incomes, expenditures and consumption of households in marginalized roma settlements

8/13/2019 Incomes, expenditures and consumption of households in marginalized Roma settlements

1/103

INCOMES, EXPENDITURESAND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDSIN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENT

http://europeandcis.undp.org/ourwork/roma/


2/103

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION

OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZEDROMA SETTLEMENTS


3/103

I N C O M E S , E X P E N D I T U R E S A N D C O N S U M P T I O N O F H O U S E H O L D S I N M A R G I N A L I Z E D R O M A S E T T L E M E N T S

Published byUNDP Europe and the CIS,Bratislava Regional Centre

In cooperationwith the Institutefor Public Affairs

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) expresses its gratitude to the Ministry of Labor,Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic for financial support and collaboration

in implementation of this project

UNDP 2013ISBN: 978-80-89263-16-5

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system

or transmitted, in all forms by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwiseprior permission.

Technical editing, graphic arrangement and production:Valeur, s. r. o., Slovak Republic

The opinions and recommendations formulated in this publication do not always have to correspondunconditionally with the official position of the United Nations Development Program.


4/103

Author of the report is: Jarmila Filadelfiov

Field research was conducted by a team of researchers of IVO:Jarmila Filadelfiov, Oga Gyrfov, Martina Sekulov, Jn Barto

Statistical consultations and assistance with data computing provided Jn Vittek

In the preparation of the methodology, field work and elaboration of the report cooperated Daniel kobla

The following provided expert reflections and remarks on the text: Jan Grill, Silvia Porubnov, Marek Szilvsi

The broader research plan was discussed among the UNDP team, consisting of:Andrey Ivanov, Jaroslav Kling, Ben Slay, Daniel kobla

Thank you to the following people for their help with data collection:

Alena Adamkov, tefan Babindk, Adrian Berky, Magda Berkyov, Barbora Bukov, Jn eke, ubica illagovMria Demeov, Peter Dobrk, Eva Doktorov, Ladislav Duda, Igor Duda, Valria Dmurov, Slavomr Gajdo,Peter Gonda, Peter Gomolk, Iva Grejtkov, Irma Horvthov, Monika Horvthov, Karol Horvth, Ivan HorvthZlatue Kaniov, tefan Kiss, Zuzana Kollrov, Janette Knapekov, Ingrid Kosov, Erika Kuick, Anna OlhovMarie Olhov, Tom Palenr, Natlia Prhodov, Dana Pustulkov, Vladimr Sendrei, Monika Sendreiov, Jurajtofej, Marin Tri, Tereza Weizerov


5/103

CONTENTS

SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................................................

1. COMPOSITION OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALISED ROMA SETTLEMENT

BY BASIC CLASSIFYING ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................................................................................

2. SIZE, STRUCTURE AND DIFFERENTIATION OF INCOMES OF MARGINALISED ROMA HOUSEHOLDS .........................1

2.1. Total incomes by type sums and proportions ...............................................................................................................

2.2. Incomes by working member of a household ...................................................................................................................

2.3. Incomes by number of household members.....................................................................................................................

2.4. Incomes by young children ...................................................................................................................................................

2.5. Incomes by school-attending children ..............................................................................................................................

2.6. Incomes by dependent children together.........................................................................................................................3

2.7. Range of receiving and amounts of incomes by kind and by type of housing ........................................................3

2.8. Summary of the income situation .......................................................................................................................................4

3. OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES OF MARGINALISED HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE....................................................................4

3.1. Total expenditures sums and proportions.....................................................................................................................43.2. Expenditures by working member of a household ..........................................................................................................

3.3. Expenditures by number of members of a household....................................................................................................

3.4. Expenditures by young children...........................................................................................................................................

3.5. Expenditures by school-attending children .....................................................................................................................

3.6. Expenditures by total dependent children .......................................................................................................................

3.7. Range of expenditure and amounts of expenditures by kind and by type of housing .........................................

3.8. Summary of the expenditures situation............................................................................................................................

4. INCOMES VERSUS EXPENDITURES...............................................................................................................................................7

4.1. Differences in incomes and expenditures summary ...................................................................................................

4.2. Differences in incomes and expenditures by household structure ...........................................................................

4.3. Drawing of incomes in the course of a month ..................................................................................................................

4.4. Summary for a comparison of incomes and expenditures ...........................................................................................


4


6/103

5. CONSUMPTION OF SELECTED FOODS BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD...........................................................................................83

5.1. Total consumption .................................................................................................................................................................... 83

5.2. Differences in incomes and expenditures by household structure ...........................................................................84

6. SUMMARY OF BASIC FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................................92

Appendix 1: Types and amount of social benefits ...................................................................................................................94

Appendix 2: Roma settlements list (name of village or town district).......................................................................95

Appendix 3: Logbooks......................................................................................................................................................................97


7/103

The determined sum of net incomes of Romahouseholds from marginalised settlements calculated

per month comes out as low per household as it doesin the calculation per one member. The frameworkSlovakia-wide averages of individual incomes or wagethresholds valid around the time when the empiricalsurvey was conducted indicate that incomes inexcluded settlements move below average sums and inthe majority of cases beneath the standardised levelsfor poverty risk.

Although with some groups of households the volumeof financial resources on the income side is

increasing, for example, with multi-memberhouseholds or households with school-attending ordependent children together, after calculations perone household member, fewer financial resourcesactually emerged. The one exception was householdswith a working member or members, whereincome came out higher in total amount perhousehold as well as in calculations per one memberof a household.

Work incomes improve total household income in

a significant way; on the other hand, they are ratherrare in the surveyed environment (low employment)and work payments coming into this environment areon a low level (on average low work incomes fromemployment are deeply below the average wage of anemployee in the Slovak Republic). Despite the smallexpansion of work incomes in the surveyedenvironments (usually irregular) and the average lowpay for work, work incomes in a noticeable way signalan improvement in the life situation of the surveyed

excluded households.At the same time, however, this points to the very lowlife standard of households without a workingmember. Their family budget is one work incomelower, in most cases involuntarily, than appeared inthe scope of the survey of situational accounts, wherethe possibilities to find employment were rankedamong the most frequent desires for a family and

more work opportunities among the common wishesSocial benefits are decidedly unable to balance or to

up this deficit. The result is that members of Romahouseholds without work incomes have significantlyfewer financial resources for their own consumption

The limitation in consumption was found to beenormous with some households. They had to fullyforego the majority of so-called higher needs, to limmany standard necessities to a minimal measureand even for those most basic needs only a limitedsum of financial resources remain available to themat least according to the determined volume of

expenditures.

