 15+

54.7 54.7 55.2 56.2 56.3 57.8 59.9 61.1 62.6 60.4 58.2

Women - Measure ofemployment 15+

42.9 43.1 42.7 43.5 42.5 42.5 43.2 44.2 45.5 43.8 43.4

Men - Measure ofemployment 15-64

61.5 61.4 62.0 63.0 63.0 64.6 67.0 68.4 70.0 67.6 65.2

Women - Measure ofemployment 15-64

51.5 51.8 51.4 52.2 50.9 50.9 51.9 53.1 54.6 52.8 52.3

Men - Measure ofemployment 55-64

35.4 37.7 39.1 41.0 43.8 47.8 49.8 52.5 56.7 54.9 54.0

Women - Measure ofemployment 55-64

9.8 9.8 9.5 11.2 12.6 15.6 18.9 21.2 24.2 26.1 28.7

Men - Measure ofemployment 15+

18.6 19.5 18.4 17.2 17.3 15.3 12.2 9.8 8.4 11.4 14.2

Women - Measure ofemployment 15+

18.6 18.8 18.7 17.7 19.1 17.2 14.7 12.5 11.1 12.9 14.6



179

According to research on the human rights of Roma women which as carried out in 2009 in non-integrated Roma communities by the Cul-tural Association of Roma in Slovakia, and from their comparison with data from the entire adult population of the Slovak Republic (IVO 2006)it was shown that gender differences in perceiving the roles of men and women occurs in the total population of Slovakia, no but in the non-integrated part of the Roma population it is much more pronounced. The normative concepts of the typical man and the typical womanare stronger in the surveyed Roma communities; they showed more pronounced traditional role expectations. The ideal woman in this en-vironment is expected to be a guardian of the family hearth, (and on the part of women, too), and more demands are concentrated on theideal man in relation to provision for the family. Similar differences are also expressed also with independent decisions (in the case of thetypical woman), authority in the family and the dictates of beauty (for a man and a woman), or education and physical force (also for thenormative expectations for a man and a woman). The differences of opinions found of the non-integrated Roma population correspondsapproximately in some aspects to the level of public opinion of the SR from ten years ago (compare Bútorová et al., 1996, pg. 24).

As is stated in the final report from the study, in the non-integrated Roma population the conviction survives regarding the significantly dif-ferent women‘s and men’s roles in society and the family. A different world for “pink” and “blue” in non-integrated communities, to whicharrive and where are socialise Roma girls and boys, can have significant impacts on their future life, limit their free choice of a life’s path andsignificantly cut them off from opportunities (boys and girls, but above all girls), namely from the viewpoint of successful connection andapplication on the labour market (Data..., 2009).

BOX 9.4: STANDING IN REGARD TO THE ROLES OF WOMEN AND MEN – COMPARISON OF THE WHOLE POPU-LATION WITH THE SEGREGATED ROMA POPULATION

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

300.0

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0

Muži Ženy

Development in the number of unemployed women and men (2000 – 2010, in thous.)


265.

521

9.7

282.

522

5.4 26

3.9

223.

0 246.

421

2.7 24

9.9

223.

6

230.

9

203.

8

179.

517

3.9

143.

514

8.4

124.

613

2.8 15

3.5

212.

817

6.2

170.

8

Very important traits of a typical women and a typical man – comparison of the opinion of the total population of the Slovak Republic (SR) and the surveyed part of the Roma population (in %)

Traits appraised Traits of women Traits of men

Population of SR roma set Population of SR roma set

Know how to care for the household 70 87 44 52

Delicacy and sensitivity regarding the problems of others 51 51 30 33

Decide independently 48 57 61 59

Looks good, beauty 42 49 15 22

Authority in the family 35 21 46 57

Enterprising, worldly 34 37 60 59

The highest education 24 17 32 23

Financially secures the family 18 38 79 84

Physically strong 7 18 34 64

Note: Data for the entire SR presented according to Bútorová et al. 2008, pg. 22; survey data are from 2006 (IVO 2006).Source: Data on the human rights of Roma women. Banská Bystrica, Cultural Association of Roma in Slovakia 2009.


180

As the available study data shows, the reality in Slovakia further consists of large gender differences in the division of household choresand their negative impact on the working career of women. Women are more burdened with family care and household chores, whichhas unfavourable impacts on their work career (Bútorová et al. 2008; Filadelfiová, 2008; SNSĽP 2006). Overall they devote about 16hours more per week to unpaid work in the household; with care about members of the family the difference is 7 hours and with do-mestic chores up to 9 hours.

According to the study from 2006 up to 11% of women, because of family obligations, had to arrange less responsible work; 28% of womenwere forced to find employment which would allow for the care of children and members of the family; 17% had to completely leave em-ployment for a certain time because of family (IVO, 2006).

BOX 9.5: THE HIGHER LOAD OF WOMEN WITH HOUSEHOLD WORK

Selected indicators about division of domestic chores and the impacts on working career (in %)

Women Men Difference

Number of hours per week of devoted care 17 10 +7

Number of hours per week of devoted household work 19 10 +9

They had to find employment which allowed for care 28 4 +24

They had for a certain time to completely leave employment due to the need to care 17 2 +15

Due to care they had to take less responsible work 11 3 +8

Note: Without the responses “I can’t guess”.Source: Bútorová et al., 2008.

Seg

reg

ovan

á os

ada

Sep

arov

aná

časť

ob

ce

aleb

oro

zptý

len

é b

ývan

ie

Zaži

l max

imál

ne

jed

nu

situ

áciu

Zaži

l dve

a vi

ac s

ituá

cií

Gramotnosť(čítanie a písanie)

ZARADENIE NA TRHU PRÁCEPRACUJÚCI – NEZAMESTNANÍ

Má problém aspoň s jedným

Dosiahnuté vzdelanie

Vyššie ako ukončená základná škola

Ukončená základná školaa nižšie

Typ bývania(podľa priestorového

vylúčenia)

Negatívne zážitkyna trhu práce

(spolu 5 situácií)

Polo

vica

a m

enej

róm

skyc

h d

etí

Via

c ak

o p

olov

ica

róm

skyc

h d

etí

Žije

v d

omác

nos

tib

ez d

etí

aleb

o s

1 d

ieťa

ťom

Žije

v d

omác

nos

tis

2 a

viac

deť

mi

Nemá problém ani s jedným

Vzdelanie rodičov

Aspoň jeden z rodičov vyššieako základné vzdelanie

Obaja rodičia maximálnezákladné vzdelanie

Zloženie detí v triede(posledný rok

na základnej škole)

Počet detív domácnosti(0 – 14 rokov)

Schéma 9.1Inclusion in the labor market – factors of influence

Standard of living can be monitored with the help of dif-ferent indicators. Some of them were presented in pre-vious chapters (material living conditions, household fur-nishings, etc.). This chapter sets as its goal to detail threeaspects of living standard which are, however, related.First, the income situation of Roma households, whichrepresents one of the key determinants of standard ofliving, will be treated. Data about work, social and over-all incomes will be presented. The presence of incomesand their amounts in households were surveyed for thelast month preceding the period of the survey. Thus, thisdoesn’t involve a yearly or half-yearly sum, but informationabout one moment in time. During the creation of thequestionnaire, it was assumed that identification of in-comes for longer time periods could run across a prob-lem with the given value of the provided responses.What’s more, the questionnaire contained eight moduleswith a large number of detailed questions; therefore, toomuch detail regarding the surveying of incomes (and ex-penditures) could have a counterproductive effect.Alongside incomes, the chapter is also devoted to the oc-currence of financial difficulties, specifically unpaiddebts associated with the provision of basic services suchas supplies of water and electricity or with the provisionof basic needs (buying groceries). The chapter will alsoultimately be devoted to deprivation in the field of con-sumption of selected goods and services. Deprivation inconsumption is covered by indicators which are com-monly followed in surveys of living conditions (for ex-

ample, in the EU SILC survey). This allows for a compar-ison of the situation of the set of Roma households withother more general sets.

10.1. Total work incomes

Aside from the questions about wages/payments for workperformed which were asked of individual members ofthe surveyed households, a question was also posited inthe survey about the total sum of work incomes for theentire household. This involved the sum of working in-comes for the last month which preceded the period ofthe survey. Approximately 24% of surveyed Roma house-holds on average mentioned the presence of somework income (25% for households living diffused and over23% for segregated and separated).1 This could have in-volved one work income or the sum total of a number ofwork incomes. In the first step of the analysis, we divid-ed the sums given in responses into a number of incomeintervals (because of the low number of households witha work income a small number of income intervals wasselected). Nearly 40% of Roma households had incomesfrom employment in the amount up to EUR 350; mostRoma households – more than 46% – were in the mid-dle income interval of EUR 351 to EUR 700; and 14.2%gave a total work income over EUR 700. The distributionof the sums of work incomes was specific in the subsetof households from segregated settlements, where half

181

10Standard of living of roma households– incomes, financial difficulties and deprivation in consumption

In 2010 a new strategy known as Europe 2020 was accepted whose goal is to ensure intelligent, sustainable an inclusive economic growth.One of the five main goals of the strategy relates to the reduction of the number of people endangered by poverty or social exclusion, bywhich poverty and social exclusion are defined with the help of three indicators: the target population is made up people at risk of poverty(i.e. with equivalent disposable income which is lower than 60% of the national median equivalent disposable income), people exposed tomaterial deprivation (i.e. with the forced absence of four of the nine monitored items relating to long-term consumer goods and financialdifficulties) and people living in households with very low work intensity (i.e. in households in which persons of a productive age work lessthan 20% of their overall “labour” potential). At the same time, it is true that a person is considered as poor or socially excluded when he orshe belongs to at least one of the mentioned three categories (European Commission, 2011: 106). This involves a definition which reflectsthe multidimensionality of the disadvantages which a part of the population faces in EU member states – it does not focus only on relativeincome poverty but also heeds the non-monetary aspects of poverty and exclusion from the labour market. At the same time it expressesthe attempt of member states regarding a complex approach to combating poverty and social exclusion.Measuring and monitoring poverty and social exclusion on the level of the EU represents a very dynamic field of activities. In recent yearsit has been possible to track several changes relating to the portfolios of the indicators used. An example of such activities is also the attemptat conceptualisation of extreme poverty on the EU level. One of the first results is the study of J. Bradshaw and E. Mayhew from the year 2011,which originated with the support of the European Commission and offers an overview of existing approaches to measuring poverty andthe application of them on data from the EU SILC, which are collected in all EU member states. The authors recommend focusing attentionon indicators tied to deprivation and to overlapping of income poverty and deprivation as well as the creation of “standard budgets” for low-income households (Bradshaw – Mayhew, 2011).

Box 10.1: CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MEASURING OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN THE EU

1 These data were calculated for those Roma households which responded to the question.

182


belonged to the lowest wage interval and only 5.6% werein the highest interval. This above-standard representa-tion of low incomes and very low representation of highincomes differentiated them especially from house-holds living diffused. In comparison with the geo-graphically close general population households were onaverage significantly worse off – the highest income in-terval had the highest representation among the generalhouseholds, with more than half of all households(55%). The total sum of work incomes to EUR 350 occurredin one-tenth of them and 35% of these households hadincomes from EUR 351 to EUR 700.

The average sum of the total work incomes inRoma households represented EUR 485; the median sumhad a value of EUR 400.2 The highest average sum of workincomes was shown for Roma households living diffused(EUR 549). With decreasing spatial integration this val-ue dropped – the average sum among householdsfrom segregated settlements was EUR 377. The ANOVAprocedure used for comparing sums of work incomes inthe three monitored categories of Roma householdsshowed statistically significant differences in the signif-icance level α = 0.05.3 According to a Bonferroni post hoctest statistically significant differences in the total sum ofwork incomes existed between diffused and segregat-ed households. It is thus possible to state that householdsliving diffused had statistically significant higher work in-

comes than households from segregated settlements. Forcomparison, households from the geographically closegeneral population showed a significantly higher aver-age income than Roma households – it represented EUR900, and the median had a value of EUR 750. In view ofthe overall low number of Roma households with a workincome, it is meaningless to present additional, more de-tailed classifications and relations.

10.2. Total social incomes

The presence of social incomes and their amount inhouseholds was surveyed the same as work incomes, forthe last month which preceded the period of data col-lection. The concept of a social income was simple – alltransfers from the state to households or its individualmembers were considered to be social incomes, whetherthey involve insurance benefits, state social support ben-efits or poverty assistance and payments associated withit. Social incomes could thus be drawn on the level of thehousehold as well as on the level of individuals (with dataregarding individual types of incomes, the level in-volved will always be presented). Aggregate, total socialincomes were calculated for each household.

Approximately 95% of Roma households gavesome sum originating from social incomes during the

2 These data were calculated only for households which gave a non-zero sum for work income.3 The value of the testing F criteria was 3.194 with two degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis regarding distribution equations was not refused (Lev-

ene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not statistically significant), so that the given procedure could be used.

Table 10.1Distribution of total month sum of working incomes in Roma households and in the households of the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

Roma households Households of the geographi-cally close general populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

To EUR 350 50.0 43.5 30.5 39.7 9.9

EUR 351-700 44.4 43.5 49.2 46.1 35.2

EUR 701 and more 5.6 13.0 20.3 14.2 54.9


Note: Total work incomes were surveyed for the month which preceded the month of the survey.

Table 10.2Average work incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in the households of the geographical-ly close general population (in EUR)

Averageincome (in EUR)

Standard deviation



Segregated 377 35.9 303.5 449.5

Separated 489 48.0 392.7 586.2

Diffused 549 48.1 452.3 644.7

Households from the geographically close general population 900 38.4 823.9 975.4

Note: Average income was calculated from data from households which gave a non-zero sum for work income. Households which did not have any workincome and those which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

last month.4 This number is not as high, however, as itmay seem at first glance, since we are talking about anytype of social income – whether it involves support forthe birth of a child, a parental allowance, support forunemployment or different types of pensions. Data cat-egorised into income zones EUR 150 wide show that themost Roma households had a social income in the EUR151 to EUR 300 interval (40.5%) and from EUR 301 to EUR450 (30.8%). Not even social incomes on a higher lev-el were an exception, however: 13.6% of Roma house-holds had a total sum of social benefits on a level of EUR451 to EUR 600, and 5.6% drew benefits higher than EUR601. The differences between households with differ-ent types of housing were not significant. In all threecategories the sum from EUR 151 to EUR 450 occurredmost often. Households from the geographically closegeneral population demonstrated a different distribu-tion of social incomes. The most households had a so-cial income in the interval from EUR 301 to EUR 450 (28%); however, a principle difference was shown with theoccurrence of social incomes over EUR 600: while in theset of Roma households not quite 6% of householdsgave such an income, in the general population near-ly one-quarter of households (24.1%) fell into thisgroup. The higher social incomes in the general pop-ulation could be the result of several facts. Here the dif-

ferent age structure could have an impact (a higher rep-resentation of old-age pensioners), the higher occur-rence of insurance benefits (which derive from a certainperiod of preceding economic activity and leviespaid) and the like. The higher level of incomes does notmean larger coverage of the given population: 60.7%of general households listed some type of social income(in comparison with 95% of Roma households).

The average value of social incomes for the entireset of Roma households represented EUR 331 (see Table10.4); the median had a value of EUR 301, and the mostcommonly given sum was EUR 300 (3.8% or Romahouseholds listed this sum). For households living dif-fused and separated social incomes were on averagearound the level of EUR 323 and EUR 324, and in seg-regated settlements this was higher – the average so-cial income was EUR 348. Graph 10.1 shows the char-acter of the distribution of responses. As can be seen,average values are influenced by several distant values.If we were to remove them from consideration, the av-erage social incomes would be lower. The dotted hor-izontal line shows the average for the entire set of Romahouseholds. The solid lines inside the individual box-es show the median values. The ANOVA procedureshowed that the average social incomes of Romahouseholds in the three subsets defined on the basis


1834 This data was calculated for those Roma households which responded to the question.

Table 10.3Distribution of the total monthly sum of social incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in thehouseholds of the geographically close general population (in %)

Roma households Households from geographi-cally close general populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

To EUR 150 7.4 10.7 10.2 9.5 12.9

EUR 151-300 37.8 44.0 39.6 40.5 20.5

EUR 301-450 33.9 27.2 31.4 30.8 28.1

EUR 451-600 13.5 14.4 13.1 13.6 14.3

EUR 601 and more 7.4 3.7 5.7 5.6 24.1


Note: Total social incomes were surveyed for the month preceding the month of data collection.

Table 10.4Average social incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in households from the geographicallyclose general population (in EUR)

Averageincome (EUR)

Standard error



Segregated 348 11.2 325.4 369.6

Separated 324 12.1 299.6 347.4

Diffused 323 10.7 302.1 344.1


Note: Average income was calculated from households which listed a social income. Households which did not have a social income and those whichdid not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

184


of spatial integration were not significantly different sta-tistically for any of the followed levels of significance.Households representing the geographically closegeneral population were shown to have a significant-ly higher social income than the surveyed Roma house-holds (EUR 424, which is EUR 100 more).

With an analysis of incomes it is necessary to con-sider the effect of household size on the amount of in-come; for example, households with the same incomeachieve as a consequence of a different number of mem-bers a different level of well-being. Several methods ex-ist for balancing this out. One of the most frequentlyused methods is application of a modified OECD scale,which transforms household incomes into an “equiva-lent member” through a scale which ascribes a “first”adult person the coefficient 1, and each additional adultperson the coefficient 0.5 and each unprovided for childto age 14 years a coefficient of value 0.3. This means,for example, that households with two adult membersand two children under the age of 14 years are assigneda coefficient of 2.1. The income of this household is thentransformed into an “income per equivalent member”so that its original amount is divided by the given sumof the individual coefficients. Another method is a trans-

formation based on determining the “income per capi-ta”, which means that the household income is divid-ed by the number of household members. In this textwe use the second method, which is often applied instudies of very vulnerable groups and at the same timeavoids reproaches relating to the arbitrary nature of theselected values of the coefficients in the modified OECDscale. On the other hand it is necessary to remark thatno method provides a simple and problem-free solu-tion, and in the second case reservations do exist – mostoften associated with the fact that it ignores from itsrange household savings.

