18
Housing and Infrastructure in Roma Communities: the Case for an Integrated Approach
Housing and Infrastructure in Roma Communities:
the Case for an Integrated Approach
DataData on the situation of housing & infrastructure in Roma communities
Preliminary results Research conducted between December 2009-
January 2010 88 communities from 24 counties, from the
PROROMI database:
the poorest Roma communities facing serious difficulties
MethodologyMethodology of the research:
3 instruments for data collection
1. Survey questionnaire1. Survey questionnaire – 2000 households
→ indicators: quality of housing (surface, occupancy rates, amenities, building materials, access to water, heating, electricity, etc.)
→ 2,2% statistic error
→ representative at the level of Roma communities from PROROMI database
2. Questionnaire for the Local Public 2. Questionnaire for the Local Public AuthoritiesAuthorities
→ indicators: infrastructure, connection of Roma houses to infrastructure, infrastructure projects in the last 5 years, status of land on which Roma built houses, inclusion of Roma communities in Urban General Plans, etc.
→ 79 questionnaires
3. Observation form3. Observation form, filled in by the facilitator, in a participative manner (with local leaders and community members)
→ indicators: quality of infrastructure within the Roma community, facility of access to goods and services, existence of factors defining the presence of ghettos: natural & artificial barriers, existence of factors of risk for the health and security of inhabitants, etc.
→ 88 questionnaires
Preliminary results
A. Housing (1)A. Housing (1)
- poor access to utilities:
→ 15% of Roma households have no access to electricity
→ 96% have no hot water
→ 93% have no gas
→ only 2% have central heating
→ only 7% have a sewage system
A. Housing (2)A. Housing (2)
- poor access to ''white goods'' / major appliances:
→ 56% of households do not have a refrigerator
→ 52% do not own a kitchen stove
- poor quality housing:
→ 61% of communities are largely made of poor quality houses
A. Housing (3)A. Housing (3)
- overcrowding:
→ a Roma household is made, on an average, of 6 members
→ a Roma house has, on an average, 2 rooms
- 27% of Roma households have debts regarding household expenditures (utilities)
- 44% of Roma households have no ownership papers for their houses
A. Housing (4)A. Housing (4)
- 25% of households do not have a kitchen
- example of cooking amenities in a Roma community, Vaslui county →
- 79% of households do not have a bathroom / toilet
B. Infrastructure (1)B. Infrastructure (1)
- in 23% of the communities, the access is difficult or totally impossible after rain / snow
- in 9% of the communities the access is not possible for the ambulance or the fire brigade
- in 28% of the communities, there is electricity only partially
- differences in infrastructure between Roma and non-Roma: unequal public spending
Differences in infrastructure: Roma & non-Roma
Sewage overallSewage Roma comm.
Gas overallGas Roma comm.
Illumin. overallIllumin. Roma
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
28
8
32
14
99
91
YESNO
B. Infrastructure (2)B. Infrastructure (2)
- 51% of Roma communities do not have a certified drinking water source
- example of a community water source in Argeş county →
B. Infrastructure (3)B. Infrastructure (3)
the Roma shanty town the Roma shanty town / ghetto:/ ghetto:
→ isolated (37%)
→ peripheric (52%)
→ monoethnic (57%)
→ delimited by natural or artificial barriers (16%)
→ limited or difficult access to public services (health, education, local authorities, etc.)
→ presence of hazards for the health or safety of inhabitants (24%): unprotected railroads, polluted industrial zones, etc.
B. Infrastructure (4)B. Infrastructure (4)
C. Perspectives and conclusions (1)C. Perspectives and conclusions (1)
- introducing Roma housing and infrastructure on local agendas ↔ 14% of the Roma communities in the research were either partially or not included in the Urban General Plan
- comprehensive data on Roma communities is essential
- ensuring cooperation with Roma civil society
- breaking the vicious circle of social exclusion
C. Perspectives and conclusions (2)C. Perspectives and conclusions (2)
The integrated approach:
- housing as the main factor of social inclusion
- poor housing = poor health, poor participation on the labour market, low levels of education, low levels of public participation and self-esteem
C. Perspectives and conclusions (3)C. Perspectives and conclusions (3)
Essential ingredients:Essential ingredients:
- participation and implication of Roma communities
- consultation with Roma civil society
- data from Roma communities
For more information:Agenţia de Dezvoltare Comunitară
““Împreună”Împreună”www.agentiaimpreuna.ro