The share of expenditures for basic needs, such asfood and housing, recorded the highest of allexpenditures in households with the lowest incomesThis means that excluded Roma households with thelowest incomes on average spent from available sumof financial resources the largest part of their totalexpendable resources on food and housing (most ofthe money which they spent during a month, theyspent on food and fees for housing). But at the same

time it is necessary to remark that even in householdwith a better income position its not possible to talabout a good situation; their position always cameout on a low level in framework comparisons with thSlovak-wide averages. In the overall weak economicenvironment of marginalised Roma settlementshouseholds with poor economic status are even morundersized in consumption.

The range of individual sums expended in the courseof a month was relatively narrow; if the extreme

values of expenditures caused by an exceptionalsituation are not considered, there were no principadifferences between average sums expended forindividual types of expenditures. Empirical data thuindicates that a large group of the surveyedhouseholds go all out: they eliminated above-standard and limited standard expenditures, and thtry to cover the most fundamental ones, if possible.


6

SUMMARY


8/103

A comparison of the level of incomes and expendituresshowed that budgets are almost balanced; if somehouseholds in the course of the month do not borrow,they are unable to cover the needs of householdmembers. Without loans budgets ended in a minus,

and this more often affected households withouta working member and those with a young child orchildren. The deficit in incomes with great probabilityis offset by dining strategies focused on less quality

and healthy foods and by replacement of basic foodsby from-scratch types of meals.

Monitoring the consumption of selected foodsindicated the very low consumption of fruits andvegetables (with the exception of potatoes) andabove-standard consumption of flour and pasta. Withalternative types of foods, the healthier variants werefound only in minimal amounts; cheaper and lessquality alternatives predominated.


9/103

One part of the extensive research activities carriedout within this project was the surveying of incomesand expenditures as well as the consumption ofselected foods in households living in excluded Romasettlements. This research activity linked directly toquantitative research of Roma households (end of2010), which did not manage to capture the detailedstructure of incomes and expenditures in thedesired period.

Quantitative research of the census type, whichattempts to capture a broad circle of dimensions fora household and its individual members (it mapped alltogether nine broad modules demographiccharacteristics, mother tongue and common languageof communication, migration and exclusion related tohousing, housing and household furnishings, healthstatus and accessibility of health care, education andexpenditures on education, exclusion from the labourmarket, life level and extreme deprivation) and is

carried out with the help of standard agency surveyorsnot close to the surveyed environment andfurthermore it is a one-time survey; it is not able torecord incomes and expenditures in their entirestructure and details for analytical purposes.Respondents as a rule present an approximateestimate of the basic group of incomes for the monthin which the realness or truthfulness cannot bechecked; and to supplement the already exceptionallyvast quantitative research by expenditures wouldexceed the capacity of the survey.1

Therefore, in meetings among experts alternativesolutions were sought after which would be capable ofcapturing the most detailed structure of individual

incomes as possible and at the same time bringinformation about the basic types of expenditures awell as information on strategies of handling incomIn discussions2 the form of this empirical probe begato gradually take shape. The necessity to capture thstructure of incomes and expenditures was repeatedstated, and emphasis was also placed on consumptioof basic commodities falling into a fundamental foobasket as well as on their quantitative comparisonwith so-called healthy alternatives.

In the final stage the research probe acquired theform of empirical mapping of monthly incomes andexpenditures: each day during one month all incomeand expenditures of a household were recorded intoa form in euro. In order to eliminate monthlyparticularities, it was decided to collect data for twomonths, not one (the choice fell on Augustand September one holiday and one schoolmonth). Trained researchers who were generated on

the snowball principle from the vicinity of excludeRoma communities helped the selected householdswith record-keeping (these were predominately fieldsocial workers or residents of excluded settlements)

The researchers visited the selected householdsseveral times a month and recorded together withthem the requested data. During the absence ofa researcher the head of the household saved upreceipts or recorded incomes and payments into theprovided logbook, or recollected the actual

movements of money with the help of an assistant.Such a process of data collection should have avoidethe distortion of data tabulated from all the surveysregarding incomes, especially with whole-month


8

1. COMPOSITION OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDSFROM MARGINALISED ROMA SETTLEMENTBY BASIC CLASSIFYING ATTRIBUTES

1 Whats more, we note that from standard statistical surveys devoted to the structure of incomes and expenditures a specific group of residents of marginalised Rocommunities cannot be generated due to insufficent empirical fulf ilment of such units of the research.

2 They took place during the prepartory period in the months of April to June (see records from the expert meetings regarding implementation of the project);several meetings also took place on an informal basis on the premesis of the organiser of the research activities, which was the Institute for Public Affairs.


10/103

estimates or whole-month recollections; at the sametime it reduced the chance of presenting incorrectdata, because the distribution of the resultinginformation to a number of partial incomes andexpenditures, we assume, reduces the chance for

deliberate misrepresentation.

The research sample for mapping incomes andexpenditures (and of selected consumption of foods)was made up of Roma households living in excludedsettlements of a different type in segregatedsettlements, settlements separated on the edge ofa village or concentrated within a town or village.At the same time, the rule was set that only onehousehold could be selected from one settlement(only in exceptional cases two if a community with

disparate living conditions was involved).

At the same time the range of respondent householdsper researcher was set in order to eliminate the effectof stereotyping of data recording or duplicity ofhouseholds. Researchers could work maximally withtwo households in the course of a month; thus, thenumber of questionnaires per one assistant was atmost four (two in August and two in September).Since this empirical probe involved exceptionallycomplicated questioning, the majority of assistants

did not use the maximum number of opportunities.The average number of households per one assistantwas 3 questionnaires, while some worked only withone household and other with four householdsdistributed over time.