After calculation of total social incomes “per capi-ta” it is possible to observe certain shifts in the averageincomes of Roma households. The highest average in-come per capita among Roma households was shownto be in those living diffused, behind which werehouseholds from segregated settlements. The positionof diffused households changed in comparison with thesituation if the original “unaltered“ social incomes aretaken into consideration (see Table 10.4), which couldbe the result of the impact of size – it is these house-holds that showed the lowest number of members incomparison with the other two types. According to theresults of the ANOVA procedure, however, the differ-ences between the compared three types of Roma set-tlements were not statistically significant. A compari-son of Roma households with households from the ge-ographically close general population did show inthis case significant differences. Average social in-comes “per capita” were for the general households EUR100 higher than for Roma households living diffused,and with separated and segregated households the dif-ference was higher still.

The amount of social incomes “per capita” is derived(also) from the structure of the household. In the set ofRoma households it was shown that the presence of chil-dren lowers the average social income “per capita”. Thisapplies for households with children to age 6 years aswell as with children to age 18 years (Table 10.6). The av-erage income per capita in the case of Roma householdswith children to age 6 years is significantly lower than

Graph 10.1Distribution of total sums of social incomes in the setof Roma households by type of settlement (in EUR)

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Diffused Segregated Separated

�

�

�

Tota

l sum

of s

ocia

l inc

omes

Table 10.5Average social incomes “per capita” in Roma households by type of settlement and in households from the ge-ographically close general population (in EUR)

Average income (in EUR)

Standard error



Segregated 88 3.9 80.8 96.2

Separated 84 3.7 77.1 91.7

Diffused 93 3.8 85.8 100.9


Note: Average income was calculated from households which listed a social income. Households which did not have a social income and those whichdid not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

the average income per capita of Roma households with-out children of that age (EUR 110) and the average in-come per capita for the entire set of Roma households(EUR 89). Furthermore, with an increasing number of chil-dren, the average income drops: while in householdswith one child to age 6 years it was on a level of EUR 71,in the case of households with three or more childrento age 6 years this was on a significantly lower level (EUR53). Similar conclusions can be stated also for Romahouseholds with children to age 18 years. And here theaverage social income per capita is lower than withhouseholds without such children (EUR 145) and it ap-plies that with a growing number of children social in-comes calculated per household member declines.

The geographically close general population was sig-nificantly better in this from the point of view of overalllevel of social incomes. If, however, we look at householdswith children, then the given statement does not apply(Table 10.7). Average social incomes calculated percapita did not reach the level of incomes of Romahouseholds with children to age 6 or 18 years.

Differences between the Roma and the geographicallyclose general population appear if we take the presenceof pensioners into consideration.5 Incomes of householdsfrom the general population in which persons age 65 yearsand older live are significantly higher than incomes forRoma households with persons of the given age (Table10.8). Social incomes calculated per capita are in Romahouseholds with one pensioner lower by more thanEUR 100 in comparison with households from the generalpopulation with one person of retirement age. In the caseof households with two persons of retirement age the dif-ferences between the Roma and the general populationare a bit smaller, but still remain significant.

The comparison of social incomes of householdswithout a person age 65 years an older and householdsin which at least one such person lives reveals the factthat old-age pensions represent a significant part of so-cial incomes. The social income in households where noperson age 65 years and older lives is lower in Romahouseholds (EUR 84) as well as in households from thegeographically close general population (EUR 143).


185

Table 10.6Average social incomes “per capita” in Roma households by the number of children to age 6 and to age18 years (in EUR)


Standard error



Households with children to age 6 years

1 child 71 2.3 66.5 75.5

2 children 66 2.8 60.3 71.3

3 and more children 53 2.1 48.5 56.7


1 child 87 3.5 79.9 93.8

2 children 72 2.3 66.9 76.2


Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to 18 years inclusive. The average income per capita for households without childrento age 6 years was EUR 110, in the case of households without children to 18 years EUR 145.

5 For simplification we will here consider a person age 65 years and older to be of retirement age.

Table 10.7Average social incomes “per capita” in households from the geographically close general population by num-ber of children to age 6 years and to age 18 years (in EUR)


Standard error



Households with children to age 6 years*

1 child 59 7.3 44.2 74.3

2 children 50 6.8 35.2 65.6


1 child 83 13.7 54.7 110.9

2 children 61 6.7 47.1 74.7

3 and more children 54

Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to age 18 years inclusive The average income per capita for households without chil-dren to age 6 years was EUR 223, and in the case of households without children to 18 years EUR 255. *For this type of households we do not present dataon households with three children because of the very low number of cases (n = 2).

186


10.3. The drawing of social transfers

The total sum of social incomes is made up of social trans-fers which are linked to the situation in the given house-hold. This subchapter refers to the preceding one and of-fers a more detailed look at representation of individualtypes of benefits in the surveyed set of Roma households.Some social benefits are linked to the household asa whole, while others are intended for individual mem-bers of a household. This fact is important for specifica-tion of a reference group to which the share of recipientsof a certain benefit is related.6

10.3.1. The benefit in material needand allowances associated with it

Assistance in material need is a programme guaran-teeing a minimal income whose goal is the support offamilies with very low or no income and ensuring theirbasic living conditions. It represents the last social safe-ty net which is usually provided after all claims on oth-er subsystem benefits have expired. A claim for a ben-efit in material need is conditioned by a number of facts.One of the most important is that the incomes for thepersons under review must collectively be lower thanthe sum determined by law. Also associated with it isthe impossibility of providing or increasing incomes un-der one’s own power and the impossibility of provid-ing basic living conditions with one’s own property.7 As-sistance in material need is a richly structured pro-gramme, in the scope of which a basic benefit in ma-terial need is offered as well as several allowances tiedto fulfilling specific conditions. The amount of thebenefit is differentiated into six levels and several al-lowances are added to this (see Box 10.2).

In the scope of the Survey of the Living Conditionsof Roma Households in 2010 the methodological sur-vey of incomes from the assistance in material needprogramme differed a little from the approach appliedin 2005. While in 2005 the total number and share offamilies who draw any income associated with mate-rial need was first ascertained (UNDP, 2006: 48); fiveyears later this process was abandoned with the goalof simplifying the situation for respondents and the pro-fessional public. In 2010 the direct drawing of the ben-efit in material need was surveyed and also the al-lowances associated with it. The concept of “income as-sociated with material need” was not used. This hadconsequences for calculation of the representation offamilies in the given programme in the entire set as wellas for other indicators.

The benefit in material need is drawn on average byhalf of all Roma households. From the surveyed set ofhouseholds living in segregated settlements up to52.3% drew it, while from separated settlements this was50.2% and from diffused 47.3%. Only 4% of the geo-graphically close general population drew the benefit.The health care allowance, which serves for the paymentsof expenditures associated with health care, was drawnby 43% of households also drawing the benefit in ma-terial need. The housing allowance was paid to 58% ofthose drawing the benefit in material need. The shareof those households in the individual types of settle-ments with different degrees of integration differed sig-nificantly. While among diffused settlements 77% ofhouseholds drew it, the remaining two environmentshad a much weaker representation (52% in separatedsettlements, 48% in segregated settlements). The low-er level of drawing the allowance in separated and seg-regated settlements could reflect the fact that a provi-sion of the allowance for housing was tied to certain con-

Table 10.8Average social incomes “per capita” in Roma households and in households from the geographically closegeneral population by number of persons age 65 years and older (in EUR)

Average in-come (in EUR)

Standard error



Roma households

one person age 65+ years 144 14.5 114.4 173.1

two persons age 65+ years 195 14.3 164.6 224.5

Households from the geographically close general population

one person age 65+ years 256 16.4 223.7 289.1

two persons age 65+ years 266 15.7 234.2 298.2

Note: The average social income per capita for Roma households without a person age 65 years and older was EUR 83, and in the case of householdsfrom the geographically close general population this was EUR 143.

6 Households and individuals who did not respond to the questions about drawing of individual types of social transfers are not taken into consider-ation in the calculations.

7 See: http://www.upsvar.sk/socialne-veci-a-rodina/hmotna-nudza/davka-a-prispevky-v-hmotnej-nudzi.html?page_id=226.

ditions supporting its correct use which, however,were not easily satisfied in the environments of someRoma communities (particularly those with a lesser de-gree of integration) (UNDP, 2006: 49). The low share ofhouseholds drawing the benefit in material need, towhom the housing allowance was paid, could have neg-ative consequences for the Roma population, namely inregard to its important function: from the structure ofthe system of assistance in material need in 2010 it is ob-vious that the housing allowance represented a signif-icant financial supplement toward the basic benefit inmaterial need. Its absence could threaten the stabilityof housing (lowering the ability to pay for rent and serv-ices associated with housing), deepen financial difficultiesand lead into a trap of indebtedness.

Alongside the benefit in material need a benefit forparents of a child up to age one was also paid in 2010,which was conditioned by demonstrable proof froma paediatrician about participation in a preventive med-ical examination. This benefit was drawn by 8% ofhouseholds which were recipients of the benefit in ma-terial need.8 An additional benefit was that for compul-sory school attendance of a child, acknowledgement ofwhich was tied to the fulfilling of school attendance. Inthe year 2010, 40% of Roma households drawing the ben-efit in material need also drew this benefit. From thoseliving diffused, 42% of households drew it, while amongthe separated this was 40.3% and from Roma householdsliving in segregated settlements it was 38.7%.

Activation and protection allowances also belongto the benefit in material need. The activation al-lowance is intended for people in material need (whofulfil the conditions for a claim to the benefit in mate-rial need) for the purpose of support “obtaining, main-taining or increasing awareness, professional skills orwork habit for the purpose of work application duringassistance in material need”.9 Thus, it involves a socialtransfer which is provided to individual, however, withconsideration of the situation in the household. An ac-tivation allowance is drawn by 14% of persons in theset of the Roma population (15% from diffused and seg-regate, 12% from separated). So that we obtain a rele-vant idea about the significance of this allowance, it isnecessary to define an adequate reference category.First, it should involve persons living in a householdwhich is a recipient of the benefit in material need. Sec-ond, it is necessary to more closely specify the age in-terval in which the person drawing the benefit will bemonitored. For this purpose we selected the age cat-egory 16-54 years (inclusive), which captures personsof productive age. Among Roma belonging to this agecategory who lived in households drawing a benefit inmaterial need, 30% drew the activation allowance. Themost were among Roma from segregated settlements(37 %). From those living diffused every third person ofthe given age living in a household drawing the ben-efit in material need also drew the activation al-lowance. The lowest share of those drawing the al-


187

In 2010, that is, at the time this study was carried out, the sums of benefits in material need for individual types of households and sumsof associated allowances and benefits were as follows:

Box 10.2: SUMS OF THE BENEFITS IN MATERIAL NEED AND OTHER ALLOWANCES IN THE YEAR 2010

Type of household Sum in EUR

Individual 60.5

Individual with 1-4 children 115.1

Individual with more than 4 children 168.2

Couple with no children 105.2

Couple with 1-4 children 157.6

Couple with more than 4 children 212.3

Type of benefit and allowance Sum in EUR

Activation allowance 63.07

Protection allowance 63.07

Allowance for housing for individual 55.8

Allowance for housing for more persons 89.2

Health care allowance 2.0

Increase benefit for pregnant women 13.5

Benefit for parents caring for child to 1 year 13.5

Benefit for child fulfilling compulsory school attendance 17.2

Source: www.upsvar.sk.

8 Due to the low numbers more detailed classifications are not further presented.9 Act 599/2003 Coll. on assistance in material need and on amendments to certain acts. §12.

188


lowance was shown to be among the Roma from sep-arated settlements – 22% of them drew the activationallowance. The set of households from the geograph-ically close general population had an equal share ofpersons with activation work.

The protection allowance is offered to people in ma-terial need, who cannot secure basic living conditionsfor different reasons (see Box 10.3). It thus allows thebenefit in material need to be supplemented by an ad-ditional sum with the existence of cogent barriers to ac-tivation. In terms of occurrence the protection al-lowance was not as significant as the activation al-lowance. Only 3% of Roma age 16-54 years who livedin households on the benefit in material need drew it(5% in segregated settlements, 3% in separated com-munities and 2% from diffused). In the geographical-ly close general population the protective allowance oc-curred to an utterly negligible measure.

Thus, a total of 33% of Roma of productive age (16-54 years) who lived in households reliant on the bene-fit in material need drew the activation and protectionallowance. Keeping in mind that both (complementary)allowances represent the possibility of a significant in-crease in household income (see Box 10.2), this does notinvolve a high number. It’s possible to assume that in theuse of these two support instruments several barriers ex-ist in practice which could have a structural character(whether on the side of demand or offer).

10.3.2. Pensions

In the Roma population the coverage of pensioners wasin general low. In the case of old-age, early and retire-ment pensions the result of the age structure of theRoma population is involved, as only 4% of persons areage 60 years and older and 2.3% of persons are 65 yearsand older. Old-age, early or retirement pensions weredrawn by 5% of persons among all Roma. We obtain an-other perspective if we notice the share of those pen-sioners in the “older” part of the Roma population. AsTable 10.9 shows, 87% of Roma age 60 years and olderdrew an old-age, early or retirement pension. The high-est share of those drawing such pensions was in the seg-regated settlements (92%), the lowest among theRoma living diffused (81%). In the population of Romaage 65 years and older the measure of those drawingthese pensions was still higher; the lowest occurrenceappeared in this case in diffused settlements.

The set of the geographically close general popu-lation was older in comparison with the set of Roma (seeChapter 3). This is also reflected by the share of thosedrawing old-age, early and retirement pensions, whichrepresented 24% of the entire set of the geographical-ly close general population (it is nearly five-times high-er than the share for the entire Roma population).Therefore, for a comparison, data relating to the “older”part of the surveyed set are more relevant. In this case

An Activation allowance is provided to a citizen in material need and to each natural person who is reviewed in common with the citizenin material need (if the conditions for the benefit in material nee are met) in the following way.A citizen in poverty who is employed has a claim for an activation allowance:- if he/she increases qualification through the form of study or employment, combined study and the study of individual schooled sub-

jects or through the form of external study,- if he/she takes part in education and preparation for the labour market taking place in the scope of projects approved by the ministry,- if he/she takes part in the performing of smaller municipal services taking place on the basis of agreements with the office or the mu-

nicipality.A citizen in material need who is registered as an applicant for employment has a claim for an activation allowance in the case of the above-mentioned, plus if he/she takes part in the performing of smaller municipal jobs for the self-governing region.A citizen in material need, to whom a parental allowance is paid, has a claim for an activation allowance if he/she is studying at a secondaryschool or university.An activation allowance is also provided to long-term unemployed citizens who become employed with a wage in an interval from min-imum wage up through three-times its value and to whom the benefit in material need was previously provided. This also applies for thelong-term unemployed who began performing self-employment activity.

A Protection allowance is provided to a citizen in material need and to each natural person who is reviewed in common with the citizen inmaterial need, if they meet the conditions for the origin of benefit in material need and they cannot secure basic living needs for the fol-lowing reasons:- they reach the age necessary for a claim on an old-age pension,- they are disabled due to a decline in the ability to perform gainful activity by more than 70%,- single parents are involved who personally, all-day long and regularly care for a child up to 31 weeks of age,- a person is involved who personally, all-day long and regularly cares for a child or adult person who is, according to the assessment of

the relevant body, a child or adult person with a serious health disability,- they have an unfavourable health status, which for the purposes of this law are considered an illness, a health disorder acknowledged

by the relevant examining physician lasting continuously for more than 30 days, or- they take part in re-socialisation programmes, in the scope of which he/she cannot provide an income with his/her own labour.

(Cited from: Act 599/2003 Coll. on assistance in material need and on the change and amendment of certain laws, §12.)

Box 10.3: CONDITIONS FOR DRAWING THE ACTIVATION AND THE PROTECTION ALLOWANCE ALONG WITH THE BENEFIT IN MATERIAL NEED

the share of those drawing pensions in the geographi-cally close population is higher than in the set of Roma.

Graph 10.2 shows that other types of pensions wereonly a little widespread in the Roma population. The mostfrequent of them was the disability pension, which wasdrawn on average by 4.5% of Roma, most often by thoseliving in segregated settlements. The widow/widower andorphans pension were represented in a very small meas-ure. The situation in the geographically close general pop-ulation was very similar – with the exception of the wid-ow/widower pension, which occurred here significantlymore often (9%) than in the Roma (1.8%).

10.3.3. Family benefits

Family benefits provide support and compensation re-lating to different events during the lifetime and fami-ly cycle. They are provided on the principle of insurance(sick leave benefits) or on the principle of universalismor membership to a certain category. And let’s not for-get even for the allocating of the benefits for one-timeand recurrent family benefits.

The largest attention of this part of public policy isfocused on the period of arrival of a child into a familyand care for that child. The allowance upon the birth ofa child and the bonus paid along with it plays a signif-icant role here. The allowance upon the birth of a childis a one-time state social benefit intended to cover ex-penditures associated with providing essential needs fora newborn, and it usually paid out universally (conditionsrelate only to citizenship). Since 2009 a bonus hasbeen provided along with the allowance which shouldsupplement the financial resources of a household as-sociated with ensuring the essential needs of a child.10

A total of 1.9% of the total set of the Roma populationsaid that they drew the allowance for the birth of a child,11

while among individuals age 18 years and older thosedrawing the benefit represented 3%. For comparison,in 2010 the allowance for the birth of a child was pro-vided to 56,736 persons in the entire Slovak Republic,which represents perhaps 1.3% of the population age18 years and older.12 Also, 79% of those Roma who re-ceived the allowance for birth of a child also drew thebonus for the birth of a child.

Another of the benefits targeted on the needs of chil-dren is the child allowance. The child allowance is a re-current family benefit which is offered universally in Slo-vakia. As the Report on the social situation of the popula-tion of the Slovak Republic for 2010 states: “In terms of thenumber of recipients and the amount of funds paid, the


189

Note: Respondents who did not answer the question were not taken into consideration

Table 10.9Those drawing old-age, early and retirement pension in the Roma population by type of housing andin the geographically close general population (in %)

Share drawingfrom whole population

Share drawing in the population age 60+ years

Share drawing in the population age 65+ year

Segregated 4.2 91.7 90.0

Separated 6.6 88.0 100.0

Diffused 4.5 81.0 85.2

Roma population total 5.1 86.6 92.7

Geographically close general population 23.7 90.7 95.5

Graph 10.2Drawing of different types of other pensions in the Roma population by type of settlement (in %)

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Widowed Orphaned Disability


Note: Respondents who did not answer the question were not takeninto consideration.

2.11.7 1.7 1.6

0.5 0.3

5.1

3.6

4.8

10 http://www.upsvar.sk/socialne-veci-a-rodina/statne-socialne-davky/prispevok-pri-narodeni-dietata.html?page_id=1190.11 With the calculation of these values and other data on the drawing of family benefits, those respondents who did not answer the question were

not taken into consideration.12 Data about the size of the population age 18+ years in 2010 (4,405,673 persons) comes from the Slovstat database. The average number of persons

drawing the child bonus could be determined also for a different age group; the selection of 18 years as the limit is arbitrary.

