1 / 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. Data on the situation of housing & infrastructure in Roma communities. Preliminary results Research conducted between December 2009- January 2010

albin
Download Presentation

Housing and Infrastructure in Roma Communities: the Case for an Integrated Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Housing and Infrastructurein Roma Communities: the Case for an Integrated Approach

  2. Data 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

  3. Methodology of the research: 3 instruments for data collection 1. 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

  4. 2. Questionnaire for the Local Public Authorities → 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

  5. 3. 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

  6. Preliminary results 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Differences in infrastructure: Roma & non-Roma

  12. B. Infrastructure (2) - 51% of Roma communities do not have a certified drinking water source - example of a community water source in Argeş county →

  13. → 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 (3) the Roma shanty town / ghetto: → isolated (37%) → peripheric (52%) → monoethnic (57%) → delimited by natural or artificial barriers (16%)

  14. B. Infrastructure (4)

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. C. Perspectives and conclusions (3) Essential ingredients: - participation and implication of Roma communities - consultation with Roma civil society - data from Roma communities

  18. For more information: Agenţia de Dezvoltare Comunitară “Împreună” www.agentiaimpreuna.ro office@agentiaimpreuna.ro

More Related