The number of units was set arbitrarily at100 households. Such a range for the research samplewas derived from several assumptions and was at thesame time supported by a quantitative estimate. Thefirst assumption was the relative homogeneity of the

environment on which the research probe focused separated Roma settlements. The differences betweenunits in excluded environments are smaller than the

differences between the households of the generalpopulation. The second assumption rested on theconsideration that fewer extreme cases can also befound in excluded environments than in the totalpopulation without limitation to excluded

communities.3 Both assumptions were ultimatelyconfirmed by qualitative research of Roma householdwhich was the first empirical research activity carriedout in the project.4 The quantitative estimate of thesample size was derived from the following facts:statistical surveys of household incomes andexpenditures (so-called family accounts) are carriedout in 6,143 randomly selected households froma total number of more than 2 million households inthe Slovak Republic, which represents just under0.3%. The Roma population according to the mostrecent estimates moves on the level of 380 thousand(Vao 2001, 2002); under the assumption thatapproximately half of all Roma live diffused, we get190 thousand residents from excluded settlements.With an average number of five members perhousehold (UNDP, 2012) we get an estimated numberof 38 thousand excluded households. The number of100 household thus makes up approximately the sameshare as in the case of the general survey of familyaccounts. Whats more, 100 households in

homogeneous environments create a good foundationfor simplified statistical calculations.

On the basis of quantitative research of Romahouseholds from 2010 (UNDP, 2012) two quotaattributes were set for selection of households intothis empirical probe, namely the presence ofa working member in the family (the quota was set ata ratio of 20 households with a working member to80 households without a working member) and thenumber of dependent children in a household

(0 children - 20%; 1-2 children - 33%; 3-4 children -27% and 5+ children - 20%). Each of the researchersreceived a breakdown of their households on the basi

3 If households are exceptionally successful economically, it is rightful to assume that it leaves the excluded environment and is included among the majority living diffused.

4 For more details see the resulting publication Report on the living conditions or Roma households in Slovakia in 2010, in the scope of which it was repeatedlyconfirmed and with different indicators that Roma households living dif fused had a better economic and social situation (UNDP, 2012).


11/103

of these two quotas, which he or she had to select intheir surroundings in excluded settlements. In orderto avoid overlapping, the researchers immediately inthe scope of training had to declare the names of thevillages where they are carrying out a visit to

a settlement. The determined proportions managedto be approximately achieved in the survey.5

The region was also observed during the selection ofhouseholds, although this attribute was not amongthe quotas set. The highest share fell into the EastSlovakia region (more than 60%), followed by CentralSlovakia (up to 30%) and the smallest share ofhouseholds was in the West Slovakia region(around 10%).

The majority of the data collection ran in the monthsof August and September, as was planned, while inOctober only the supplementing of missinghouseholds according to the region and number ofchildren took place. In the end result, data wascollected from 103 households, and threequestionnaires from the processing of incomes andexpenditures were excluded.6 Exactly 100 householdsrepresenting excluded Roma settlements ofa different type were then included in the subsequentanalysis of incomes, expenditures and the selected

consumption of goods in the form of a food basket.

The final 100 households which were included in theanalysis of incomes and expenditures weredifferentiated not only according to basic quotaattributes but also on the basis of other classifyingcharacteristics. The parameters set managed to beapproximately observed according to the distributionin geographic space of Slovakia, the only dif ferenceversus the planned proportion being the moderatelyabove-standard East Slovakia at the expense of the

western part of the territory. The total sample ofRoma households representing excluded settlementsconsisted of 63 units falling into the East Slovakia

region, 31 representing Central Slovakia and 6households representing West Slovakia (Graph 1).

The quota for representation of households witha working member and without a working member inthe end managed to be completely fulfilled. As Grap2 shows, in the analysed sample of 100 Romahouseholds from excluded settlements, the share ofhouseholds without a working member made up 78%and those with at least one working member was 22%From this there were 16 households with one workinmember, 5 with two working members and only

1 household with three working members.According to the level of spatial segregation ofhousing settlements, if its even possible to refer he


10

5 In some cases the situation of selected households changed during the sample survey: they found or lost a job, a child was born and the like. We did not exclude them frothe selection on the basis of the changed situation therefore, only approximate fulfillment of the quota indicators. The differences, however, were not very large.

6 Households which accumulated the most extreme or exceptional values in terms of incomes and expenditures were excluded from the processing; they were,however, included in the research of the situational accounts.

Graph 1Composition of the sampleof 100 Roma households by region

Note: The planned shares for regional coverage were: more tha60% East Slovakia, Central Slovakia over 30%, West Slovakiaaround 10%. The final result depended to a significant measuralso on where adequate assistants could be found and trainedRegarding the work of field social workers, the least amount ofinformation came from West Slovakia.

EastSlovakia

CentralSlovakia

WestSlovakia

6

63

31


12/103

to levels (it is perhaps diff icult namely to expressthe distance between individual types of housing ona continuum), the sample of 100 analysed householdswas distributed relatively evenly. Researchersassigned settlements to the individual types of

settlements, and on the basis of their statements29 households were from segregated settlements,38 from separated settlements on the edge of villagesand 33 households belonging to local habitations inconcentrated settlements within a village (Graph 3).For this characteristic, however, no exact quota wasset; in the scope of training the assistants onlyreceived general information about what is consideredas an excluded settlement and what type ofsettlement may be involved.7

An important characteristic which is further oftenused with analysis of incomes and expenditures was

the size of the household, that is, the real number of

persons making up the household. The count rangedfrom 1 to 19 members of a household in one dwelling(Graph 4). For the purpose of analysis of incomes andexpenditures, the number of members was re-categorised into three groups: households with1-2 members (9 households), with 3-4 members(28 households) and with the average 5 members andmore (63 surveyed households).

The number of children living in a household in theempirical probe was specified in a different way. In

analyses the number of young children, i.e. childrenof a preschool age, is used in part. According to thisindicator 48 households did not have even one suchchild, 25 of the surveyed households had one young

Graph 3Composition of the sampleof 100 Roma households by type of housing

Note: For this attribute no quota was determined during theselection of households. The preceding quantitative researchof the living conditions of Roma households selected for the

purpose of strengthening the possibilities of mutual comparisonfor each type of housing an equal number of households;therefore, it was unable to gauge the share of Roma householdsrepresenting the individual types of housing.

segregatedsettlements

separatedsettlementson the edgeof a village

concentratewithina village

29

38

33

7 Researchers assigned the visited settlements to individual types of housing by subjective consideration; they didnt have exactly determined and specified criteria fclassification available.