190


child allowance is the most extensive state social supportbenefit.”. In 2010 a sum of EUR 21.99 was paid out for eachunprovided for child. The average number of monthly re-cipients in Slovakia in 2010 was 706,328 persons, whichrepresented approximately 16% of the population age18 years and older (Report..., 2011).

In the surveyed set of the Roma population every fifthperson drew the child allowance, and in the subset ofthose age 18 years and older the share was 26% (differ-ences between the monitored types of settlementswere minimal). Along with the child allowance a bonusis provided which is a direct benefit for parents who re-ceive an old-age pension, early old-age pension, a re-tirement pension, a disability pension, and who do notperform any gainful activities and who did not receivethe tax bonus for a child. The child bonus was paid outin the amount of EUR 10.31. A total of 16% of those per-sons to whom the child allowance was paid said that theywere also recipients of the child bonus. In comparisonswith estimates for the whole population, this meansa high share is involved. According to the Report on thesocial situation of the population of the Slovak Republic for2010 the average monthly number of recipients of thebonus was 4,033 persons. If we compare this number withthe average monthly number of recipients of the childallowance, then we see that only 0.6% of them draw it.In the Roma population this share was many times high-er. In the geographically close general population thechild allowance was provided to 12.6% of persons and1.6% of them also received the child bonus. Since thebonus to the child allowance is a direct benefit which isintended for vulnerable categories, its significantlyhigher occurrence in the Roma population indirectly in-dicates the worse income conditions in comparison withthe geographically close general population and with theentire population of the Slovak Republic.

The care of small children is supported institutional-ly through a set of state interventions. From the viewpointof function the most important part of this is the parentalallowance, which is intended for parents caring regularlyand daily for a child to the age of three years (and in thecase of a long-term unfavourable state to six years). Since2010 the introduction of two levels of parental allowancehas been involved. A monthly sum of EUR 256 was set forparents who prior to the origin of a claim for a parental ben-efit were on paid maternity leave or who paid disability in-surance for at least 270 days during the last two years pri-

or to the birth of the child. A sum of EUR 164.22 was paidin the remaining cases, and then also linked to a higher sumafter the child reaches two years of age. In the Roma pop-ulation 7.5% of persons received the parental allowance(the differences between the types of settlements weresmall), and 83% of them received the allowance in the low-er amount (EUR 164.22) and 14.5% in the higher amount(EUR 256).13 The lower sum most often occurred in diffusedsettlements (88%), and the higher in separated settlements(19.4%). In the geographically close general population theparental allowance was paid to 3.4% of persons, while theshare of the higher sums, which are linked to more exactingconditions regarding previous employment and partici-pation in social insurance, was 39%, which is approximatelytwo-times higher than the share in the Roma population.14

Of individual age 18 years and older (inclusive) 12% of Romadrew the parental allowance (in 82% of cases this involvedthe lower sum) and 4% of persons belonging to the geo-graphically close general population drew the allowance.

10.3.4. Unemployment benefits

Unemployment benefits are paid on the basis of the in-surance principle – from unemployment insurance. Theunemployment benefit is provided for six months andis derived from the amount of previous income. In thisregard it involves a benefit whose justification criteria aredemanding to fulfil in the environment of endangeredcommunities. Unlike the above-mentioned benefits, inthe case of the unemployment benefit the drawing of itwas surveyed in a longer time horizon – respondents wereasked to tell whether they had drawn this benefit at somepoint in the past 5 years. In the Roma population 12%of the entire set drew this benefit, most often those fromsegregated settlements (15%); in separated communi-ties and among those living diffused, this occurred lessoften (11.4% and 10.2%). Data about the recipients of theunemployment benefit are suitable to associate in regardto those who can exert a claim for the benefit. We will takenote of the population age 18 to 59 years (inclusive). Inthis group 21% of Roma received the unemploymentbenefit. The benefit occurred most often in segregatedsettlements, where every fourth person had experiencewith it. Within the geographically close general popu-lation 5.5% of the entire surveyed set drew this benefitand 9.4% of persons age 18 to 59 years.15

13 A total of 2.5% of recipients did not respond to the question about the amount of their parental allowance.14 As is graphically presented in Chapter 9, only a very small portion of Roma women and men fulfil this condition. The current setting practically ex-

cludes the possibility of receiving the higher parental allowance for all without a current or recent more permanent experience with a job with guar-anteed social insurance payments, which is the majority of the surveyed Roma population, including those of fertile age. The question arises whetherthis goal was not the hidden intention of the last legislative modification of the parental allowance (for more, see: Debrecéniová, 2010).

15 In relation to the measured very high unemployment of the Roma population, the share of such recipients is, however, very small, and in compari-son with the measure of unemployment of the general population is also lower (see Chapter 9). The level of unemployment and the course and qual-ity of employment of the Roma population excludes the majority of them from an unemployment benefit claim.

10.4. Total incomes

The total income of households is calculated by count-ing both work and social incomes.16 Since in both cas-es the net monthly income was surveyed (for themonth preceding the month of the survey), and the re-sulting total income is the net monthly income, whichis a key indicator of standard of living. This is the net dis-posable income which a household can directly use. Themost commonly represented income interval in the setof all Roma households was the interval from EUR 151to EUR 300, in which more than 31% of all householdsfit with their net monthly income. Some 10.5% ofRoma households were in the lowest income interval upto EUR 150, and over 9% of households were in the high-est interval. Households living diffused showed higherrepresentation in the two highest income intervals. It’spossible to observe a different form of income distri-bution in the geographically close general popula-tion. While the share of households in the lowest incomecategories was similar to the share in the set of Romahouseholds, the representation of other income inter-vals differed. The share of households with an incomefrom EUR 151 to EUR 450 was significantly lower than

in the Roma households. The largest share, however, canbe observed with the highest incomes. While not quiteone-tenth of Roma households had an income over EUR751, in the set of the general population this was near-ly half of all households (Table 10.10).

The average net total income in the set of Romahouseholds represented EUR 396;17 the median had a val-ue of EUR 335. The highest average income was achievedin diffused households (EUR 417) and the lowest in house-holds from segregated settlements (EUR 380). For the gen-eral households from the geographically close generalpopulation the average net income was approximatelytwo-times higher (EUR 806).

As it is shown in Graph 10.3, which depicts the dis-tribution of net monthly incomes in the individual cat-egories in the subset of households from diffuse and sep-arated settlements, a number of remote values oc-curred. These could influence the average values of theincomes obtained. The graph shows graphically the char-acter of income distribution in the individual types of set-tlements and through the median or the interquartile in-terval (the dotted line shows the value of the average in-come for the entire set of Roma households). On the ba-sis of outcomes of the ANOVA procedure, it is possible


191

Table 10.10Distribution of total net incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in comparison with the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

Roma households Households from the geographicallyclose general populationSegregated Separated Diffuse Total

To EUR 150 9.3 10.8 11.2 10.5 10.9

EUR 151-300 31.7 34.6 28.1 31.4 5.6

EUR 301-450 31.7 26.9 28.1 28.8 12.5

EUR 451-600 13.5 13.9 12.4 13.2 11.2

EUR 601-750 6.1 6.1 8.6 7.0 11.5

EUR 751 and more 7.7 7.7 11.6 9.1 48.3


Note: With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about either social or work incomes were not taken into con-sideration (26 households).

16 With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about social or work incomes were not taken into considera-tion (26 households).

17 The 95-percent confidence interval was limited as follows: lower limit = EUR 376, upper limit = EUR 414.

Table 10.11Average total net incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in the geographically close generalpopulation (in EUR)

Average income(in EUR)

Standard error



Segregated 380 14.2 352.1 407.9

Separated 387 16.9 354.1 420.7

Diffused 417 18.5 381.2 454.2



to state that no statistically significant differences in netmonthly incomes exist between the households from dif-ferent types of settlements defined on the basis of spa-tial integration.

As we have already mentioned in the previous sec-tion, with an analysis of incomes it is necessary to con-sider the size of the household. For this purpose we useincome calculated for one member of the household,which we label as “income per capita”. The average netmonthly income per capita represented in Roma house-holds EUR 107. The highest was in the subset of diffusedhouseholds (EUR 119), the lowest in segregated house-holds (EUR 99). And after consideration of household size,it applies that the highest monthly income occurred inhouseholds living diffused, and with decreasing spatialintegration the amount of average income per capita de-creased. The ANOVA procedure showed that among av-erage incomes of households from different environ-ments statistically significant differences exist in the lev-

el of significance α = 0.05.18 On the basis of a Bonferronipost hoc test it is possible to specify that a statistically sig-nificant difference exists in the total incomes per capi-ta between segregated and diffused households.

In the set of households representing the geo-graphically close general population the average netmonthly income per household member was EUR 305,which is nearly three-times the average for the wholeRoma set and more than two-and-a-half times the av-erage income of diffused households, whose incomecharacteristics are closest to those of the general pop-ulation (Table 10.12).

Similarly as with work or social incomes, net totalmonthly incomes were also categorised into income in-tervals. The largest share of Roma households ended upin the income interval EUR 51 to EUR 100 per capita (near-ly 42%). The second largest group was the lowest inter-val: one-fifth of Roma households had an income to EUR50 per each household member. Thus, a total of 62% ofRoma households had a monthly income to EUR 100 percapita. If we look to the other end of the income distri-bution, then approximately one in ten Roma householdshad an income of more than EUR 200 per capita. The dis-tribution of incomes differed moderately by type of set-tlement: the lowest income interval was most representedamong households from separated and segregatedsettlements. The share of households with an income percapita up to EUR 50 was here more than 5 percentagepoints higher than in the case of diffused households(21% to 16%). In the representations of the middle incomecategories there are not any significant differences be-tween the three types of monitored settlements. On theother hand, the highest income – over EUR 200 per capi-ta – occurred more often in diffused households (15.4%)than in segregated (7%) or separated (10.4%).

The amount of total incomes can be determined bydifferent facts. Among the most important is the positionof household members in relation to the labour market.As we have already mentioned, approximately one-


192

Table 10.12Average total incomes “per capita” in Roma households by type of housing and in households of the geo-graphically close general population (in EUR)


Standard error Confidence interval (95%)


Segregated 99 4.7 89.9 108.5

Separated 102 5.4 92.3 113.4

Diffused 119 5.7 107.8 130.2

Households of the geographically close general population 305 10.9 283.7 326.7


18 The value of the testing criteria F was 3.9 with two degrees of freedom (Levene‘s test of homogeneity of variances was not statistically significant,so that the procedure could be applied).

Graph 10.3Distribution of total net incomes in the set of Romahouseholds by type of settlement (in EUR)

2000,00

1500,00

1000,00

500,00

0,00

Total income

Diffused Segregated Separated

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

quarter of Roma households indicated having a work in-come. At the same time this could involve a work incomeof one or several household members. Table 10.14 showsthat the number of working members of a household dif-ferentiates the total income per capita. The average totalincomes for Roma households where no one worked werelower than incomes of households with working mem-ber/members. With just one working person a significantincrease is shown in the average income. At the same time,it applies for Roma households that with an increase inthe number of working members, the average total in-come per capita increases. Income per capita in the caseof Roma households with three or more working mem-bers was more than EUR 100 higher in comparison withthe income of households where only one memberworked. On the basis of results of the ANOVA procedureit’s possible to state that between households with dif-ferent number of working members statistically significantdifferences existed in the level of significance α = 0.001.19

A Bonferroni post hoc test showed that statistically signif-icant differences in the total incomes per capita were be-tween all four categories of Roma households, with theexception of the difference between households with oneand with two working members. And in the geographi-cally close general population we find a similar effect fromthe number of working members on the household in-

come; the incomes here, however, move on a higher lev-el than in the set of Roma households.

In one of the preceding parts of this chapter weshowed the relationship between the number of childrenand social incomes. The presence of children works alsoon total income – the average income calculated for eachmember of a household decreases with an increasingnumber of children. Roma households with children toage 6 years (inclusive) have a lower income than Romahouseholds without such children (EUR 86 or less to EUR135). This also applies for households with children to age18 years (inclusive), where households without childrenin the given age are shown to have a significantly high-er income (EUR 125 and less to EUR 166). At the same timeit applies that Roma households with small children havea lower income per capita in comparison with householdswhere older children (also) live.

Also in the set of the geographically close generalpopulation the total income per capita decreased witha growing number of children; the drop, however, tookplace for the higher income level. Unlike social in-comes, where the geographically close householdswith children to age 6 years were worse in this respectthan Roma households, total incomes of households withsmall children are in the set of the general populationmany times higher (compare Tables 10.15 and 10.16).


193

Table 10.14Average total incomes per capita in Roma households by number of working members in the household (in EUR)


Standarderror



No one working 90 2.5 85.3 95.3

1 working 150 8.9 132.2 167.9

2 working 168 18.3 130.8 204.8

3 working 276 42.4 187.9 364.7


19 The testing criterion F had a value of 63.2 with three degrees of freedom (since Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not statistically sig-nificant, it was possible to apply the procedure).

Table 10.13Distribution of total incomes “per capita” by type of settlement and in households of the geographically closegeneral population (in %)

Roma households Househods from the geographicallyclose general populationSegregated Separated Diffused Total

To EUR 50 21.3 22.3 15.7 19.7 11.0

EUR 51-100 42.6 41.6 41.6 41.9 2.8

EUR 101-150 19.7 16.9 17.6 18.0 5.0

EUR 151-200 9.4 8.8 9.7 9.3 9.1

EUR 201 and more 7.0 10.4 15.4 11.1 72.1



10.5. Deprivation in the fieldof consumption and the occurrenceof arrears

The living standard of the Roma population is, alongsideincome, also followed with the help of other specific groupsof indicators. On one hand the capability of providing a cer-tain type of consumption and financial reserve was sur-veyed; on the other the identification of different types ofarrears was involved. Both groups of indicators measurethe occurrence of difficulties of a material and financial char-acter. They help supplement the picture obtained on thebasis of data on social and work incomes, conditions of liv-ing and the furnishing of households with long-term con-sumer goods which are presented above (Chapter 6).

Indicators related to the ability to provide a certaintype of consumption were used also with regard to thefact that they are regularly used in the EU SILC survey,which covers the entire population of the Slovak Republic.Part of them are related to consumption which can be

labelled as essential for a standard level of living allow-ing all basic needs to be covered and participation in com-mon social activities (meat every other day, new seasonalclothing). Others help identify the living standard ofhouseholds through whether they are capable, along-side daily household management, to create savings asprotection against unexpected events. The last of the fourindicators is not related to basic needs in the sense of es-sential conditions for survival but shows participation inactivities which are perceived in society as standard waysof spending free time and whose absence has no directimpact on a family but can lead to the reduction of itssocial status. The indicators used thus cover different “lev-els” of needs and allow deliberation about possible ma-terial deprivation in broader senses.

The data obtained shows that Roma householdshave problems with securing some basics as well as“luxurious” types of goods. Not quite one-fifth were ableto provide food with meat or fish (or the vegetarianequivalent) every other day. In the end only one-tenthcould afford new seasonal clothing or shoes,20 which


194 20 This involves clothing or shoes which are not “second hand”.

Table 10.16Average total incomes “per capita” in households of the geographically close general population by numberof children age to 6 and to 18 years (in EUR)


Standard error



Households with children to 6 years*

1 child 233 19.9 192.7 273.4

2 children 206 34.7 130.6 281.6

Households with children to 18 years

1 child 251 23.7 203.7 299.2

2 children 215 17.4 180.3 250.6


Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to age 18 years inclusive. Average total income per capita in the case of households fromthe geographically close general population without children to age 6 years was EUR 321, in the case of households without children to age 18 years EUR348. *For this type of household we not offer data about households with three children due to the very low number of cases (n = 2).

Table 10.15Average total incomes “per capita” in Roma households by number of children to age 6 years and to age18 years (in EUR)


Standard error




1 child 86 4.5 77.4 94.9

2 children 74 4.4 65.3 82.8



1 child 125 7.3 110.5 139.6

2 children 87 4.1 79.0 95.1


Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to age 18 years. Average total income per capita in the case of Roma households with-out children to age 6 years was EUR 135, in the case of households without children to age 18 years EUR 166.

points out a significant limitation with stigmatising im-pact for households with children. In the case of un-expected events which would require financial ex-penditures, only 5.7% of Roma households were ca-pable of setting aside a sum of EUR 300 without hav-ing to borrow it. The living standard measured throughthese indicators was significantly higher in the geo-graphically close general population. More than halfof households had food from meat or fish every oth-er day. The purchase of new seasonal clothing orshoes was also a significantly more common event inthe geographically close general population. The ca-pability of creating a financial reserve for a case of un-expected events was principally different in both sets.While in the Roma population a financial reserve in theamount of EUR 300 occurred only marginally, amongthe geographically close general population it was moreor less standard (more than half of the set had it avail-able). A week-long holiday away from home also rep-resented a problem for the general population; how-ever, to a much smaller measure than for Roma house-holds (Graph 10.4).

Behind the overall very unfavourable situation ofRoma households it is possible to uncover differences be-tween the categories defined by type of settlement. Themain dividing line can be drawn between households liv-ing diffused on one hand and households from separatedand segregated settlements on the other (Graph 10.5).Diffused households were shown to have much bettermaterial conditions: the share of households which didnot have difficulties was higher than all of the other mon-itored groups. The most significant differences were foundwith the purchase of seasonal clothing/shoes and withcovering unexpected expenditures (5.4% versus 14.2%and 3.3% versus 9.6%).

The fact that households exist which cannot affordsome of the mentioned items makes a strong statementabout the conditions they live in. However, with inter-pretations it is necessary to take into consideration theaccumulation of difficulties. In such cases it leads toa deepening of material deprivation and to an intensi-fying of the negative consequences. We saw that theshare of households which could not afford meat (or thevegetarian equivalent) every other day was high. The


195

Graph 10.4The capability to provide selected items in Roma households – comparison with households of the geographi-cally close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Week-long holiday away from home each year

Cover unexpected expenditures of EUR 300

New seasonal clothing or shoes each year

Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day

1.534.4

56.7

45.3

5.7

9.1

18.9

Roma households General households

57.2

Graph 10.5Capability of providing selected items in Roma households by type of settlement (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Week-long holiday away from home each year

Cover unexpected expenditures of EUR 300

New seasonal clothing or shoes each year

Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day

00.8

3.8

3.3

5.47.8

14.2

17.617.9

21.3

4.19.6


same applies for the purchase of new seasonal clothing.It also shows that the share of households which couldnot afford one or the other was likewise very high: morethan three-quarters of Roma households could not af-ford one of the two listed items, and most of such cas-es were in segregated settlements (81.2%).