Graph 2Composition of the sample of 100 Romahouseholds by number of working members

Note: The plan for the ratio of households with a working andnon-working member was on the basis of findings of thequantitative survey of a previous empirical probe (end of 2010)in the ratio of 20:80.

0 members

1 member

2 members

3 members78

16

51


13/103

child, 16 households had two young children and in11 households there were three and more youngchildren (Table 1).

Another classifying attribute was the presence ofschool-attending children among members of thehousehold. The composition of the sample of

households on the basis of school-attending children those who attended primary school or a higherdegree of education was differentiated into

31 households without such a child and69 households with such a child. The most frequentwere households with one or two childrenattending school.

Some surveyed households had only young childrenonly school-attending children, but the majority ofthem had children in both categories. For analyticalpurposes, therefore, the total number of alldependent children in a household was also used.A total of 13 surveyed households were withouta dependent child and 87 had at least one dependenchild. Households with 2 and 3 dependent children(25 and 26 households, respectively) had the highesrepresentation, while 13 households had 4 dependechildren and 14 households had 5 and more.

During the analysis of incomes, expenditures andconsumption of selected foods, attributesrepresenting the makeup and size of households, suas the total number of members and working membein a household and the number of young, school-attending or dependent children, were primarilyused.8 In view of the size of the sample, theclassification of households into two groups withoa child and with one or more children of the givendefinition was most commonly used. Only the tota

number of household members is classified into thregroups: households consisting of 1-2 members, of 34 members and of 5 or more members.


12

Graph 4Composition of the sampleof 100 Roma households by number of members

1 member

2 members

3 members

4 members

5 members

6 members

7 members

8 members

9 a or moremembers

1

8

9

19

24

11

17

6 5

8 The average numbers of household members for the surveyed sample according to the specification were as follows: average number of household members = 5.3persons; average number of dependent children total = 2.7; average number of school-attending children = 1.75; average number of young children = 0.93.

Young children School-attending children Dependent children total

0 children 48 31 13

1 child 25 13 9

2 children 16 24 253 children 9 21 26

4 children 1 7 13

5 and more children 1 4 14

Total 100 100 100

Table 1Composition of the sample of 100 Roma households by number of children


14/103

As is presented above, incomes in the selectedhouseholds were surveyed for one entire month; on therelevant day when the household obtained the givenincome, its amount was written in net form (how muchthey got in hand) into a logbook. They weremonitored in segments according to individual types;together there were 16 types seven social and nineother incomes. With social incomes the following typeswere listed independently: pensions, family benefitsand allowances, one-time family allowances,healthcare benefits, benefits for the health disabled,

unemployment benefits and benefits and allowances inmaterial need.9 Other incomes were recorded in thesesegments: work income from permanent employment,irregular work incomes, incomes from property, childmaintenance payments, financial gift, material gift,incomes from home production, other incomes andfinally loans. During the final processing some incomeswere excluded, since they did not occur at all or only ina minimal number. Thus, one-time family allowanceswere classified under the category of family benefits;health benefits were combined with the allowance forthe health disabled, incomes from property and homeproduction and financial and material gift were alsocombined, while child maintenance payments did notoccur at all in the survey. In the final processing, then,five types of social and five types of work incomes arelisted in the tables.

2.1. Total incomes by type sums and proportions

In the average formulation the total income for onesurveyed marginalised Roma household came out tobe 597.60 euro and calculated per one member of thehousehold this represented 112.75 euro.10 At the samtime social incomes made up 63.7% of total incomeand the remaining 36.3% fell to other incomes(Table 2). In the structure of incomes of householdsfrom excluded settlements, then, social incomes

predominate: the share of social and other incomesrepresented two-thirds to one-third. In comparisonwith incomes for the whole population of the SlovakRepublic11 according to family accounts for the year2010 (Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic(SO SR), 2011) the listed level of incomes of excludedhouseholds is significantly lower and their basiccomposition different. Average incomes per personfor the surveyed Roma households were about two-thirds smaller (112.75 to 348.95 euro), and the ratioof social and other incomes, which was for the entire

population of the Slovak Republic almost exactlyopposite (31.9% social to 68.1% of other incomes),also differed.

Representation of work incomes in total incomes wasfor excluded Roma households rather low, whichcorresponds with the high measure of unemployment

2. SIZE, STRUCTURE AND DIFFERENTIATIONOF INCOMES OF MARGINALISED ROMA HOUSEHOLDS

9 If a household was unable to differentiate the individual types of benefits and allowances, it recorded the sum total of social incomes; in the surveyed sample therewere 17 households with undifferentiated social incomes. The structure of social incomes was not monitored up to the level of individual types of family benefits an

allowances in material need. Their receipt is precisely recorded in the database of benefit recipients (administratve data of the Central Office of Work, Social Affairsand Family); through improved analytical possibilities of work with this database, which is being worked on, information will be available regarding different types obenefit recipients in an exhausting format. Another reason for not specifying individual benefits and allowances was the already high demands of field work datacollection (the specification of receipt by days in the month). The third reason for resigning the detailed structure of benefits and allowances for support of thefamily and households in material need was the repeated experience from empirical surveys that respondents from excluded settlements only in a smaller range areable to differentiate and correctly name the individual elements of social incomes for family support and in material need.

10 For context we mention that in 2010 (the last available year at the time of processing the report) the median of equivalentavailable income per person and month, whicis taken into consideration with calculation of the poverty line, was 510 euro in Slovakia; the year before that it was 473 euro. The threshold risk of poverty as 60% ofmedian income was in 2010 for a single-member household 306 euro per month, and in 2009 it was 284 euro. At the time of the survey the sums of the life minimum werthe following: 185.38 euro monthly for one adult; 129.31 monthly for another commonly assessed person; and 84.61 euro monthly for a child living at home.

11 Total data for 2010 is presented, because at the time of writing the report the latest data had not yet been published. At the same time, it needs to be emphasisedthat comparison with all households in the Slovak Republic is only orientational for approximating the framework of individual sums; a direct comparison is notpossible given the different type of surveying.


15/103

found in this environment (UNDP, 2012). Total workincomes (from employment and also irregularincomes) achieved on average 158.52 euro perhousehold, which in the calculation per one membermade up not quite 30 euro and as a percentage

26.5% of total incomes. Thus, only 9.8% fell into theremaining types of incomes without social and workincomes. Loans (with 5.2%) had the highest share ofthese, while incomes from home production andproperty and gifts shared only 2.7% and 1.4%in total incomes.

A look at the internal structure of social incomesindicates that for excluded Roma households benefitsand allowances for material need obtained thehighest weight. On average for one household this

was 150.33 euro from a total of 380.46 euro fromsocial incomes (in calculations per one member28.36 euro from the total of social incomes permember); in percentage expression this represented39.5% of the total sum of social incomes and 25.2%of total income. Family benefits were ranked in thesecond place from the viewpoint of f inancial volumealso on the basis of share in total incomes. For oneexcluded household this came out to be on average99.66 euro of family benefits, which meant 18.80 euro

per one member of a household. The share of familybenefits in total social incomes thus achieved 26.2%and in total incomes 16.7%.

In the structure of social incomes presented in thetable, however, so-called undifferentiated incomesmade up more than 20%; that is, social incomes arelisted only in aggregate form if the household wasunable to differentiate the individual items of socialincomes.12 The shares of the material need and familybenefits calculated only for households which

differentiated social incomes were in this case10% and 7% higher, respectively, but their mutualproportion was preserved material need achieveda higher share in social incomes than did family

benefits. Specifically, benefits in material needrepresented 49.9% of total social incomes and famibenefits 33.1%. Together they amounted to 83% of social incomes, while the remaining social benefitsand allowances represented only 17%. From this,

15.4% were made up of pensions and only 1.6%unemployment benefits and healthcare benefits orhealth disabled allowances.

In general households in Slovakia the structure ofsocial incomes (for year 2010) was completelydifferent, with the largest volume represented bypensions (77.4% of total social incomes), and then,well behind, family benefits (14.3%); only 8.3% wermade up of other social incomes. In the calculationper one household member pensions for households

in surveyed marginalised Roma settlementsrepresented only 8.76 euro, while the average for thSlovak Republic was 86.16 euro. Such a largedifference did not occur with family benefits:the average per one member achieved for thesurveyed households 18.80 euro and for the entireSlovak Republic 15.92 euro. A higher sum on the sidof marginalised Roma households was found withbenefits in material need (28.36 euro to 2.66 europer member), while the remaining two benefits

showed a higher sum for the general population;in the surveyed sample these were on the level of1 euro per member and less (sickness andunemployment benef its).

The sum of other incomes, that is, of other than socincomes, achieved on average for the surveyed Romhouseholds 217.14 euro per household and not quite41 euro per household member. In the framework ofthese incomes the highest item was incomes frompermanent employment (nearly 45%) and incomes

from irregular work (more than 28%). However, thiswas not a high financial item expressed in euro: theaverage income from permanent employment did noachieve even 100 euro per one surveyed household


14

12 Undifferentiated social incomes were assigned to the overview tables, because their exclusion would mean a total reduction of social and total incomes of thesurveyed Roma households, and thus a distortion of the overall result. However, in the text the percentage shares of family benefits and benefits and allowances inmaterial need are calculated for households with differentiated social incomes (which listed the sum of family benefits and the sum of benefits and allowances mateneed individually) are presented. Such households those with dif ferentiated incomes made up the majority of the surveyed sample (83 households from 100).


16/103

(18.35 calculated per member) and income fromirregular work moderately surpassed 61 euro(11.56 euro per member). While work incomes madeup 26.5% of total income, in the scope of the totalsum of other incomes (other than social incomes) they

formed, even at their low f inancial level, nearly 73%.

Additional components of other incomes wereincomes from home production and property andgifts, but their amounts made up only a small part ofthe remaining 27% of other incomes (7.5% and 3.8%).Loans made up the third largest item (15.8%) inthem, which indicates that many of the surveyedRoma households from the excluded environment hadin the course of the month to secure financialresources in this way. A loan per one surveyed

household achieved for one month 34.29 euro, and inthe calculation per household member the sum forloans was 6.47 euro (nearly 6% of total income).

Research data collected in the scope of theempirical probe indicated that incomes ofmarginalised Roma household are decidedly nothigh, and in the context of the legally defined sumof life minimums or in the context of thresholdsset for poverty risk, they end up rather belowaverage (compare with the sums in note 9).

Another demonstrable fact is the significantlyhigher representation of social incomes in the totalincomes of the surveyed excluded households, bywhich in them the share of the benefit in materialneed exceeded financial income from benefits andallowances for support of the family. According tothe results of the empirical probe households frommarginalised Roma settlement receive in the scopeof social assistance in the largest volume state socialbenefits intended for cases of an unfavourable

economic situation (households found in materialneed), while a smaller volume of financial resourcesfell under state benefits intended for aid to families.

Social insurance benefits, including pensions,were only minimally represented in the structureof incomes of the surveyed households. The shareof pensions in the total social incomes can beevaluated as low or very low, while unemploymentallowances and health benefits occurred in onlya minimal measure. During discussions on theabuse of the social system by Roma households,

which in the public sphere in Slovakia are not at alunusual,13 this flip side of the coin is oftenneglected: the minimal or no participation ofexcluded Roma households in sources frompensions and sickness provisions and in provisionfor cases of unemployment are simply nottalked about.

The verbal expression abusing of benefits doesnot stand up on the basis of the obtained dataeven in a different sense. The average amount of

benefits in the calculation per household and perindividual was not even high in the surveyedenvironments. While in the calculation per one

13 We mention, for example, a discussion on the amount of social benefits for Roma households, to which the association People Against Racism responded with a pubdeclaration (http://www.rasizmus.sk/). That this involves a serious and widespread problem is documented in the fact that it is also mentioned in Strategy of the

Slovak Republic for Integration of Roma up to 2020, where it is also suggested: the substantial portion of people who accuse the Roma of abusing social benefits...(www.osf.sk/.../vlada_sr_schvalila_strategiu_sr_pre_integraciu_romov...).

Graph 5Structure of household incomes by type (in %)

Social incom

totalWork incometotal

Incomefrom homeproduction

Other income gifts

Other income loans

63,7

5,71,4

2,7

26,5


17/103

member the surveyed households frommarginalised Roma settlements showed 71.79

of social incomes, for the Slovak Republic asa whole for the year preceding this empiricalsurvey, this was 111.33 euro. The social incomesof the surveyed Roma households ended up in thecalculation per capita to be on average lower thanthe average for all of Slovakia.