This weighty combination of difficulties affectsa large majority of the Roma population, unlike house-holds from the geographically close general population.There the share of households with accumulated short-ages is significantly lower, although it still involvesa rather significant share (38.9%). The range of depriva-tion did not principally change even when we consideronly those households which could afford the above-men-tioned two items and didn’t have even EUR 300 for cov-ering an unexpected event. Some 78% of Roma house-holds had to deal with such a situation. It’s obvious thatdifficulties with dealing with the individual items over-lapped in a large portion of the Roma households. In the

set comprising the geographically close households it ispossible to observe a different situation. With an increasein the number of items which households could not af-ford, the share of deprived households dropped (30%).

The second group of indicators related to arrears dueto financial difficulties. At the centre of attention werearrears with regular payments which are essential for therunning of a household. The obtained data confirms(Table 10.17) that a large portion of Roma householdshave difficulties with providing basic functions. Fur-thermore, the majority of households with such difficultiesexperience them repeatedly. Up to 38% of Roma house-holds had problems with paying for groceries two-times or more, and for 8.6% it happened once. Nearly halfof Roma households experienced (once or more) a se-rious situation of financial shortages threatening the cov-ering of basic needs. Payments associated with housingwere also problematic: 41.2% of Roma households werenot capable of paying regular payments for supplies of


196

Graph 10.6Occurrence of arrears in Roma households by type of settlement (in %)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Groceries Electricity supply Water supply Heating Rent/mortgage


Note: The graph presents together one-time or repeated arrears. Households which did not respond and households who said that their payments fora given item don’t apply were not included in the calculations (with the exception of groceries).

50.7

43.946

39.8

44.7

38.9

25

35.2

21.825.6

29.731.7

26.2

33.8

24

Table 10.17Occurrence of arrears with regular payments in Roma households – comparison with households from the ge-ographically close general population (in %)

Roma households Households from the geographically close general population

Once Two times or more Once Two times or more

Groceries 8.6 38.1 1.9 4.1

Electricity supply 12.4 28.8 3.3 3.7

Water supply 8.3 19.9 2.2 4.0

Heating 5.1 24.0 2.1 4.3

Rent. mortgage 8.3 20.4 2.1 4.1

Question: Since the beginning of the year has your household, due to financial difficulties, found itself unable to pay regular payments for the fol-lowing items...?Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration. With the items water, electricity, heating and rent/mortgageeven the occrrence of households which said that their payment for the given item “doesn’t apply” were also not taken into consideration.

electricity and 29% of Roma households experiencedsuch a situation more than once. Every fifth householdhad similar repeated arrears for water and nearly everyfourth with heating. The fact that payment of rent/mort-gage represented a recurrent problem for up to one-fifthof Roma households also threatens the stability and qual-ity of housing for Roma households. The geographical-ly close general population do not run across a similarrange of financial difficulties. Arrears for regular paymentswere also discovered here, but in a significantly lowermeasure than in the set of Roma households.

It is impossible to clearly determine which type ofsettlement is for Roma households in terms of financialdifficulties most at risk. Graph 10.6 shows what portionof households got into a situation one time or more whenthey were unable to pay on time for an item associatedwith housing and subsistence. None of the types of set-

tlements is characterised by having a higher occurrenceof arrears than the others for all of the monitored items.Arrears for supplies of electricity, water and rent occurredmore among among households from separated com-munities, arrears for heating with households living dif-fused, problems with the purchase of groceries relatedmost often to households from segregated settlements– there every second household was affected.

Conclusions

In this chapter we offered a look at three selected aspectsof standard of living – the income situation, deprivationin the area of consumption and the occurrence of arrears.Total incomes of Roma households are on a significantlylower level than the incomes of the geographically close


197

The lagging of women in the Slovak Republic in the average amount of work income by approximately one-quarter behind men, togetherwith handicaps they face in relation to the labour market (especially the large share of women outside of economic activity), reduces theirlifelong savings and pensions and leads to a higher risk of their falling into poverty. The lower wages of women not only influence theamount of their pension but also all disability benefits, health care and social insurance, which are derived from income (the unemploymentbenefit, medical benefits, sickness benefits, disability retirement, etc.).Data from social insurance, for example, showed that in 2010 the average pension for women was EUR 315 – EUR 85 less than the pension formen (78.7% of the average pension for men). This is subsequently expressed in the danger of poverty: the measure of the risk of poverty forwomen in retirement is two-times higher than men in retirement (6.1% to 3.9%) and the measure of risk of poverty for women age 65 yearsand older is three-times higher than for men. And the measure of material deprivation (involuntary lack of satisfactory needs in regard to a leveland way which are common in society as a consequence of lack of resources) for women over age 65 years is 8% higher than for men.

Data from EU-SILC for recent years record a higher risk of women with poverty in comparison with men for both the entire population andfor individual subgroups. Women showed a higher risk of poverty for all age categories, and the risk of poverty in comparison with the Slo-vak-wide average increases in women outside of economic activity (17.2%) and women living alone (24.5%; individuals - men 19.6%); thehighest danger of poverty is among the unemployed (up to 48.9%), then two-parent families with 3 and more children (36%), and single-parent families with children (24.6%), which covers about 90% of all women.

BOX 10.4: THE THREAT TO WOMEN AND MEN IN POVERTY

Comparison of selected indicators of the social situation for women and men (2010, in EUR and %)

Men Women Difference Share in %

Pension (in EUR) 400 315 -85 78.7

Measure of poverty risk – total (in %) 10.1 11.9 +1.8 117.8

Measure of poverty risk 0-17 15.3 18.6 +3.3 121.6

Measure of poverty risk 18-64 5.8 6.3 +0.5 108.6

Measure of poverty risk 65+ 4.5 14.8 +10.3 328.9

Measure of poverty risk – in retirement 3.9 6.1 +2.2 156.4

Measure of poverty risk – outside of economic activity 13.8 17.2 +3.4 124.6

Measure of poverty risk – individual 19.6 24.5 +4.9 125.0

Share of persons age 18-59 living in households where nomember is employed

7.6 8.7 +1.1 114.5

Measure of material deprivation – total (%) 23.1 25.8 +2.7 111.7

Measure of material deprivation 0-17 28.8 27.7 -1.1 96.2

Measure of material deprivation 18-64 21.3 23.7 +2.4 111.3

Measure of material deprivation 65+ 24.9 33.2 +8.3 133.3

Source: Report on the social situation of the population of the Slovak Republic for 2010. Bratislava, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Fami-ly of the SR 2011; Survey of incomes and living conditions EU SILC 2009. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the SR 2010.Note: The newest public data on poverty from 2010 (EU-SILC), collected in the field in 2009, addresses the situation in 2008, when the economiccrisis had only just begun. In view of this it can be assumed that the situation in 2009 will be significantly worse.

general population. The highest incomes were in house-holds living diffused, the lowest in households from seg-regated settlements. Differences in total incomes be-tween the individual subsets, however, were not sig-nificant – in comparison with differences betweenRoma and the geographically close general population.It was confirmed that the total income per capita in Romahouseholds is significantly differentiated by the num-ber of working members (a higher number working leadsto a higher income). Another differentiating factor is thenumber of children to age 6 years and to age 18 years,where a growth in the number of children meant a de-cline in per capita income.

The benefit in material need, which is drawn by everyother Roma household, played an important role amongsocial transfers. For a comparison – in the set of the ge-ographically close general population this was 4% ofhouseholds. The housing allowance, which represents animportant supplement to the minimal income, wasdrawn by 58% of households on the benefit in materialneed. This share strongly varied in the individual types ofsettlements – the highest was in diffused settlements(77%), the lowest in segregated settlements (48%). The ac-tivation allowance, to which citizens living in material needand those appraised along with them have a claim, has

an important function in the system of minimum income.A total of 30% of Roma in the productive age of 16-54 years(inclusive) who lived in households drawing the benefitin material need received this allowance. Most of themwere among Roma from segregated settlements (37%).The protection allowance is drawn by 3% of Roma age 16-54 years who lived in households on the benefit in ma-terial need. It appears that only a portion of the entitledpopulation uses the possibility of supplementing the min-imum social income. Among the family benefits themost commonly used are the child bonus (26% of Romaage 18 years and more) and the parental allowance(12% of Roma age 18 years and older).

A significant portion of Roma households is exposedto the risk of deprivation in the field of consumption. Onlynot quite one-fifth could afford meat (or the vegetarianequivalent) every other day, and not quite one-tenthcould afford new seasonal clothing. The possibility of ac-cumulating savings of EUR 300 occurred only veryrarely in Roma households (not quite 6%). Data on theoccurrence of arrears for regular purchases or servicesassociated with housing indicate a great vulnerability. Thegeographically close general population showed in thegiven indicators a significantly lower danger of depri-vation and financial difficulties.


198

The preceding chapter outlined deficits in covering selectedneeds of Roma households on the basis of standard indi-cators of material deprivation used in common statisticalsurveys. As was shown, the surveyed Roma households arestricken in a wide range by deprivation and significantlymore so than geographically close general households orthe average household in Slovakia. In view of the fact thatthe survey was directed at a socially weak environment, itwas expanded by indicators of extreme deprivation, asmany experts recommend for a survey of poverty (see, forexample, Box 10.1). Aside from income and material dep-rivation the subjective evaluation of the financial situationof the household and its future development were alsoadded. Thus, extreme deprivation as well as a subjectiveevaluation of the situation is examined in the following sub-chapter through the amount of income and the work in-volvement of members of the surveyed households.

11.1. Extreme deprivation:food for children, cooking and heating

In regard to the first subject noted – extreme depriva-tion – this was surveyed in the study through three short-age situations. Specifically, this involved the followingsigns covering shortages in the most basic of needs: therewas nothing to give children to eat, there was no way tocook or warm up food and there was no heating in thedwelling. The occurrence and recurrence of each of thementioned situations were surveyed in households.

Graph 11.1 presents the result for the real absenceof food for children. As was shown, more than 55% ofRoma households with children have at some time ex-

perienced this situation, and most have experience it re-peatedly (9.4% once and 46.1% more times). This is a rel-atively alarming finding, especially in the context ofpreparing and submitting proposed changes in socialbenefits and allowances from last year which were to-gether targeted for reduction.1

According to type of settlement, the situation oc-curred in which there was nothing to feed children mostoften in those living segregated (a total of 61.7%) and

199

11 Extreme deprivation and subjective evaluation of the living situation versus work and income

1 Let’s recall, for example, a proposal for restructuring the benefit in material need with the strengthening of its “deservedness” and the lowering of thebasic benefit, possibly a proposal for pre-formatting the parental benefit, whose full amount should be conditioned by participation in social insur-ance (see proposal for a new law on the benefit in material need from the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the SR from 2 August 2011or the proposed amendment of the law on the parental allowance and the law on the allowance for the birth of a child, which was prepared bya group of MPs from the Slovak National Council from the SDKÚ-DS and SaS political parties under the leadership of Ľudovít Kaník from 1 March 2011).

Graph 11.1Roma households by occurrence of the situation“didn’t have anything to feed their children” (in %)

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children?

(The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

9.4

46.1

44.5

Yes, once Yes, more than once No, never

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question).Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

Table 11.1Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” (in %)


Yes, once 10.8 10.6 6.6 9.4

Yes, more than once 50.9 47.2 39.8 46.1

No, never 38.3 42.2 53.6 44.5


200


then separated (57.8%); the lowest occurrence wasrecorded for Roma households living diffused – 46.4%.On the basis of this indicator it seems as if integration con-tributed to the improved living conditions, at least par-tially, although those in the diffused parts of Roma house-holds still know this type of extreme deprivation. Theshare of households which had never experienced nothaving something to feed their children surpassed53.6% for those living diffused, while for separated thiswas 11% less (42.2%) and for segregated householdsa further 4% less (38.3%). However, in comparison withthe geographically close general population, even thediffused Roma households were lagging well behind(53.6% to 89% not knowing such an experience).

In comparison with geographically close generalhouseholds with children a great difference was evidentin this indicator of extreme deprivation: while a total of55.5% of Roma households with children had experiencedhaving a genuine situation in which they did not have any-thing to feed their children, within the geographically closegeneral households with children this was only 11%. Thelargest difference was shown with the recurrence of thissituation – as much as 46.1% of Roma households expe-rienced this more than one time and from the geograph-ically close general households with children 6.9%. Thus,in the case of Roma households the recurrence of a lackof food for their children was nearly seven-times more com-mon than in the geographically close general households.

Graph 11.2Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – comparisonwith the households from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Yes, once

Yes, more than once

No, never

4.1

46.16.9

89.0

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

9.4

44.5

Roma households Geographically close general households

Graph 11.3Average total net monthly income for Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anythingto feed their children” and type of housing – comparison with households from the geographically close gen-eral population (in EUR)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Segregated

Separated

Diffused

Roma households total

Geographically closegeneral households

387

562508

398

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). Income was surveyed for the month preceding the month of data collection.

352535

605655

366

571480

385

926908

805

no, never

yes, one time

yes, more than one time

The occurrence of a situation when a household didnot have any food for a child, especially its repeated re-currence, is very closely connected with the declared over-all amount of household income (social plus work in-comes from all common economic members of thehousehold). Roma households where such a situation atsome time occurred declared a significantly lowermonthly income (income surveyed for the precedingmonth) than those who had never experienced a lack of

food for their children. The average monthly income forRoma households which repeatedly did not have foodfor children was EUR 385, while the monthly income forRoma households with a rare occurrence of this situationwas approximately EUR 100 higher (EUR 480), and finally,Roma households which had never experienced a lackof food for children had a total income of near EUR 600(EUR 571). Household income thus to a significantmeasure intervenes into the sustenance of children.


201

Graph 11.4Average monthly income per household member by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feedtheir children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geo-graphically close general population (in EUR)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



86

15698

89

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). Income was surveyed for the month preceding the month of data collection.

128131

162154

98

151125

90

345288

252

no, never

yes, one time


Graph 11.5Estimated income for problem-free survival by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed theirchildren” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographi-cally close general population (average per household member, in EUR)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



179

225184

174

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? / What should be the minimum amount ofyour net monthly household income so that this income allows you a normal life? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

246223

255226

182

236217

178

345288

252

no, never

yes, one time


202


The calculation of total income which a householdreceived in the course of the previous month per onemember of the household shows this in even more re-lief. For Roma households which repeatedly recordedproblems with food for children, the average income perone member came out EUR 90; with the occasional oc-currence of lack of food for children this was EUR 125, andfor Roma households without such an experience it wasEUR 151 per member. According to the results found itseems as if an income lower than EUR 100 per householdmember was a threat to the ability to feed children.

And as Graph 11.5 on estimated income shows, fortrouble-free survival the surveyed Roma householdswould need nearly double the income calculated perhousehold member. While the declared income for Romahouseholds which got into the situation of not havingfood for a child more than one time was EUR 90 permember, for problem-free survival it would be EUR 178per member, which is EUR 88 more. For Roma house-holds which experienced a one-time lack of food fora child, the income needed per household member washigher by EUR 92 (EUR 217) and for Roma householdswithout the experience of lack of food for children itwas EUR 85 more (EUR 236).

The amount of declared real and estimated incomeneeded was only moderately different by degree of seg-regation of Roma households. Their proportion in the caseof households with experience of repeated lack of foodfor children for the subset of households living segregatedwas EUR 86 to EUR 179 per member, for those living sep-arated EUR 89 to EUR 174 and for those living diffusedEUR 98 to EUR 182.

Large differences in the real and the estimatedneeded income appear with a comparison betweenRoma households and the geographically close gener-al households and do so in all three groups by experiencewith the situation of lack of food for children. Real incomefor general households was on average 2-3-times high-er, and with estimated income needed for problem-freesurvival the difference in the given sums calculated permember was on the level of EUR 200 to 300. While Romahouseholds without the experience of a lack of food forchildren estimated the needed income per member tobe EUR 236, for the same general households this wasEUR 520; on the other had Roma households with re-peated recurrence of the situation of not having enoughfood for children gave the needed income per memberas EUR 178, and geographically close general householdslisted EUR 372. The demands of Roma households for in-come were shown to be significantly more modestthan the demands of general households.

And monitoring the occurrence of the situation “did-n’t have anything to feed their children” pointed to theimportance and the significance of the work activity ofhousehold members. It was shown that the fewerworking members in a household, the more growth ofthe occurrence of not having anything to feed children,and the opposite. For Roma households which experi-enced a lack of food for children, the average numberof working members came out to be only 0.2 (in the caseof segregated only 0.1 and for those living diffused 0.3members); with Roma households where such an ex-perience did not occur at all, the average working was0.4 members (for segregate only 0.3 and for those liv-

Graph 11.6Average number of working members by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their chil-dren” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographicallyclose general population (in persons)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



0.1

0.40.3

0.2

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

0.20.3

0.60.4

0.3

0.40.3

0.2

1.11.0

0.9

no, never

yes, one time


ing diffused 0.6 members). Although the average num-ber of working members for the geographically closegeneral households was significantly higher, namely forall three groups by the experience of lack of food for chil-dren, the rule of a drop in the number of working mem-bers in connection with a growth in the occurrence ofthe situation characterised by the absence of food forchildren also applied here, too: the average number of

working members shifted from 0.9 in those householdswith a lack of food for children to 1.1 for households with-out such an experience.

Graph 11.7, which presents the share of householdswith a working member for individual groups, alsoshows the association between the provision of food forchildren and work activity. The occurrence of work in-comes was significantly lower for those households which


203

Graph 11.7The presence of a work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feedtheir children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geo-graphically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



6.2

23.117.4

13.7

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). The graph shows the percentages of households which gave some workincome for the previous month.

29.221.2

34.542.9

14.3

27.027.9

11.051.4

58.355.0

no, never

yes, one time


Graph 11.8The amount of work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed theirchildren” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographi-cally close general population (in EUR)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



22

15399

54

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). The graph shows the average work income for the previous month in EUR

104100

214276

48

161142

40

480530

406

no, never

yes, one time


204


met repeatedly with the problem of providing sufficientfood for children than with those where they didn’t haveexperience with this at all or only occasionally. While only11% of the group of Roma households which repeatedly

did not have food for children to eat had some work in-come in the previous month, among households withonly occasional or no experience at all with this depri-vation, the figure was 27%.