The probe into incomes in marginalised Romasettlements indicated a relatively high measure of

representation of loans for the monthly incomesof these households, which achieved nearly 6%

of their overall monthly income. The work incomes of the surveyed households

came out, unlike those from general householdsin minority positions on average they onlymoderately exceeded one-quarter of total incom(for the whole of the Slovak Republic work incomin 2010 exceeded three-fifths of total incomes).The huge range and forms of exclusion from the


16

Table 2Overview of total net monthly incomes of marginalised Roma community (MRC) households by typeand in different forms compared with all households in the Slovak Republic (in euro and in %)

Sum perhousehold

(in euro)

Sum per1 member

(in euro)

% of totalincome

Calculation forSlovak Republic 201

(euro/member)Incomes total 597.60 112.75 100.0 348.95

in this:Social incomes total 380.46 71.79 63.7% 111.33

Other incomes total 217.14 40.97 36.3% 237.62

Incomes total 597.60 112.75 100.0 348.95

in this:

Social incomes total 380.46 71.79 63.7% 111.33

Work incomes total 158.52 29.91 26.5% 219.49

Incomes from home production andproperty

16.19 3.05 2.7%

18,13Other incomes - gifts 8.15 1.54 1.4%

Other incomes - loans 34.29 6.47 5.7%

Social incomes total 380.46 71.79 100.0 111.33

in this:

Pensions total 46.42 8.76 12.2% 86.16Family benefits 99.66 18.80 26.2% 15.92

Sick pay and Health Disabled 4.18 0.79 1.1% 2.70

Material need 150.33 28.36 39.5% 2.66/4.14*

Unemployment 0.60 0.11 0.2% 2.41

Undifferentiated 79.28 14.96 20.8% -

Other incomes total 217.14 40.97 100.0 237.62

in this:

Income from permanent employment 97.27 18.35 44.8% -

Income from irregular work 61.25 11.56 28.1% -

Income from home production and property 16.19 3.05 7.5% -

Financial or material gift 8.15 1.54 3.8% -

Loans 34.29 6.47 15.8% 1.40

Notes: Data for the Slovak Republic calculated according to the publication Incomes, Expenditure and Consumption of Private Households inthe Slovak Republic 2010 (SO SR 2011); data for 2011 had not been published at the time of processing the report. Only calculated for thoseincome items which could be mutually specified (common items for net incomes, social incomes, loans). The statistic of family accounts usthe indicator sum in euro per person and year; for the needs of comparisons, these sums are divided by the number 12 months. Thecomparison is only orientational for approximating a framework of individual sums; a direct comparison is not possible given the differenttypes of surveys. *The number before the slash mark gives the sum calculated exclusively on the basis of benefits for social assistance; to thnumber after the slash mark are also calculated so-called other social incomes so that the whole of social incomes are obtained.


18/103

labour market in marginalised settlements (UNDP,2012, pgs. 111-172) reduce the chance of ensuringa household budget from work activities.

2.2. Incomes by working memberof a household

The report on the living conditions of Romahouseholds noted in several places the strong impactthat the work commitment of household members hason their level of living. Households with a workingmember, or with work experience from abroad,experienced significantly less material (extreme)deprivation; the quality of their housing andhousehold furnishings was improved, and they lookedmore optimistically on their future and betterevaluated their living situation (UNDP, 2012). Therealised mapping of incomes of Roma households fromexcluded settlements confirmed the significantincreasing of overall income with the workcommitment of some household members, equally aswell as the different wage structure of the two groupsof households separated by work activity(Tables 3 through 5).

The average total income for marginalised Roma

households in which at least one member worked incomparison with households without a workingmember was increased by 272.78 euro per household:from 515.59 euro to 888.37 euro. With the f igure perone member the difference in total income was nearlydouble: 94.63 euro for the group without a workingmember to 186.14 euro for the group with one.

Households with a working member otherwise had onaverage significantly lower social incomes(250.32 euro versus 417.17 euro for the group without

a working member), but the decisive difference wasrecorded with the total of other incomes. These incalculations per one household increased from98.42 euro for households without a working memberup to 638.05 euro for households with a working

member. In the calculation per capita the differencein total social incomes between households withouta working member and those with a working memberwas 76.56 euro versus 52.45 euro; for the total ofother incomes this came out the opposite: 18.06 euro

per group without a working member versus133.69 euro for the group with one. In percentageform the ratio of the sum of social and other incomeswas for households without a working member 81%to 19%, while for household with a working memberthis was turned around: 28% of social to 72%of other incomes.

Since the classifying attribute is in this case thepresence of work activity in the household, uponcomparison the relatively dramatic growth in work

incomes in households having one or several workingmembers is not surprising. While the figure per onehousehold without a working member was 52.56 euroof work incomes (exclusively incomes from irregularwork), for households with a working member this wa10-times more (total work income per household was534.19 euro). When expressing total work income perone member the sum was 9.65 euro in the absence ofwork activity versus 111.93 euro in households witha working member. The total work income had

a 10% share in total incomes in the case ofhouseholds without a working member, and inhouseholds with a working member made up 60%.

The lower total sum of social incomes in householdswith a working member versus those withouta working member was primarily the result of thelower benefits and allowances in material need; inthe calculation per household member the differencewas 30.79 euro versus 18.56 euro. Family benefitsnamely remained in both groups on approximately th

same level not quite 19 euro per one householdmember. In households without a working member thshare of the material need benefit in total socialincomes14 was significantly higher than the share offamily benefits (52.6% versus 32.1%), while for

14 In calculations for households which differentiated the individual types of social incomes (n = 83).


19/103

households with a working memberthe representation of both types of state supportwas balanced (36.9% material needand 37.7% family benefits).