And finally by the experience with the situation ofdeprivation “didn’t have anything to feed their children”the amount of work income was also differentiated. Romahouseholds which had this experience repeatedly hadon average a work income of EUR 40, and householdswhere they knew this situation only one time or not atall had an average work income 3-4-times higher: EUR142 and EUR 161. Such an income, however, still laggedwell behind that of the geographically close generalhouseholds, where average work incomes were still ap-proximately three-times higher (around EUR 500).

The study data shows that Roma households whichrepeatedly got into a situation of not having anything tofeed children belong among the category of householdswhich do not have any work income or only a very lowone. This strengthens their linkage to social benefits – ifthe benefits are not set to a sufficient amount, the riskof children going hungry in these households increas-es. This points out two principle facts in relation to pub-lic policy: a) it is primarily necessary to look for work-re-lated remedies; b) if the state is not capable of provid-ing this, then social benefits must be set at a level whichdoesn’t mean the danger of children going hungry.

Graph 11.9Roma households by the occurrence of the situation“didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” (in %)

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’thave any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household”

responded to the question.)

7.0

33.7

59.3

yes, one time yes, more than one time no, never

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)

Table 11.2Roma households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” and typeof housing (in %)


Yes, once 9.8 8.7 2.6 7.0

Yes, more than one time 39.1 35.5 26.5 33.7

No, never 51.1 55.8 70.9 59.3


Graph 11.10Roma households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” – compari-son with households from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

yes, one time


no, never

3.3

33.75.1

91.5

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)

7.0

59.3

Roma households total Geographically close general households

Very similar associations as in the case of lack of foodfor children, only with a moderately lower occurrence(overall and repeated), also apply with the remaining twoindicators of extreme deprivation – when households haveno way to cook or to warm up food and when they don’thave heating in their flat or home. A total of 40.7% of thesurveyed Roma households had experienced the situa-tion “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food”, and33.7% of these had experienced it repeatedly.

Limited possibilities for cooking and warming upfood were found in a higher measure for the subset ofRoma households living segregated (48.9%), and witha reduction in spatial integration its occurrence gradu-ally decreased – to 44.3% in separated and 29.1% forhouseholds living diffused. Additionally: approximate-ly half of households living segregated (51.1%) had nev-er gotten into a situation in which they had no way tocook or warm up food, while for separated households


205

Graph 11.11Average total net monthly income of households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any wayto cook or warm up food” – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with householdsfrom the geographically close general population (in EUR)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



395

507543

375

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection

368464

524445

394

502441

387

902856

661

no, never

yes, one time


Graph 11.12Average income per household member by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook orwarm up food” – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geo-graphically close general population (in EUR)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



92

141102

90

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

133116

14798

115

136117

97

350303

262

no, never

yes, one time


206


this was about 5% more (55.8%) and for diffused house-holds about 20% more (70.9%).

A significant difference appears with this indicator ofextreme deprivation in comparison with geographicallyclose general households. Compared to the mentioned40.7% of deprived Roma households (one time or re-peatedly), in general households this was only 8.4%;more than one-third of Roma households repeatedly ex-

perienced problems with cooking or warming food, whilein nearby general households this was only 5.1%.

Deprivation in the form of the absence of ways to cookor warm food also corresponded with the level of income– both overall for households and in calculations perhousehold member. Roma households which repeatedlyexperienced the situation “didn’t have any way to cookor warm up food” had a total income of EUR 387, and for

Graph 11.13Presence of a work income in households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cookor warm up food” – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



5.4

19.425.0

13.4

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)Note: The graph shows the percentage of households which gave some work income for the previous month.

30.417.5

28.316.7

14.5

22.426.5

10.6

51.554.5

52.9

no, never

yes, one time


Graf 11.14The amount of work income in households per member by occurence of the situation „didn‘t have any way tocook or warm up food“ – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households fromthe geographically close general population (in EUR)0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



20

119144

48

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

10977

16517

63

125112

41

462469

412

no, never

yes, one time


the subset of those households which had never met sucha situation even one time, the total income surpassed EUR500. The calculation of income per household memberindicates this in even greater relief. While for the grouprepeatedly deprived of access to warm food the averageincome per member was EUR 97, for households expe-riencing this situation only one time this was EUR 117 andfor Roma households without this experience it was EUR136. An income below EUR 100 per household memberrepeatedly showed to be potentially threatening.

The link between the occurrence of this situation ofdeprivation with the work activity of household mem-bers was also repeated. While among Roma householdswhich repeatedly knew the situation of not havinga way to cook or warm up food (Graph 11.13), only notquite 11% declared the existence of some work incomein the family, while in Roma households without such ex-perience at all or with it only rarely this occurrence wasaround one-quarter (22.4% and 26.5%).

Likewise, the amount of work income in Romahouseholds repeatedly deprived of the possibility to cookor warm up food was significantly lower than for house-holds without such deprivation, or with its random oc-currence. The difference moved on the level of three-timeshigher: on average EUR 41 of total work income for Romahouseholds repeatedly without access to warm food toEUR 125 for those households who do not know this sit-uation at all (Graph 11.14).

Nearly identical occurrence and associations aswith the indicator capturing the possibilities for cookingand warming up food were found with the monitoringof the situation when a household “didn’t have heat inthe flat or house”. This is with great probability causedby the fact that a large portion of Roma households of-


207

Graph 11.15Roma households by the occurrence of the situation“didn’t have heat in the flat or house” (in %)

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’thave any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” re-

sponded to the question.)

7.4

34.5

58.0

yes, one time yes, more than one time no, never

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question).

Table 11.3Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” and type of settlement (in %)


Yes, once 10.3 9.9 2.1 7.4

Yes, more than once 42.9 31.0 29.6 34.5

No, never 46.8 59.1 68.2 58.0


Graph 11.16Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – comparison with thegeographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

yes, one time


no, never

3.6

34.55.8

90.6

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)

7.4

58.0


208


ten use one and the same source for both cooking andheating (see Chapter 6). According to the responses ob-tained, 41.9% of Roma households were without heat intheir dwelling at least one time and 7.4% of those wereonly once and 34.5% was more than once.

And the occurrence of this situation of deprivationwas differentiated by spatial exclusion on the basis of

settlement type (Table 11.3). For those Roma householdswhich lived in segregated settlements the total shareof household without sufficient heat in their dwellingwas more than half (up to 53.2%); in contrast, amonghouseholds living in separated settlements this was40.9% and for Roma households living diffused it wasless than one-third (31.7%).

Graph 11.17Average total net monthly household income by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat orhouse” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close generalpopulation (in EUR)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



388

480421

384

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded tothe question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection. The value “0” in the case of Roma households living diffusedand with the occasional occurrence of the situation of deprivation means that this household did not occur in the surveyed set.

361475

5010

462

487469

409

903877

665

no, never

yes, one time


Graph 11.18Average income per household member by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat orhouse” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close gener-al population (in EUR)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



90

128112

95

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded tothe question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection. The value “0” in the case of Roma households living diffusedand with the occasional occurrence of the situation of deprivation means that this household did not occur in the surveyed set.

132118

1450

124

132133

102

352264

271

no, never

yes, one time


Even this indicator of extreme deprivation did notdeviate from the result of a comparison of Roma andgeneral households. The level of problems of Romahouseholds with heat in their dwelling differed signif-icantly from the frequency obtained for geographical-ly close general households. Together not quite one-tenth (9.4%) of general households declared a lack ofheat in the flat, while this was up to four-times higherfor Roma households (the mentioned 40.9%).

And in the end, the link of the occurrence of this sit-uation of deprivation with the amount of household in-come and with the level of work activity of its memberswas also confirmed. In relation to income, the total house-hold income (Graph 11.17), as well as its calculation perhousehold member (Graph 11.18) came out on averagewell lower for the subset of those households which hadexperience with repeated lack of heat in their dwelling.

The total income of Roma households with a re-curring deficit of heat in the flat or home on average moveclosely above the EUR 400 level (for segregated and sep-arated households by still EUR 20 lower); in the case ofRoma households without the experience with this lackof heat the total income neared EUR 500. This is similaras in the calculation for one member: the income of Romahouseholds facing a lack of heat in their dwelling mul-tiple times reached EUR 102 (in separated and segregatedthis was still less – EUR 95 and EUR 90), the average forthe group without such deprivation or only occasional-ly deprived Roma households surpassed EUR 130.

The monitored interconnections with work incomesrepeats the findings for the previous two indicators:households experiencing a lack of heat in their dwellinghave a smaller share of work incomes and also signifi-

cantly lower work incomes than non-deprived groups ofhouseholds. While 10.4% of Roma households which re-peatedly declared a lack of heat in their flat acknowledgedsome work income in their family, with non-deprivedhouseholds the share with some income was 22.5%. Andagain in the direction of separated and segregated en-vironments the difference was accentuated – among seg-regated households with repeated lack of heat in theirdwelling only 5% had some work income.

The amount of work income for individual groups ofRoma households was itself very differentiated accord-ing to the measure of deprivation. While average workincomes for the group of households with repeated oc-currence of a lack of heat in the dwelling achieved EUR39, for households without such an experience, or withit only occasionally, this was EUR 125, thus, a work incomethree-times higher (Graph 11.20). At the same time theshare of households with an existing work income as wellas the sum of that work income was determined for thegeographically close general households and was in-comparably higher – approximately five-times higher inthe case of the share of households with a work incomeand nearly ten-times higher in terms of the amount ofwork income than in households repeatedly experiencinga lack of heat in their dwelling (EUR 39 versus EUR 398).

At the conclusion let’s still look at the occurrence ofall three indicators of extreme deprivation simultaneously.Even from this perspective it was shown that Romahouseholds are stricken significantly more strongly byshortage situations, particularly the segregated andseparated parts of them (Graph 11.21). The share ofhouseholds which repeatedly experienced all threemonitored situations, that is, which had multiple times


209

Graph 11.19Presence of a work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – forindividual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



5.0

18.230.4

12.5

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: The graph shows the percentage of households which gave some work income for the preceding month.

29.219.3

28.30

15.9

22.526.9

10.4

52.041.7

52.6

no, never

yes, one time


210


nothing to feed their children, no way to cook or warmup food and no heating in their dwelling, reached38.2% for the group of segregated households, 26.5% forseparated households and 20.6% for diffused households.The average for all Roma households was 28.6%, and forthe geographically close general households only 4.5%experienced this triple deprivation. On the other hand,88.6% of general households had not met even once withany of the three monitored situations, and for Romahouseholds this was less than two-fifths (38.5%). Whilegeographically close general households were from

the viewpoint of extreme deprivation relatively homo-geneous – they experienced it only marginally – Romahouseholds were divided into approximately threeequal groups. One part didn’t know even one of the short-age situations (38.5%), a second part met repeatedly withall three shortage situations (28.6%) and the third part(32.9%) moved somewhere in between – they either ex-perienced one or two of the monitored situations re-peatedly or even all three, but only one time. The sharerepeatedly deprived for all three monitored situations rel-atively increased with spatial separation and segregation.

Graph 11.21Roma households by occurrence of all three deprived situations – for individual types of Roma settlementsand in comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Segregated

Separated

Diffused


Geographically close general households

Didn’t experience even one of the situations experienced all three repeatedly

at least one of them one time

34.5 38.2 27.3

35.3 26.5 38.2

45.9 20.6 33.5

38.5 28.6 32.9

34.5 4.5 6.9

Graph 11.20Amount of work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – for in-dividual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in EUR)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



15

107173

49

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: The graph shows the average work income for the previous month in EUR. The value “0” in the case of Roma households living diffused andwith the occasional occurrence of the situation of deprivation means that this household did not occur in the surveyed set.

10487

1660

64

125125

39

466384

398

no, never

yes, one time


Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have: “anything to feed your children”, “any way to cook or warm up food” and“any heat in your flat or house”? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

If we should sum up for all three monitored indica-tors of extreme deprivation, it is necessary to point outseveral facts. First, the occurrence of all three monitoreddeprivation situations was for Roma households dis-proportionately higher in comparison with geographi-cally close general households. It is also true that if a de-privation situation has already occurred in a household,usually it has a tendency to be repeated – recurrence wasprimarily higher than the one-time occurrence. It was alsoclearly shown that experiences of Roma households withextreme deprivation grow with their spatial exclusion,and the most obvious difference was found particular-ly among Roma households living diffused and thegroups living segregated and separated ; the relative po-sitions of segregated and separated households was notvery far apart. A very close connection between theamount of household incomes and work activity ofhousehold members with all three indicators of extremedeprivation was confirmed. Deprived households had sig-nificantly lower total incomes, work incomes andthe measure of work activities of their members.

11.2. Satisfaction with presentfinancial situation and evaluationof changes to it over time

An integral part of the study was questions on the subjectiveevaluation of the current financial situation of householdsas well as its comparison with the past and expectationsfor future development. This type of question is a standardfeature of surveys focused on the living conditions of house-holds. As the preceding section devoted to selected situ-ations of extreme deprivation showed, their close link withthe household income situation is expressed – householdsrepeatedly running into shortages in covering the most ba-sic of life needs signalled a lower level of total and work in-comes. At the same time deprivation and the amount ofincome are deepened with segregation.

In context with deprivation and its interconnectionto income, therefore, the relatively low satisfaction withthe current financial situation of their households is notsurprising. Only one-tenth (10.1%) of surveyed Roma

households expressed satisfaction, and from this onlya negligible part (0.3%) was fully satisfied. More than one-quarter or Roma households (26.8%) leaned toward theresponse “rather dissatisfied” and the majority (a total of63.1%) declared complete dissatisfaction.

Despite the overall high dissatisfaction with the cur-rent financial situation in their household, its level is stillfurther differentiated by spatial exclusion on the basis ofsettlement type (Table 11.4). The most dissatisfiedhouseholds were among residents of segregated set-tlements – up to 70.6% completely dissatisfied, in the caseof Roma households living in separated or diffused set-tlements this was less than 60% (59.9% from separatedand 58.9% from diffused).Directly proportional to this,at least partial satisfaction was expressed by not quite7% of segregated households, but more than 10% of sep-arated and more than 13% of those living diffused.

The level of satisfaction of households representingthe geographically close general population differed sig-


211

Graph 11.22Roma households by satisfaction with the financialsituation of the household (in %)

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household?

(The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

0.3

9.8

26,8

63.1

Completely satisfied

Rather satisfied

Rather dissatisfied

Completely dissatisfied

Table 11.4Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation of the household and type of settlement (in %)


completely satisfied — 0.4 0.4 0.3

rather satisfied 6.8 9.9 12.7 9.8

rather unsatisfied 22.6 29.8 28.0 26.8

completely unsatisfied 70.6 59.9 58.9 63.1


Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

212


nificantly from this picture. There was significantly moresatisfied households (47.5% completely and partially sat-isfied versus 10.1% of all Roma households) and partiallydissatisfied (40.4% versus 26.8% of Roma households)among them; and on the other hand again dispropor-tionally fewer completely dissatisfied (12.1% versus63.1% for Roma households).

Interesting results emerged from a mutual com-parison with evaluation of the situation five years ago.In the case of Roma households the evaluation of thefinancial situation in 2010 upon comparison with2005 showed almost no change at all (Graph 11.24).Only a minimal change was shown – a shift from com-plete dissatisfaction to rather satisfied. The share ofcompletely dissatisfied Roma households decreasedfrom 66.9% to 63.1% and representation or rather sat-isfied grew from 6.7% to 9.8%.

In contrast, upon comparisons of the evaluation of cur-rent financial situation of the geographically close gener-al households between years showed a principle change(Graph 11.25). The share of completely dissatisfied house-holds dropped by about two-thirds (from 38.9% in 2005

to 12.1% in 2010); on the other hand, the representationof households satisfied (completely, but particularly par-tially satisfied) with their own financial situation (a totalgrowth of 47.5%) grew. It can be assumed that such a largedifference cannot be caused only by the selection. Over-all, evaluations of general households in 2010 were con-centrated in the middle variants of responses (up to83.4% rather satisfied and rather dissatisfied), while withRoma households negative evaluations predominated sig-nificantly (up to 89.9% rather and completely dissatisfied).

Satisfaction with the financial situation associatessignificantly with total household income. As Graph 11.26shows, for all groups defined on the basis of settlement type,it is true that households which expressed satisfaction withthe present financial situation (completely or partially), gavea significantly higher income than dissatisfied house-holds. And this guideline characterises not only Roma butalso general households. The average total net monthly in-come for Roma households which were completely dis-satisfied with their financial situation ended up as EUR 392,in the case of rather dissatisfied it rose to EUR 492 (thusEUR 100 more) and with completely or partially satisfied

Graph 11.23Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation of the household – comparison with householdsfrom the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Rather satisfied

Rather dissatisfied


0.34.5

9.843.0

26.840.4

63.112.1

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)


Graph 11.24Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Rather satisfied

Rather dissatisfied


0.31.3

6.79.8

26.226.8

65.863.1


2005

2010

it reached EUR 785, which is two-times higher than thosedissatisfied. Similarly as with the growth of the positive eval-uation, the average income also increased for the geo-graphically close general households: from EUR 542 withcompletely dissatisfied, through EUR 918 with rather dis-satisfied, up to EUR 1,000 for the group of those satisfiedwith their own current financial situation.

With a comparison of Roma households with thoseof the geographically close general population again sig-nificant differences appeared in average incomes for in-dividual levels of satisfaction. In the end for Romahouseholds satisfied their financial situation a significantlylower average income emerged than for rather dissat-isfied general households (EUR 785 to EUR 918) and thesum of incomes for the completely dissatisfied amongthe general households was higher than for Roma

households that expressed partial dissatisfaction (EUR542 to EUR 492). Results indicate that it’s as if Roma house-holds were less demanding for income – they expressedsatisfaction with markedly lower incomes. A similarrule for declare satisfaction with one’s financial situationwith significantly lower incomes also applies internallyin Roma households by degree of exclusion on the ba-sis of settlement type – those living segregated appearedto be the most modest. While for the group of those sat-isfied with their financial situation living segregatedachieved an average income of EUR 619, with separat-ed this was EUR 758 and for those living diffused up toEUR 899 (EUR 280 more than in segregated). Only aver-age income for the completely dissatisfied didn’t differmuch; for the individual subgroups of Roma householdsmoved on a level around EUR 400 and less.