With a working member in the household not onlydoes the mutual proportion of social and other (otherthan social) incomes change significantly, but alsothe internal structure of other incomes. Froma comparison of their structure, it follows that asidefrom the growing of the work income frompermanent employment on the side of householdswith a working member, these also had a higher sumof work incomes from irregular work. On average thisinvolved a sum of 19.29 euro per member, while thegroup of households without a working member had

not quite 10 euro of incomes per member fromirregular work. Despite the two-times lower sum ofwork incomes from irregular work in householdswithout a working member, in the total structure ofother incomes expressed in percentages they made upmore than half of other incomes (53.4%). Householdswith a working member at the same time had higherfinancial volumes for all remaining types of otherincomes. They recorded higher incomes from homeproduction and property, received more gifts and alsoborrowed more in the course of the month. While fora household without a working member loans in thecourse of a months were 23.90 euro per householdand 4.39 euro for one member of the household, forthe group of households with a working member this

was 71.14 euro per household and 14.90 euro permember (approximately 3-times more). In the coursof a month, then, both compared groups or Romahouseholds borrowed, but the amount of the loanswas on average higher for households with

a working member. But the share of loans in the scoof all other incomes came out higher for householdswithout a working member more than 24.3%; morethan 15% was made up of gifts, and incomes fromhome production and property made up not quite 7%For a household with a working member workincomes from permanent employment made upnearly 70% of total other incomes and work incomefrom irregular work 14.4% (together workincomes were 83.7% of other incomes); loans inthem in the course of a month achieved a share of11% of other incomes; the remaining 5% was the totfor gifts and incomes from home productionand property.

Empirical data confirmed that even inenvironments of excluded Roma settlements woractivity increases in a significant way the totalincome of a household and does so in overallexpression per household as well as in thecalculation per one member.

However, even the presence of a working membein excluded households is not enough to approacthe average incomes for the SlovakRepublic, ultimately even in comparison with dat


18

Graph 6Comparison of the structure of incomes of households by a working member (in %)

Social incomes total

Work incomes total

Incomes from homeproduction

Other incomes gifts

Other incomes loans

working members 1+ working members

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

80,9%28,2%

10,2%60,1%

3,0%2,2%

1,3%1,5%

4,6%8,0%


20/103

from the preceding year. In calculations per one

member of a household total incomes forexcluded Roma households was still almost two-times smaller (186.14 euro for the group ofRoma households with a working memberversus 348.95 euro for all of the Slovak Republicin 2010).

The different composition of Roma households hasa decidedly strong impact on the result thecalculating of total income for a larger number ofmembers of Roma households lowers the sum perindividual. Comparing the sums for individual

types of incomes and their internal structure,

however, indicates that the reasons for incomelagging behind the Slovak-wide average in thesurveyed household will also be found elsewhere:as is presented in the previous chapter 2.2.1,primarily in those excluded from incomes frompermanent employment and probably also in thelower average earnings in view of the geographicdistribution of marginalised households in theterritory of Slovak Republic and the education andqualification structure of this part of the labourforce;15 and as is shown further, also in stoppingthe continual increasing of these benefits

15 All statistical overviews regarding wages confirm the lower wages in regions of the Slovak Republic lagging behind, as well as the average lower wages for lessqualified work.For example, on the basis of results of regional classification only the Bratislava Region achieved the average gross monthly wage higher than theSlovak-wide average of 1,157 euro, namely by 35.3%. The average monthly wage of employees in the Trnava Region, with a level of 819 euro, came closest toapproximating the average gross monthly wage for the Slovak Republic. Employees earned the lowest average wage of 680 euro in the Preov Region. In the best-earning Bratislava Region half of employees achieved a wage higher than 849 euro, while in the region with the lowest average wage this was 276 euro less than inthe Bratislava Region (according to data from SO SRSelected surveying on the structure of wages in the Slovak Republic for the year 2011 available at:http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50695; but also data from VZPS, EU SILC and the like).

Table 3Overview of net incomes of MRC by representation of working members (in euro)

Sum in euro per household and month Total (100)- from this by working member

0 working (78) 1+ working (22)

Incomes total 597.60 515.59 888.37

v tom: Social incomes total 380.46 417.17 250.32Other incomes total 217.14 98.42 638.05

Incomes total 597.60 515.59 888.37

in this:

Social incomes total 380.46 417.17 250.32

Work incomes total 158.52 52.56 534.19

Income from home production and property 16.19 15.24 19.55

Other incomes gift 8.15 6.72 13.18

Other incomes loans 34.29 23.90 71.14


in this:

Pensions 46.42 44.78 52.23

Family benefits 99.66 102.27 90.40

Health and Health Disabled 4.18 2.92 8.64

Material need 150.33 167.74 88.60Unemployment 0.60 0.77 0.00

Undifferentiated 79.28 98.69 10.45

Other incomes total 217.14 98.42 638.05

in this:

Income from permanent employment 97.27 0.00 442.14

Income from irregular work 61.25 52.56 92.05


Financial or material gift 8.15 6.72 13.18

Loans 34.29 23.90 71.14


21/103

according to the increased numberof children in a household (households witha claim to a benefit in material need are dividedinto only two groups according to the number ofchildren households with up to f ive children andthose with five and more children).

Work activity in the scope of a household doesnot automatically mean that such a householdceases to draw benefits in material need, although

the sum and the share of the benefits andallowances in material need in total incomes withwork activity of household members issignificantly reduced versus households withouta working member. The financial benefit fromwork activity is unable in a large group ofmarginalised households to overcome or removethe situation of material need.

2.3. Incomes by numberof household members

The number of members of a household isgenerally considered to be another significant factowhich differentiates in a principle way the amount oits incomes. How the size and structure of incomeschanges according to the number of membersof a household for marginalised Romacommunities is shown in Tables 6 through 8.

Three groups of households are compared:with 1-2 members, with 3-4 members andwith 5 and more members. Such a method ofpresentation is approached on the basisof previous analyses, which specified the numberof members at which a principle turning point inincomes took place; the size of the total sample wasalso observed.


20

Table 4Overview of net incomes in calculation per member of a MRC household by representation of workingmembers (in euro)

Sum in euro per household per month Total (530)- from this by working member

0 working (425) 1+ working (105)

Incomes total 112.75 94.63 186.14

in this:Social incomes total 71.79 76.56 52.45


Incomes total 112.75 94.63 186.14

in this:


Work incomes total 29.91 9.65 111.93


Other incomes gift 1.54 1.23 2.76

Other incomes loans 6.47 4.39 14.90


in this:

Pensions 8.76 8.22 10.94

Family benefits 18.80 18.77 18.94

Health and Health Disabled 0.79 0.54 1.81Material need 28.36 30.79 18.56

Unemployment 0.11 0.14 0.00

Undifferentiated 14.96 18.11 2.19


in this:

Income from permanent employment 18.35 0.00 92.64

Income from irregular work 11.56 9.65 19.29


Financial or material gift 1.54 1.23 2.76

Loans 6.47 4.39 14.90


22/103

With a growing number of household members thetotal income for the household continually grew.While for a 1-2-member household an average incomeof 482.52 euro was achieved, in households with 3-4members this grew to 526.05 euro and in the case ofhouseholds with 5 and more members to 645.85 euro.Thus, through the lens of total income per householdthe highest incomes came out for the most numeroushouseholds. The calculation per one membersignificantly changes this result, however. The

average of 112.75 euro per one member ofa marginalised Roma household was significantlydifferentiated by household size. Income per memberin the case of 1-2-member households was more thandouble the average at 255.45 euro; for a 3-4-memberhousehold this was reduced to 143.00 euro and withhouseholds of 5 and more members, it ultimatelydropped below 100 euro per member (99.24 euro).