213

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Rather satisfied

Rather dissatisfied


4.51.4

16.143.0

43.6

38.912.1

40.4


2005

2010

Graph 11.25Geographically close general households by satisfaction with the financial situation – comparison withthe year 2005 (in %)

Graph 11.26Average total net monthly household income by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types ofRoma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



405

758497

379

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

463619

899511

391

785492

392

1,000918

542

Satisfied (completely + rather) rather unsatisfied completely unsatisfied

214


The same dividing line appeared also with in-come calculated for one member of a household(Graph 11.27): for all levels of satisfaction with the fi-nancial situation a significantly lower income perhousehold member emerged in the case of Romahouseholds than with geographically close generalhouseholds, and Roma households were also differ-entiated by type of settlement, with the exception ofcomplete dissatisfaction, where income per householdmember was relatively balanced for all three groups andalso very low – less than EUR 100. With completely dis-satisfied Roma households the average income permember came out at EUR 93, but with the geograph-ically close general population this was EUR 200; the av-erage for Roma households satisfied with the financialsituation represented per one member EUR 245, for thegeneral population up to EUR 392, thus about EUR 150more. Among Roma households living segregated,those households with an average income of EUR 176per one member expressed satisfaction with the fi-nancial situation of the household, while with separatedthis was EUR 233 per household member and in the caseof Roma households living diffused EUR 291 per mem-ber. Roma households thus expressed satisfactionwith a significantly lower average income per house-hold member in comparison with the general popula-tion, similarly also households living in segregated set-tlements in comparison with other types of settlements.Whether this is a consequence of the lower expendituresfor life or the more modest needs of households, pos-sibly still other reasons; for this the quantitative studycarried out is unable to offer any answer.

An important question in relation to the evaluationof financial situation is which are satisfied and which aredissatisfied households, for example, for the viewpointof their size, number of children but also work activities.In relation to the number of members of a household(Graph 11.28), for all Roma households and for the ge-ographically close general households a connection wasshown with the evaluation of the current financial sys-tem. Households satisfied with their own financial rela-tions had on average a fewer number of members thanthose who expressed dissatisfaction. While for Romahouseholds satisfied with the existing financial situationthe average size of the household came out to be 4.5members, households completely dissatisfied had on av-erage 5.2 members; in the case of general householdsthe average members for satisfied was 2.8 and for com-pletely dissatisfied 3.2. The gradual growth in the num-ber of members with a decline in satisfaction and the op-posite, however, did not apply for the group of segregatedRoma households. With them the average number ofmembers was the same with the satisfied as well as withthose dissatisfied with their financial situation– it reached5.5 members. In total, however, the majority of house-holds with a higher number of members expressed moredissatisfaction with their financial situation.

Upon tracking the number of children in a householdthe situation was similar (Graph 11.29). While for Romahouseholds satisfied with their financial situation has onaverage 1.6 children, with partially dissatisfied this roseto 1.9 children and in the case of completely dissatisfiedto 2.4 children; in the general population the averagenumber of children in the case of satisfied with the fi-

Graph 11.27Average income per household member by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Romahouseholds and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



95

233139

87

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

129176

291152

98

245141

93

392337

200


nancial situation was 0.6 children and in the case of com-pletely dissatisfied 0.9 children. Less satisfaction with thecurrent financial situation then appeared for thosehouseholds which had on average more children.

Analysis of different indicators of the work activityof households clearly confirmed their linkage with theevaluation of the financial situation, whether this was thenumber of working members, the existence of some work

income in the households, the amount of work in-come, but also the “experience” of household memberswith work abroad. As Graph 11.30 presents, according tothe data obtained the average number of those work-ing came out significantly higher for households whichinclined toward a positive evaluation of their own financialsituations. For the whole of Roma households this was1.1 working members in the case of satisfied with the fi-


215

Graph 11.28Average number of household members by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Romahouseholds and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in persons)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



5.5

4.84.6

5.5


4.85.5

3.84.6

4.8

4.54.7

5.2

2.83.0

3.2


Graph 11.29Average number of children in households by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individualtypes of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in persons)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



2.7

1.81.9

2.4

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: The graph shows the average number of so-called dependent children, insofar as they are preparing for a profession and form the basis of theirparents’ claim for a child allowance.

2.02.3

1.11.9

2.0

1.61.9

2.4

0.60.4

0.9


nancial situation to 0.2 working for the group completelydissatisfied. Geographically close general households sat-isfied with their financial situation had on average 1.2working members, for completely dissatisfied this was0.5 working members. A glimpse into the interior of Romahouseholds uncovered one more trend: the subgroup ofthose satisfied with their financial situation had nearlytwice as high the number of household members work-ing for those living diffused than for the other two groups

by type of settlement. The average of working memberswith those declaring satisfaction with their finances was1.4 for diffused and only 0.7 for segregated. At the sametime the completely dissatisfied did not show any dif-ference – dissatisfied households for all three groups hadon average only 0.2 working members.

In relation to the presence of a work income ina household, this also differentiated the evaluations offinancial relations (Graph 11.31). It was shown that in sat-


216

Graph 11.31Presence of work income in households by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Romahouseholds and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



52.019.4

10.3

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: The graph presents the percentage of households which gave some work income for the previous month.

15.110.8

37.5

71.024.2

14.4

56.919.9

11.8

49.754.9

41.9


Graph 11.30Average number of working members in a household by satisfaction with the financial situation –for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically closegeneral population (in persons)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



0.80.4

0.2


0.20.2

0.7

1.40.3

0.2

1.10.3

0.2

1.21.1

0.5


isfied Roma households a work income was many timesmore common than in dissatisfied Roma households. Onaverage for all Roma households the share of work in-comes was nearly five-times higher for satisfied than withcompletely dissatisfied: 56.9% to 11.8%. But the share ofhouseholds with some work income for Roma householdssatisfied with their financial situation differed between

individual subgroups defined by type of settlement. Insatisfied segregated households the share of thosewhich listed at least some work income was only 37.5%;with separated this was already more than half (52%) andfor those living diffused nearly three-quarters (71%). Butthis could also be caused by the overall small numbersof households satisfied with the income situation (see


217

Graph 11.32Amount of work income in households by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Romahouseholds and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



43

362107

40

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)Note: The graph presents the average work income for the previous month in EUR.

54214

61176

60

43782

47

492490

201


Graph 11.33Experience of household members with work abroad by satisfaction with the financial situation –for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically closegeneral population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Segregated

Separated

Diffused



28.5

36.038.8

19.3

Question: Was/is/does someone from your household go abroad to work (regularly for a longer period)? (The “head of the household” respond-ed to the question.)Note: Shows the share of households from which at least one member was or does (regularly or for longer) go abroad for work.

33.950.1

42.027.2

17.9

41.733.5

22.2

20.118.8

27.9


Table 11.4). The share of those with work incomesamong households completely dissatisfied with their fi-nancial situation was approximately the same – and verylow – for all three groups (just over 10%).

And again, not only the presence of a work incomebut also its amount was significantly interconnected withthe level of satisfaction with the financial situation – withthe dissatisfied households the sum was decreased ina quadratic way (Graph 11.32). While average work in-comes for all satisfied Roma households were about EUR437, with dissatisfied households this was significantlyless than EUR 100 (EUR 82 for rather dissatisfied and onlyEUR 47 for completely dissatisfied). And while Romahouseholds thus showed a huge difference between sat-isfied on one hand and with two groups of dissatisfiedon the other, the geographically close general householdshad closer average work incomes for satisfied andrather dissatisfied (EUR 492 and EUR 490), and only the

income for the completely dissatisfied lagged behind –by nearly EUR 300 (on average EUR 201).

It was also shown that experience with some house-hold member or members working abroad had an effecton the satisfaction with the financial situation (Graph11.33). For satisfied Roma households this experience wasbroader (up to 41.7%), and in partially dissatisfied withfinancial relations this was 33.5% and with completelydissatisfied only 22.2%. It appears as if work abroad con-tributed to the better financial situation of Roma house-holds. In general households such a direct correlation didnot apply; probably due to the fact that they find it eas-ier to work in Slovakia; however, the different makeup ofthe research set here could play a role (more pensionersand fewer commonly managed households).

Analysis of the satisfaction of Roma households withthe current financial situation showed a high represen-tation of dissatisfied, which deepens even further withsegregation on the basis of settlement type and differssignificantly from the geographically close generalhouseholds. In comparison with the results from five yearsago almost no change was recorded in Roma households,and with the general households a shift occurred towardpartial satisfaction. Data also confirmed a link betweensatisfaction with financial relations of households withthe amount of its income, since a significantly higher av-erage income emerged for satisfied households than forunsatisfied ones – for total income and also calculatedper household member. At the same time the level of in-come for dissatisfied households was almost equal forall three types of Roma households (under EUR 400 withoverall income and less than EUR 90 calculated per house-hold member), but differed from the general households,for which the sums came out higher on average (by EUR150 with total income and by about EUR 100 with incomeper household member). Satisfaction of households withthe financial situation varied by size – dissatisfied waslinked with a higher number of household members anda higher number of children. A link with work incomesand with experience of household members workingabroad was also confirmed. Work activity and a work in-come also brought satisfaction with the financial situa-tion to households, and this applies equally for Roma as


218

Table 11.5Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years and type of settlement (in %)


greatly improved — 0.4 0.4 0.3

partially improved 5.5 5.0 7.7 6.1

remained the same 20.7 18.5 20.4 19.9

partially worsened 35.0 40.8 44.7 40.1

greatly worsened 38.8 35.3 26.8 33.6


Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

Graph 11.34Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years (in %)

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...?


0.3

6.1

19.9

40.1

33.6

Greatly improved

Partially improved

Remained the same

Partially worsened

Greatly worsened

well as general families. But as Chapter 9 showed, thereis significantly less work activity on the official labour mar-ket in Roma households.

A component of the set of questions surveying thefinancial situation of households was also a glimpse intothe past – evaluation of the development of the economicsituation of households in the course of the past threeyears. As Graph 11.34 indicates, the majority of re-sponses inclined toward a negative evaluation. A totalof 73.7% of Roma households declared a worsening, ofthis 40.1% partial and 33.6% large. According to the oth-er 19.9% the financial situation remained the same, andonly 6.4% of Roma households felt economic improve-ment – and this was predominately partial improvement.

According to the type of settlement (Table 11.5)households living in segregated settlements had seen

an increased measure a great worsening of their eco-nomic situation during the past three years (38.8%), whilein separated settlements this was 35.3%, and for thegroup living diffused this was about 10% less (26.8%).Households living diffused again inclined more often toa partial worsening. The share of not recording a changeor stating an improvement in the economic situation wasin all three subsets of Roma households approximatelythe same and was very low: 5.5% among segregated and8.1% for those living diffused.

Compared with the geographically close generalhouseholds the evaluation of Roma households endedup a great deal more negative. As Graph 11.35 shows, ingeneral households the response “greatly worsened” wasgiven significantly less frequently than in Roma house-holds (7% to 33.6%) and the possible response “partial-


219

Graf 11.35Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years – comparison with house-holds from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Greatly improved

Partially improved

Remained the same

Partially worsened

Greatly worsened

0.60.3

6.113.8

46.2

40.1

33.6

32.4

19.9

7.0

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)


Graph 11.36Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years – comparison with year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Greatly improved

Partially improved

Remained the same

Partially worsened

Greatly worsened

0.31.3

6.15.4

19.9

40.1

33.6

26.5

13.8

53.0


2005

2010

ly worsened” was also given less often (32.4% to 40.1%).On the other hand in this group the equal evaluation ofthe situation predominated (46.2% versus 19.9%), andthey declared partial improvements more often thanRoma households did (13.8% versus 6.1%). Overall, asmany as 73.7% of Roma households expressed a wors-ened economic situation in their household in com-parison with the state in 2005, while from the generalhouseholds this was 39.4%.

What both compared samples had in common wasa shift toward a more positive evaluation of the devel-

opment of the financial situation in comparison with theresults measured in 2005. During five years the worse eval-uation dropped by approximately 20% in Roma house-holds: a drop from 53% in 2005 to 33.6% in 2005 wasrecorded (Graph 11.36) At the expense of this differencethe frequency of the response “partially worsened” in-creased (growth by nearly 14%) and the frequency of thepossibility “remained the same” grew (by 6%).

The geographically close general households stat-ed in 2010 in comparison with 2005 a great worseningof the situation in their household only about one-quar-ter as often (7% in 2010 versus 29.3% in 2005). On the oth-er hand in 2010 significantly more were inclined towardthe response that their economic situation remained thesame: 46.2% in 2010, while five years ago this was25.1%. The share of those with an improved financial sit-uation as well as the feeling of a partial worsening re-mained nearly unchanged in the general (Graph 11.37).

From the compared data for the two stages of thestudy, it seems as if the period 2007 – 2010 was evalu-ated by Roma and general households more positive-ly than the period 2002 – 2005, and this occurred despitethe financial and economic crisis which accompaniedthe end of the first decade of the 21st century. Proba-bly the slashing of social benefits which took place dur-ing the years 2003 to 2004, which changed in a princi-ple way the economic situation of many households,above all those in material need, in which there is a highshare of the Roma population, had a share in the sig-nificantly more negative evaluated development of thesituation five years ago. In this context it would be nec-essary to thoroughly consider each change in the sys-tem and base them on detailed analysis of the poten-tially endangered groups, because they can meana loss of acquired stability in functioning and econom-ic security of these households.


220

Graph 11.38Roma households by expected developmentof the financial situation in the coming year (in %)

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...?


0

7.3

27.8

33.4

18.8

12.7

greatly improve

partially improve

remain the same

partially worsen

greatly worsen

doesn’t know

Graph 11.37Geographically close general households by development of financial situation over the past three years –comparison with year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Greatly improved

Partially improved

Remained the same

Partially worsened

Greatly worsened

0.61.4

13.813.4

46.2

32.4

7.0

30.8

25.1

29.3


2005

2010

The last look at the economic situation of house-holds presented expectations in relation to its devel-opment in the coming year (2011). The strongest ex-pectation for the coming year was a partial worseningof the economic situation of the household (33.4%), be-hind which with an approximately 5-percent lag fol-lowed the assumption that the situation will notchange – remains the same (27.8%).

The most negative expectations were recorded inhouseholds from segregated settlements, where 26.3%of those surveyed expected a great worsening of theirfinancial situation; among separated households this was16% and from those living diffused 14.2%. Householdsliving diffused expressed not expecting any changes morestrongly than the remaining two groups of Roma house-holds: 35.6% of them anticipated the same situation in

the coming twelve months, while in segregated settle-ments this was only 20% (Table 11.6).

The expectations of households representing the ge-ographically close general population ended up ratherdifferent (Graph 11.39). General households said sig-nificantly more that their situation in the coming yearwould not change. The share of responses “remain thesame” achieved up to 47.5% for general households, forRoma this was 20% points less – only 27.8%. Romahouseholds, unlike those from the general popula-tion, more often expected in the coming year a partialworsening and significantly more often a great wors-ening (18.8% to 2.5% responses “greatly worsen”). Let usrecall that in the period of carrying out the study 2 theprepared slashing of the amount of social benefits or ofthe benefit in material need were spoken about in pub-


221

Table 11.6Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year and type of settlement (in %)


greatly improve — — — —

partially improve 5.8 8.2 7.9 7.3

remain the same 20.0 27.9 35.6 27.8

partially worsen 35.0 30.7 34.3 33.4

greatly worsen 26.3 16.0 14.2 18.8

doesn’t know 12.9 17.2 7.9 12.7


Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...? (The “head of the household” responded tothe question).

Graph 11.39Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year – comparison withthe households from the geographically close general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50

greatly improve

partially improve

remain the same

partially worsen

greatly worsen

doesn’t know

0.80

7.39.4

47.5

33.4

18.8

29.7

27.8

2.5

12.710.0


2 Field collection of data took place from the end of November to the middle of December 2010.

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...? (The “head of the household” respondedto the question.)

lic discussions only on a theoretical level; the proposalsdid not have any specific form. Only a small number ofhouseholds in both compared samples expected an im-provement of their situation in the coming year: 7.3%of Roma and 10.2% of general.

Graph 11.40 presents the structure of the respons-es to this question in comparison with the year 2005. Asis obvious at first glance, over five years a decrease ap-peared in Roma households primarily among those whowere unable to assess their situation in the future.While in 2005 the share of non-respondents was 26.6%,in 2010 it fell to 12.7%. In relation to the specific expec-

tations of developments, in contrast to the status ob-tained five years ago assumptions now shifted towardthe worse scenario (the frequency of the responses “par-tially worsen” increased by 5% and “greatly worsen”by 2.5%), but more were also found expecting thesame situation (27.8% of Roma households anticipatedin 2010 the same situation in the coming period, whilefive years ago this was 20.3%). Expectations stating animproved situation in comparison with five years agochanged very little: 9% in year 2005 and 7.3% in 2010.

The recorded time change in expectations for the ge-ographically close general population was not so strik-


222

Graph 11.41Geographically close general households by expected development of the financial situation in the comingyear – for years 2005 and 2010 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

greatly improve

partially improve

remain the same

partially worsen

greatly worsen

doesn’t know

0.8

9.39.4


0

38.347.5

27.029.7

2.512.4

10.0

13.02005

2010

Graph 11.40Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year – comparison withyear 2005 (in %)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

greatly improve

partially improve

remain the same

partially worsen

greatly worsen

doesn’t know

0

8.67.3


0.4

20.327.8

27.833.4

18.816.3

26.612.7

2005

2010

ing. The share of optimistically minded to the future inthis group didn’t change at all (just over 9%); those whodid not expect any change in the coming year in-creased (their share rose from 38.3% to 47.5%) and thosefrom the general population expecting a partial wors-ening moderately increased (from 27% to 29.7%). Wherea more significant drop occurred was in the pessimisticviews: probably also in connection with the publicly pre-sented end of the economic crisis the frequency ex-pecting a great worsening in their financial situation fellfrom 12.4% to 2.5%. Approximately one-tenth of the sur-veyed set of the general households did not respond tothe question for both years of the study.

All three directions of evaluations – of the current fi-nancial situation, the development over the past yearsor the expectations for the future year – did not end upexceedingly positive for Roma households. Negative eval-uations of the current situation dominated in them; incomparison with past years they did not sense in the ma-jority an improvement or even expect very much im-provement in the future.

Conclusions

Data regarding both subjects which formed the contentsof this final chapter devoted to the subjective opinionsabout the actual situations likewise indicated the bad liv-ing conditions of a broad group of Roma households whoin many ways lag behind the situation of the geo-graphically close general households and rapidly growsworse with spatial exclusion. With all of the monitoredcharacteristics a very close connection was expressed withincomes which a household has available and with thework intensity of the household.

In relation to extreme deprivation in the form of thedefined situation when a household really does not havefood for children, more than half of the surveyed Romahouseholds had experienced this in reality, and for anabsolute majority it occurred repeatedly. In contrast tothe result from geographically close general households,this type of deprivation occurred sometimes in one-tenth,and 7% experienced it repeatedly. According to the analy-sis carried out, it seems as if an income lower than EUR100 per household member was threatening for the feed-ing of children. At the same time, households experi-encing this situation repeatedly belonged predominatelyto the category of those who did not have any work in-come or only a very low income. These households weretherefore strongly dependent on social benefits, and ifsuch benefits are not adjusted to a sufficient amount, thedanger increases that children will go hungry. In relationto public policies, the facts obtained urge at least twoprinciple recommendations. Primarily, there is a need inthe interest of eliminating poverty to promote accessi-

bility of the more quality involvement of members of de-prived families in the official labour market; if the stateis not capable of providing this, then social benefits mustbe set at a level which doesn’t mean an increased risk ofchildren going hungry.

Large differences in the real and the estimatedneeded income appear with a comparison between theRoma and the geographically close general house-holds, and do so in all three groups by experience withthe situation of lack of food for children. Real income wasfor the general households on average two to three timeshigher, with estimated income deeded for normal sur-vival the difference was in the given sums calculated perhousehold member on the level of EUR 200 to EUR 300.Specifically, Roma households without the experienceof a lack of food for children estimated the needed in-come per member in the amount of EUR 236, and for thesame general households this was EUR 520; on the oth-er hand Roma households with repeated occurrence ofthe situation of not having enough food for children gavethe needed income per member as EUR 178, and geo-graphically close general households gave EUR 372. De-mands of Roma households for income emerged fromthe study as significantly more modest than the demandsof general households (they also evaluated the situationmore positively even with lower incomes). Whetherthis is a consequence of the lower expenditures for lifeor the more modest needs of Roma households, possi-bly still other reasons; for this the quantitative study car-ried out is unable to offer any answer.

The same associations as with a shortage of food forchildren also appeared with the remaining two situationsof deprivation, when a household has no way to warmup food or to heat the dwelling. The share of householdswhich repeatedly experienced all three monitored sit-uations was in the surveyed Roma households signifi-cantly higher than in the general households. It was near-ly 30% (even up to 40% among residents of segregat-ed settlements), and from the geographically close gen-eral households this was less than 5%. In contrast, house-holds which had not experienced even once any of theextreme deprived situations formed on average 38% ofRoma households and nearly 89% of the general house-holds. While geographically close general householdswere from the viewpoint of extreme deprivation rela-tively homogeneous (they experienced it only margin-ally) Roma households were divided into approxi-mately three equal groups. One part didn’t know any ofthe three monitored situations; a second part met re-peatedly with all three shortage situations, and a thirdpart moved somewhere in between.

With all three indicators of extreme deprivation, then,their occurrence was disproportionately higher in Romahouseholds than in geographically close general house-holds. It was also true that their recurrence in households


223

was significantly higher than one-time occurrences. Ifa household got into a situation of deprivation, it usu-ally it recurred habitually. Clearly growth in the experi-ences of Roma households with extreme deprivation wasexpressed together with spatial exclusion; the largest dif-ference was between households living diffused on onehand and on the other the segregated and separatedgroups. Also, with all three indicators showed a close linkwith the amount of household incomes and with thework activity of its members. Deprived households hadsignificantly lower total and work incomes as well as themeasure of work activity of its members.

Analysis of the satisfaction of Roma households withtheir current financial situation uncovered a high shareof dissatisfied – up to nine-tenths as opposed to half fromthe geographically close general households, and this in-creased further with spatial segregation. Subjectiveevaluation likewise had a close link with household in-come – total and per one member, with the existence ofa work income and work intensity of the household, butalso with the experience of household members withwork abroad and with the size of the household and thenumber of children. In general – with Roma and with thegeographically close general households – satisfaction

with the financial situation was brought to householdsby work activity followed by work income. But as Chap-ter 9 showed, work involvement on the primary labourmarket was significantly less among Roma communities.

With assessment of the development of the finan-cial situation for the past three years a more favourableresult was obtained in 2010 than in 2005, even despitethe financial crisis, which peaked right at this time in Slo-vakia. Behind the more negative evaluation of the peri-od 2002 to 2005 versus the period 2007 to 2010 with greatprobability was probably the slashing in social benefitswhich occurred at the start of 2004 and which in a prin-ciple way changed the financial situation of manyhouseholds in deep poverty. In the context of the realamount of social incomes (with many groups of house-holds ultimately calculated as under EUR 100 per mem-ber) it appears as essential to derive each proposedchange in the system of benefits from a detailed analy-sis of the living situation of threatened groups and thepotential impacts of such changes on the functioning andsecurity of those households and their members. In theopposite case, changes could in the end consequencemean a violation of the basic rights of children, amongwhich is the right to sufficient nourishment.3

224224


3 See The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (OSN, 1989).

As is presented in the introductory sections, the con-ducted study consisted of broad modules devoted to dif-ferent areas of the life of Roma households, and the for-mulated recommendations are divided into the samesegments. But many of them are cross-sectional intheir focus and could have an impact on several areas.The recommendations are formulated on different lev-els of generality; some have the form of specific in-struments or programmes, while others are of a moregeneral character. The recommendations are not ex-hausting and pertain to those facts which are analysedon the basis of data from this survey. The goal is to pro-vide the actors in the decision-making sphere and in thenon-governmental sector incentive and feedback basedon empirical findings.

Education

It is necessary to increase the schooling of Roma chil-dren in preschool facilities, which represent a key re-source for obtaining the basic competencies andskills essential for entry into primary school and thesuccessful handling of it. Attendance at a preschoolfacility is an important part of preparation for com-pulsory school attendance in connection with sev-eral problems with which large groups of Roma chil-dren must compensate for in the first years, such as,for example, insufficient mastery of the officiallanguage of schooling.A prerequisite of growth in the schooling of Romachildren in preschool facilities is, aside from an ad-equate legislative framework, also the increasingof geographic and financial accessibility of nurseryschools. Therefore, it is necessary to search for op-portunities for expanding the capacity of the net-work of nursery schools in regions with increasedgrowth of Roma citizens, including searching for fi-nancial resources. On the other hand, this alsomeans opening discussions on the creation ofmechanisms which would motivate Roma par-ents to use these services for education and childcare. An important motivation could be the provi-sion of these services free-of-charge, as is shownat present in the case of the demand for free edu-cation at nursery school the year prior to fulfillingcompulsory school attendance. It is also necessaryto discuss the possibilities of introducing compul-sory preschool attendance.An urgent task on the society-wide and regionallevel is commencing discussions about the reso-

lution of problems with the quantitative capacitiesof primary schools in the regions and locationswhere possible; in view of the high number ofyoung people of prepubescent age, to assume infuture additional growth in the needs for com-pulsory school attendance.It is further necessary to devote great attention onthe process of assigning pupils to special school andspecial classes of a different type with the aim of ful-ly eliminating the unauthorised assigning of pupilswith a light degree of mental disability (variant A)to schools of this type. Attention should concentrateon improving the process of diagnostics such thatfor each of the conditions of the methodology of di-agnostic examination, the specific abilities of chil-dren and the environment in which they grew upare considered, including language competencies.In the process of diagnostics it is necessary to con-sider the condition of the presence of a person ca-pable of communicating with the child in his or herown mother tongue. At the same time it is neces-sary to also consider the unintended effects emerg-ing from the current structure of the system andmodify it such that it cannot motivate representa-tives of schools or parents regarding the assigningof children to a special school.It is desirable to support activities for improving theresults of Roma children in education, including theelimination of possible language disadvantages,which also means increasing the number of Romateacher assistants, support for programmes ori-entated on improving cooperation with parents,support for day-long learning (for example, after-noon care at school and the like), including the cre-ation of a financial mechanism for their long-termsustainability.For the principle lowering of the number of childrenwho prematurely leave the educational system, theverification and introduction of instruments whichcan overcome this phenomenon appears to be es-sential. In connection to this and also with regardto the high unemployment among Roma youth, itis necessary to consider extending the compulso-ry age of school attendance to 18 years.A prerequisite for improving the school results ofRoma children from marginalised environments isa strict monitoring of desegregation policies withthe assigning of children to primary schools, whichis interconnected with the policies in the area ofhousing, which should effectively limit residentialsegregation. And in the case of desegregated 225

Recommendations

schools and classes, it is necessary in the scope ofthe schooling process from the side of teachers toapply procedures which help them overcome bar-riers between Roma and non-Roma children.In the case of adults without qualification, it is de-sirable to secure an offer and use of programmes fo-cused on supplementing education and professionalpreparation, keeping in mind the demand andwork opportunities in a region.

Work

In view of the alarming low measure of employ-ment and the high measure of unemployment ofthe Roma population, a key task is to improve theiraccess to job opportunities. In general it is neces-sary to create the conditions for non-discrimina-tory access of the Roma population to the labourmarket.Connected with this (indirectly, but importantly)is the necessity to consider the possibility, and pre-pare in advance, the introduction of the principlesof temporary compensatory measures for thesupport of employment of members of margin-alised Roma communities or socially excludedsocieties. This step could also take the form ofa change in the legislative setup for public pro-curement so as to support the employment of so-cially excluded groups.It is necessary to prepare and to put into prac-tice mechanisms which, in the framework of pub-lic orders for towns and municipalities, will be han-dled by companies which are most associated withthe location and the region – with the goal of sup-porting the local economy. These mechanisms, ifthey properly prepared, could have a favourable ef-fect on employment and the creation of jobs formembers of marginalised Roma communities andsocially excluded societies, similarly as temporarycompensatory measures for the support of em-ployment.Inevitably, it is essential to support innovativeprojects for the support of employment, whichwould be focused on different possibilities of re-solving the bad standing of members of margin-alised Roma communities or socially excluded so-cieties on the labour market. In the scope of sup-port measures a long-term task remains to analysethe experience and opportunities for employinglong-term unemployed persons from marginalisedcommunities and socially excluded societiesthrough social enterprises or programmes of a sim-ilar type. To support the verification of such in-struments of the intermediate labour market in or-

der to ease the transfer from registration at labouroffices to jobs on the labour market.It is necessary to expand and stabilise the networkof field social work (FSW), including a solution totheir financial security in the long-term perspective.This could be provided, for example, by the transi-tion of FSW from project financing to mandatory fi-nancing from the state budget and the transfer ofFSW employment from municipalities to the state.In connection with the expansion and stabilisationof the network of field social workers it is desirableto apply temporary compensatory measures for em-ploying Roma from marginalised environmentswithin this programme.Equally the network of community work (commu-nity centres) should be expanded and systematised,including a solution to adequate financial provi-sioning from the resources of European funds or thestate budget.And in view of the facts obtained regarding the lowinfluence of activation work in terms of its contri-bution to the exertion of the Roma population onthe labour market, it appears useful to evaluate andpossibly reassess this component of the system ofactivation policies on the labour market. It couldbe replaced, for example, by community works withstandard work relations and enlistment.It is necessary to evaluate the impact of projects withrelevance regarding the horizontal priority “mar-ginalised Roma communities” within the Employ-ment and Social Inclusion operation programme fo-cused on increasing employability of long-term un-employed persons and possibly to change or mod-ify the methods of administration, the goals and thesetting of future challenges.The fulfilling of a second-degree education (ISCED3) would be necessary to synchronise with long-termstrategic forecasts in the area of the labour market– in the interest of overcoming differences be-tween the offer of the labour force and the demandsof the labour market.To search for opportunities to support, create andmaintain jobs in rural areas, including so-called“green jobs” in agriculture and forestry management.This should be supported with appropriate prepa-ration of projects from European funds, as well as na-tional management and legislative policies.The exceptionally high measure of exclusion ofRoma women in particular from the labour marketindicates that it is necessary to devote attention togender-specific measures – support of employmentof Roma women, support of opportunities of har-monising family and work obligations and the like.


226

Social policies

In view of the study results, which point to the ex-istence of extremely high material deprivation ofRoma households, it is essential from the side of leg-islators to consistently avoid introducing suchmeasures and instruments which could (directly orindirectly) lead to the deepening of the poverty ofindividuals and households. This means that it is nec-essary to very sensitively consider and subse-quently work from detailed analysis of the currentstatus, especially with proposals for the reductionof social benefits.With the increased targeting of social benefits it isnecessary to consider the impacts on the living sit-uation of Roma households and their members. At-tention should especially be devoted to the impactof those targeted instruments, which require the ful-filment of several conditions. Indirect and unintendedconsequence of the high conditionality of socialtransfers and services could be the exclusion of largegroups of the populace from the system of supportor the wide inaccessibility of some of its components.– At the same time this also increases excessively thedemands for the administration of benefits – for therecipients themselves as well as for labour offices andthe offices for social affairs and family.With the introduction of new instruments andmeasures of social policies it is continuously nec-essary to also consistently check their impact,whether they can lead to indirect discrimination ofthe Roma population or other disadvantagedgroups of citizens.It is necessary to devote attention to improving re-lations between members of marginalised Romacommunities and the offices for labour, social affairsand family or other institutions through improvingthe quality and spreading of advice, increasing or im-proving awareness and the promoting of an indi-vidual approach. One of the prerequisites is also theneed to expand the capacity of the offices of labour,social affairs and family (as opposed to narrowingthem down), so that they are capable of performingexpanded consulting and an individual approach inthe target group. Another prerequisite could be workwith the employees at these offices and sensitisingand contextualising the problems they are solving.

Health and hygiene

According the data found it appears as essential todevote increased attention on spatial accessibilityof health care for members of marginalised Romacommunities and socially excluded societies.

It appears as essential to strengthen programmesof health care nurturing and education, includingfocusing on sexual reproduction and reproductivehealth, to expand health education and hygienethrough the form of applying preventive and edu-cational programmes and to work with families andchildren in schools, but also through the operationof workers directly in the communities.It is recommended to stabilise and principally ex-pand the programme of community workers in thefield of health care education in all locations so thatit corresponds to the breadth of the problem andthe number of marginalised communities, includ-ing ensuring its continuous functioning. To incor-porate community worker in the field of health careeducation into the catalogue of work activitieswith the goal of stabilising the profession.It is necessary to thoroughly improve and updatehygiene in settlements and town concentrations andto create appropriate and functional mechanismsfor the collection and liquidation of solid commu-nal waste. In connection with this it is needed to cre-ate a mechanism for regular disinfestations in seg-regated Roma communities, in collaboration withlocal government and the relevant marginalisedRoma communities.In connection with demonstrable problems inthe management of waste in segregated and sep-arated settlements and their vicinity it is essentialto monitor the state of the environmental burdens(legal and illegal dumps) and other risks to hous-ing in environmentally problematic zones (e.g.flood zones).In view of the documented insufficiency of Romahouseholds from marginalised environments todrinking water it becomes imperative (for munici-palities and the state) to provide without delay ac-cessibility and quality water, especially for separatedand segregated settlements, including the intro-ducing of prevention programmes in the interest ofmaintaining the cleanliness and soundness of theseresources.In view of the fact that existing centres for hygieneand laundry often go unused, it is necessary toanalyse barriers to their use, including the attitudeof the municipalities in regard to their operation.While taking into account the number of hygienicproblems in marginalised Roma communities it isnecessary to properly set up the building and con-ditions for the functioning of such centres. It is nec-essary to either promote the existing centres or con-struct new ones in the scope of a national projectof community centre development.To provide health-educational enlightenment forresidents of segregated and separated Roma set-


227

tlements and locations in the field of personal hy-giene and care of one’s personal health, educationregarding parenthood, reproductive and sexualhealth, childcare, prevention of infectious dis-eases, the handling of foodstuffs, the hygiene ofnourishment, protection of the environment andhygiene for housing.

Housing

To search for and secure public and private resourcesfor sustainable projects for improving the housinginfrastructure in marginalised Roma communities.To motivate municipalities and local councils usingappropriate resources for support and subsequentcarrying out of such interventions.Support for microloans and savings programmes forhousing which would allow for increasing the qual-ity of housing is shown to be among the supple-mental possibilities which actually function. And inconnection with this, support for the activities ofnon-profit organisations in the field of housing inmarginalised Roma communities and the use of theirexperience when setting up support programmesis recommended.It is recommended to consider the possibility of es-tablishing institutionally coverage for the questionof housing and infrastructure in MRC on the level ofcentralised state administration.In view of the fact that searching for practical waysto permanently solve the situation of unsettled prop-erty and unauthorised buildings remains an openquestion, it is necessary on the state and municipallevel to proceed to principled, methodological or leg-islatively coordinated steps.In regard to the large range of demonstrable lia-bilities for rent and energy it is necessary to finda possible solution to this fateful situation fora great part of marginalised Roma households. In thescope of prepared action programmes of the Strat-egy of the Slovak Republic for Integration of theRoma up to 2020 (for example, the Action Plan for Fi-nancial Inclusion) it would require working out theproblem of indebtedness and solutions for debt re-lief for these households.

General comments

An attempt at solving the problems that membersof marginalised Roma communities battle with is re-flected in a number of proposals for policies and leg-islative initiative in the decision-making sphere. Themost significant initiative recently was the legisla-

tive intent of the law on socially excluded societieswhich posits as its target: “to support increased in-tervention of state policies into the environment ofcommunities defined by concentrated and inter-generational poverty and bearing the signs of so-cial exclusion”. This intention of the law tries to re-spond to the problem of concentrated and inter-generational poverty “on a non-ethnic (socio-eco-nomic and territorial) basis”.The data analysed in this report on one hand clear-ly indicates that the spatial aspect of social exclu-sion (“disadvantaged entire location”) is an impor-tant determinant of marginalisation and poverty ofwhole groups of citizens. On the other hand, in themajority of the monitored indicators the environ-ments of households of the Roma populationdemonstrated worse parameters than householdsfrom the general population and did so despite thegeographic proximity. The living conditions ofRoma households were in the majority of indicatorsworse and in many dimensions significantly worsethan the living conditions of non-Roma householdsfrom the nearby surroundings. Therefore, it can bededuced that the ethnic membership of householdmembers was repeatedly shown to be a strong dif-ferentiating agent.On the basis of these comments it is therefore nec-essary, upon consideration of appropriate policiesand measures, to keep in mind that a suitablecombination of both approaches – the “territorial”and the “ethnic” – could lead to the required posi-tive changes.The mentioned combined approach is in line withRecommendation no. 2 of the European Council’sPlatform for Roma (within the document Ten com-mon basic principles for Roma inclusion from April2009), which postulates “specific, but not exclusive,targeting of policies and programmes” for Roma. Andadditional principles of the Roma platform offera suitable framework for the design and imple-mentation of policies in the scope of this problem:1) constructive, pragmatic and non-discriminatorypolicies; 2) specific, but not exclusive targeting ofpolicies and programmes; 3) an intercultural ap-proach; 4) orientation on the majority society; 5) con-sideration of the gender viewpoint; 6) the assign-ing of policies established on obtained knowl-edge; 7) the use of EU instruments; 8) involvementof regional and local bodies; 9) involvement of civicsocieties; 10) active participation of Roma.Regarding general comments from the processingof data, it needs to be added that with the design-ing and carrying out of public policies and measuresit is necessary to consistently consider and applyprinciples of spatial and residential desegregation.


228

Consideration of this principle is shown as one of thekey agents with improvements of the living condi-tions of Roma households – in nearly all of the mon-itored fields, the indicators appeared better forhouseholds living more integrated with the majoritypopulation (separated, but mainly diffused) incomparisons with the segregated environments.It is also necessary and essential to continuously re-quire the observing of anti-discrimination legisla-tion and to do so for each circumstance.Among general recommendations it is possible toadd the need for stabilising the conditions for thesystematic collection of data about the socio-eco-nomic circumstances of the life of Roma households,for the monitoring and evaluating of policies, pro-grammes and projects focused on socially exclud-ed societies. It is also necessary to monitor the prac-

tice of carrying out the relevant projects and meas-ures on the level of municipalities.Particularly (but not only) from the viewpoint of im-proving the conditions of health status of the Romapopulation living in socially excluded societies, itis essential to monitor the situation relating toplaces of living located on old environmentally en-cumbered sites, to support the building of re-sources and the construction and maintenance ofsewerage. For the same reasons it is also necessaryto regularly carry out surveys of the accessibilityof health unobjectionable drinking water. In thosesettlements where such water is not available it isnecessary without delay to provide it – and in viewof UN resolution OSN (GA/10967) acknowledgingaccess to clean water and sanitation as a basic hu-man right.

229


Atlas rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2004. Bratislava:S.P.A.C.E., IVO a KCRO.

ABU GHOSH, Y., 2008: Kam stát nevidí, nasadí vědce. In:A2, č. 11.

Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life. 2007,Paríž: OECD.

BAJO, I. – VAŠEK, Š., 1994: Pedagogika mentálne postihnutých(Psychopédia). Bratislava: Sapientia.

BAKER, M. – DWAYNE, B., 1994: The performance of Im-migrants in the Canadian Labour Market. In: Journalof Labour Economics, 12, pp. 369-405.

BARLETT, W., 2011: Measures to Promote the Situation ofRoma EU Citizens in the European Union. Brusel: Eu-ropean Parliament, Policy Department.

BERRKEL, R. – MOLLER, I.H., 2002: Active Social Policies inthe EU: Inclusion through Participation? Bristol: The Pol-icy Press.

BODNÁROVÁ, B. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R. – FILADELFIOVÁ,J. – GERBERY, D. – KVAPILOVÁ, E. – PORUBÄNOVÁ,S., 2004: Transformácia sociálneho systému na Slo-vensku: stav, výsledky, riziká narušenia sociálnej sú-držnosti a modely riešenia. Priebežná správa z 1.etapy riešenia úlohy. Bratislava: Stredisko pre štúdiumpráce a rodiny.

BODNÁROVÁ, B. – FILADELFIOVÁ, J.– GERBERY, D. – DŽAM-BAZOVIČ, R. – KVAPILOVÁ E., 2006: Premeny sociálnejpolitiky. Bratislava: Inštitút pre výskum práce a rodiny.

BORJAS, G. J., 1985: Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Qual-ity, and the Earnings of Immigrants. In: Journal of labourEconomics, 3, pp. 463-489.

BRUEGGEMANN, CH., 2011: Bildungsarmut in der Slowakei:Wenn Sonderschulen zu ethnisch segregierten Räu-men warden. Tertium Comparationis. In: Journal fur In-ternational und Interkulturell VergleichendeErziehungswissenschaft. Vol. 17, 2, pp. X-XX.

BÚTOROVÁ, Z., 2008: Ona a On na Slovensku. Zaostrené narod a vek. Bratislava: IVO.

BÚTOROVÁ, Z., 1996: Ona a On na Slovensku. Ženský údelvo svetle verejnej mienky. Bratislava: FOCUS.

CONSTANT, A. – GATAULLINA, L. – ZIMMERMANN, K. F., 2006:Gender, Ethnic Identity and Work. In: Discussion Paper,2420. Bonn: IZA.

CVIKOVÁ, J. – JURÁŇOVÁ, J., 2003: Ružový a modrý svet.Rodové stereotypy a ich dôsledky. Bratislava: Občana demokracia a Aspekt.

Databáza Slovstat. 2011, Bratislava: Štatistický úrad SR.Dáta o ľudských právach rómskych žien. 2009, Banská

Bystrica, Kultúrne združenie Rómov Slovenska.DEBRECÉNIOVÁ, J. – FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – MAĎAROVA Z., 2010:

Rodové dôsledky krízy: Aspekty vybraných prípadov.Bratislava: Záujmové združenie žien Aspekt.

Dekáda začleňovania rómskej populácie 2005-2015. Ini-ciatíva prijatá európskymi štátmi vo februári. 2005,ktorú podporuje OSF, Svetová banka, UNDP, Európ-ska komisia a ďalší.

De Laat, et al.: Roma Inclusion: An Economic Opportunity forBulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania and Serbia. 2009, Pol-icy Note. World Bank, Human Development Sector Unit,Europe and Central Asia Region.

Deklarácia a Akčný program Svetovej konferencie proti rasizmu,rasovej diskriminácii, xenofóbii a súvisiacej intolerancii.Durban, 31. augusta – 7. septembra 2001. 2001, OSN.

Desať spoločných základných zásad pre začlenenie Rómov.Rómska platforma Rady Európskej únie. Apríl 2009.

Dohovor o odstránení všetkých foriem diskriminácie žien. 1979,New York: OSN.

EVANS, V.: Sampling for the Vulnerable Communities Survey-Slovakia. Rukopis.

EK, 2005: Cohesion policy in support of growth and jobs, Com-munity strategic guidelines 2007-2013. [online]<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/do-coffic/2007/osc/050706osc_en.pdf>.

EK, 2011: An EU Framework for National Roma IntegrationStrategies up to 2020. Communication from the EuropeanCommission to the European Parliament, the Council, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and theCommittee of the Regions. COM(2011) 173 final. Brusel,5 Apríl 2011.

Employment in Europe 2010. 2010, Brusel, Európska komisia:Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs andEqual Opportunities.

ENAR, 2011: Racism and Discrimination in Slovakia. EuropeanNetwork Against Racism Shadow Report 2009-2010. TheInternational Law Research and Human Rights Mon-itoring Centre 2011. [online] < http://www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15294>.

Európsky výskum hodnôt. /European Values Studies. Medz-inárodný komparatívny výskum za krajiny Európy, ktorýsa uskutočnil v roku 1990 a 1999. Údaje z výskumu súdostupné na Sociologickom ústave SAV, prípadne ajspracované porovnanie z druhej výskumnej série:Názory obyvateľov Slovenska v medzinárodnom porov-naní. 1. časť. 1999/2000. Tiburg University – Sociolog-ický ústav SAV, Bratislava 1990 a 1999.

EU-SILC 2010: Zisťovanie o príjmoch a životných pod-mienkach. Informatívne správy Štatistického úradu SR.Bratislava: Štatistický úrad SR, 1. júla 2010. [online] [cit.1. 07. 2010] <http://portal.statistics.sk/files/Sekcie/sek_600/Demografia/inf_sprava/EU_SILC_2009.pdf>.

EHIS 2009 – Európske zisťovanie o zdraví. Bratislava: Štatistickýúrad SR 2010.

Európa 2020. 2010, Brusel: Európska komisia. 231

Literature

FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – BÚTOROVÁ, Z., 2010: Rovnosť žiena mužov. In: M. Kollár – G. Mesežnikov – M. Bútora (eds.):Slovensko 2010: Správa o stave spoločnosti a demokra-cie a o trendoch na rok 2011. Bratislava: Inštitút pre ve-rejné otázky 2011, pp. 357-404.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2010a: Ženy a muži v práci a v rodine:Prečo je užitočná rodová perspektíva v ekonómii. In:Cviková, J. (ed.): Rodová perspektíva v ekonómii: Aspektymocenských vzťahov. Bratislava, Záujmové združeniežien Aspekt, pp. 77-117.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2010b: Rodové dimenzie krízy: Situáciana trhu práce a vládne protikrízové opatrenia. In: J. De-brecéniová – J. Filadelfiová – Z. Maďarová: Rodové dô-sledky krízy: Aspekty vybraných prípadov. Bratislava: Zá-ujmové združenie žien Aspekt, pp. 11-67.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2007 (Z. Bútorová ed.): Ženy, muži a vekv štatistikách trhu práce. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejnéotázky.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2002: Rodové štatistiky. Bratislava:MPSVR SR – MSŠR.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – GERBERY, D. – ŠKOBLA, D., 2006: Sprá-va o životných podmienkach rómskych domácností naSlovensku. Bratislava: UNDP a FES.

FILČÁK, R. – ŠKOBLA, D., 2011: Social Solidarity, HumanRights and Roma: Unequal Access to Basic Resourciesin Central and Eastern Europe. In: Ellison, M. (ed.) Rein-venting social solidarity across Europe. Bristol: The Pol-icy Press, pp. 227-249.

FILČÁK, R., 2007: Životné prostredie. Diferencovaná di-stribúcia environmentálnych pozitív a rizík a vplyv chu-doby na životné prostredie. In: Gerbery, D. – Lesay, I.-Škobla, D. (eds): Kniha o chudobe, spoločenské súvislostia verejné politiky. Bratislava: CEPA/FES, pp. 79-92.

FUDGE, J. – OWENS, R. (eds.), 2006: Precarious Work,Women, and the New Economy: The Challenge to Le-gal Norms. Oxford UK – Portland Oregon: Hart Pub-lishing.

GRILL, J., 2011: On the margins of the states. Contesting Gyp-syness and belonging in the Slovak-Ukrainian-Hungarian Borderlands and in selected migration con-texts. University of St Andrews. Rukopis.

HANZLOVÁ, E. – BELLAN, P., 2009: Riešenie dlhodobej ne-zamestnanosti v krajinách EÚ s dôrazom na jej špecifi-ká a možností aplikácie dobrých skúseností v podmien-kach SR. Bratislava: IVPR.

HOLUBOVÁ, B., 2009 – 2010: Súhrnná správa o stave rodo-vej rovnosti na Slovensku za rok 2009 a 2010. Bratislava:Inštitút pre výskum práce a rodiny.

Chudoba Rómov a sociálna starostlivosť o nich v Slovenskejrepublike. 2002, Bratislava: Svetová banka, S.P.A.C.E., INE-KO a OSI.

IVANOV, A. – TURSALIEV, S., 2006: Microlending to the Romain Central and Southeastern Europe: Mixed Results, NewApproaches. In: Comparative Economic Studies, č. 48,pp. 36–49.

IVO, 2006: Empirické údaje zo sociologického výskumuv rámci projektu EQUAL „Plus pre ženy 45+“. Bratisla-va: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.

KALLEBERG, A. L., 2009: Precarious Work, Insecure Workers:Employment Relations in Transition. In: American So-ciological Review, Vol. 74, pp. 1 – 22.

KÁRÁSZ, P., 2009: Vplyv globálnej ekonomickej krízy navývoj hospodárstva Slovenska so zreteľom na trh práce.Bratislava: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

KOLARCIK, P. – MADAROSOVA-GECKOVA, A. – OROSOVA,O. – Dijk, J. P. – REIJNEVELD, S. A., 2009: To what ex-tent does socioeconomic status explain differencesin health between Roma and non-Roma adolescentsin Slovakia?. In: Social Science & Medicine, č.68,pp.1279–1284.

KUSÁ, Z., 2011: Bytová politika a dostupnosť bývania naSlovensku. In: Gerbery, D. (ed.) Potrebujeme sociálnyštát? Niektoré úvahy (nielen) o verejnej politike. Brati-slava: FES.

KUSÁ, Z. – BOROVANOVÁ M., RUSNÁKOVÁ J. 2011:Slova-kia. In: Contested Issue of Social Inclusion through Edu-cation. (Ed.) Julia Szalai, EDUMIGROM Final Study, p. 314– 341 [online] <https://www.edumigrom.eu/sites/de-fault/files/field_attachment/page/node-5387/edu-migrom-final-study.pdf>.

Legislatívny zámer zákona o sociálne vylúčených spoločen-stvách. September 2012, MPSVR SR.

MILCHER, S., 2006: Poverty and the Determinants of Wel-fare for Roma and Other Vulnerable Groups in South-eastern Europe. In: Comparative Economic Studies č. 48,pp. 20-35. [online] <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ces/journal/v48/n1/pdf/8100148a.pdf>.

Monitorovacia správa o plnení Záverečných zistení Výboru preodstránenie diskriminácie žien v SR. Bratislava: Možnosťvoľby 2011.

MUŠINKA, A., 2004: Rómovia v Prešovskom kraji. In: D. Schef-fel – A. Mušinka (eds), Rómska marginalita. Prešov: CAV.

Národná správa o stratégiách sociálnej ochrany a sociál-nej inklúzie na roky 2008 – 2010. 2008, Bratislava:MPSVR SR.

Národný program reforiem Slovenskej republiky na roky2008-2010. 2007, Bratislava: Vláda SR.

Národný akčný plán k Dekáde začleňovania rómskej popu-lácie 2005-2015. 2005, Bratislava: Uznesenie Vlády SRz 12. januára 2005, Vláda SR.

Národný akčný plán sociálnej inklúzie 2004-2006 a 2008-2010.2003 a 2007, Bratislava: MPSVR SR.

NOS, 2011: Odpovede na otázky desegregácie rómskych žia-kov vo vzdelávacom systéme na Slovensku. Bratislava.

OSN, 1989: Dohovor o právach dieťaťa (v SR Zb. zákonov č.104/1991).

OSN, 1994: Medzinárodná konferencia OSN o populácii a roz-voji a jej akčný plán.

PACHEROVÁ, S, 2011.: Nútené živnosti koalícia nestopne.Pravda, 12.6.2011.


232

RADIČOVÁ, I., 2011: Chudoba Rómov vo vzťahu k trhu prá-ce v SR. In: Sociológia 33, č. 5, pp. 439-456.

REIMERG, C. W. 1985: Cultural Differences in Labou ForceParticipation among married Women. In: American Eco-nomic Association Papers and Proceedings, No. 75, pp.251-255.

Report on Equality between Women and Men 2010.Brusel: EK.

REVENGA, A. et al., 2006: Poverty and ethnicity: a cross-coun-try study of Roma poverty in Central Europe. Washing-ton DC: World Bank.

REF, 2009: School as a Ghetto, Systemic overrepresentationof Roma in special education in Slovakia. Budapest.

RINGOLD, D. et al., 2004: Roma in an Expanding Europe: Break-ing the Poverty Cycle. Washington DC: World Bank.

SCHOENI, R., 1998: Labour market Assimilation of ImmigrantWomen. In: Industrial and Labour Relations Review, č. 51,pp. 483-504.

SCHAEFFEL, D., 2009: Svinia v čiernobielom: slovenskí Rómoviaa ich susedia. Prešov: Centrum antropologickýchvýskumov.

Správa o sociálnej situácii obyvateľov SR 2010. 2011, Brati-slava: MPSVR SR.

Smernica Rady 2000/43/ES z 29. júna 2000, ktorá usta-novuje zásadu rovnakého zaobchádzania s osoba-mi bez ohľadu na ich rasový alebo etnický pôvod.Rada EÚ 2000a.

Smernica Rady 2000/78/ES z 27. novembra 2000, ktorá usta-novuje všeobecný rámec pre rovnaké zaobchádzanie vzamestnaní a povolaní. Rada EÚ 2000b.

Smernica Rady 2004/113/ES z 13. decembra 2004 o vykoná-vaní zásady rovnakého zaobchádzania s mužmi a žena-mi v prístupe k tovarom a službám a k ich poskytovaniu.Rada EÚ 2004.

Správa o stave zdravotníctva na Slovensku. Bratislava: Mi-nisterstvo zdravotníctva SR 2011.

ŠKOBLA, D. – LEONIKAS, T. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, M., 2008: Etni-cita ako štatistický ukazovateľ pri monitorovaní životnýchpodmienok a diskriminácie. Bratislava: UNDP, FES.

Stratégia Slovenskej republiky pre integráciu Rómov do roku2020. ÚV SR 2011.

Štruktúra miezd v SR 2010. 2011, Bratislava: Štatistickýúrad SR.

Tieňová správa pre Výbor pre odstránenie diskrimináciežien. 2008, Bratislava: skupina 8 MVO.

TOMATOVÁ, I., 2004: Na vedľajšej koľaji. Je proces za-raďovania rómskych detí do špeciálnych základných škôlznevýhodňujúcim činiteľom? Bratislava: SGI.

UNDP, 2002: The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe:Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Regional Human De-velopment Report. Bratislava: UNDP.

UNDP, 2003: Únik z pasce závislosti. Rómovia v stredneja východnej Európe, Bratislava: UNDP.

UNDP, 2006: Zamestnávanie Rómov: Názory podnikov, Bra-tislava.

UNDP, 2006: At Risk: Roma and Displaced in Southeast Eu-rope, Bratislava.

Uznesenie Európskeho parlamentu 12. marca 2009 o vode v sú-vislosti s konaním 5. svetového fóra o vode v Istanbule,v dňoch 16.-22. marca 2009. Európsky parlament 2009.

VAŠEČKA, M (ed.), 2002: Čačipen pal o Roma. Súhrnná sprá-va o Rómoch na Slovensku. Bratislava: IVO.

VAŠEČKA, M. – REPOVÁ, I. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R., 2000: Inšti-tucionálna báza riešenia rómskej problematiky na Slo-vensku v súčasnosti, IOM.

Zdravotnícka ročenka SR 2009. 2010, Bratislava: Národné cen-trum zdravotníckych informácií. [online] <http://www.nczisk.sk/Documents/rocenky/rocenka_2009.pdf>.


233

UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre Grosslingova 35811 09 BratislavaSlovak Republic

Tel.:(421-2)59337-111Fax.:(421-2)59337-450http://europeandcis.undp.org

ISBN 978-80-89263-11-0