Quantitative research of Roma households from theend of 2010 at the same time indicated than anincome lower than 100 euro per household memberincreases the danger of such households with extremdeprivation, for example, in the form of the absenceof food for children, limitation of the possibility ofcooking and of heating in the household. The averageincome for Roma households which experiencedrepeatedly the mentioned deprivation was on a levelof around 90 euro per member (UNDP, 2012,

pgs. 193-213).

Upon comparison of social and other incomes, sociaincomes came out higher in all three size groups ofhouseholds and did so in calculations per householdas well as in calculations per capita. But thepercentage share of social incomes versus all otherincomes changed: the lowest representation of social

Table 5The share of individual types of incomes in total incomes of MRC households by representationof working members (in %)

% in total of the given group of incomes Total - from this by working member

0 working 1+ working

Incomes total 100.0 100.0 100.0

in this:Social incomes total 63.7% 80.9% 28.2%

Other incomes total 36.3% 19.1% 71.8%

Incomes total 100.0 100.0 100.0

in this:

Social incomes total 63.7% 80.9% 28.2%

Work incomes total 26.5% 10.2% 60.1%

Income from home production and property 2.7% 3.0% 2.2%

Other incomes gift 1.4% 1.3% 1.5%

Other incomes loans 5.7% 4.6% 8.0%


in this:

Pensions 12.2% 10.7% 20.9%

Family benefits 26.2% 24.5% 36.1%

Health and Health Disables 1.1% 0.7% 3.5%Material need 39.5% 40.2% 35.4%

Unemployment 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%

Undifferentiated 20.8% 23.7% 4.1%


in this:

Income from permanent employment 44.8% 0.0% 69.3%

Income from irregular work 28.1% 53.4% 14.4%

Income from home production and property 7.5% 15.5% 3.1%

Financial or material gift 3.8% 6.8% 2.1%

Loans 15.8% 24.3% 11.1%


23/103

incomes occurred in 1-2-member households (51.3%),while in 3-4-member households the share increasedto 56% and with the largest householdswith 5+ members up to 67.3%. Thus, the moremembers of a household, the larger share of social

incomes in total incomes, but expressed in specificsums of social incomes per one member this meant theleast finances per member for the most populatedhouseholds: 67.28 euro of social incomes per memberof the most populated households; 79.94 euro permember of households with 3-4 membersand 131.03 euro per member of households with1-2 members. (With the sum of so-called otherincomes the sum of incomes was reduced for bothindicators per household and also per member with the growing size of the household.)

The volume of totalwork incomes was reduced withthe number of household members with both of themeasures used, in total per household and also incalculation per household member. In the directionfrom the smallest through the largest households thiswas 190 to 183 to 143 euro per household and 101to 50 to 22 euro per one member. With an increasingnumber of household members the percentage shareof total work incomes in all income also dropped:

from 39.5% with 1-2-member household through34.8% with 3-4-member households, to 22.1% withhouseholds having 5 and more members.

In relation to sums of social incomes, with anincreasing number of household members suchincomes gradually increased in total expressions perhousehold; a more principal difference wasexpressed among 3-4-member households andhouseholds with 5+ members. While with1-2-member households the sum of the total social

income per household came out to 247.51 euro andin 3-4-member households 294.06 euro, householdswith 5 and more members achieved 437.86 euro(approx. 150 euro more than in the precedinggroup). But upon tracking incomes calculated per

one member the trend was completely the oppositewith a growing size of the households, social incomper member fell. From the average of 131 euro forthe smallest households to not quite 80 euro withhouseholds with 3-4 members and to 67.28 euro wi

households with 5 and more members. Members ofthe largest households achieved the smallest sum osocial incomes. This is probably connected withsetting of the system of benefits and allowances inmaterial need, when for the basic benefit theamount is continually undefined with an increasingnumber of household members but is insteadsegmented into two levels divided by the number ochildren up to five and 5+ children (aside from thenumber of children, the amount of the benefitdiffered also according to the number of parents for one-parent and two-parent families). Since thesame type of parental household gets the same sumof basic benefit, if it has 5 or 8 children, per onemember the multitude of higher household comesout in the calculation as a smaller sum; otherbenefits, even when they have a universal characteare not able to balance out this basic deficit.

The structure of social incomes was different forthe different number of households: in 1-2-membe

households pensions predominated in social incom(more than 106 euro versus 27 and 46 euro for theother two groups), while in more populoushouseholds benefits in material need predominated(173 and 123 euro versus 75 euro for householdswith 1-2 members). In the scope of total socialincomes the share of material need was lowestfor 1-2-member households, and in the total of sociincomes of the three groups of households it changas follows:16 41.3% in 1-2-member households; in3-4-member households it represented 53.3%, with

5+ member households it decreased to just underone-half of total social incomes to 49.6%. Inrelation to the representation of family benefits intotal incomes, these continually rose with thenumber of members. While for households with


22 16 In calculations per household, which differentiated the individual types of social incomes (n = 83).


24/103

1-2 members family benefits didnt occur at all, with3-4-member households family benefits made up33.5% of all social incomes and for the group ofhouseholds with 5+ members 35.4%. In total for allthree size groups of households the share of benefits

and allowances in material need was higher than theshare of family benefits (41.3% to 0 family benefitsin the case of the smallest households; 53.3% to33.5% in the case of the middle group; and 49.6% to35.4% for the group of the most populoushouseholds).

The classifying size of households versus the sums ofother incomes did not bring any great differences, solong as total sums per household are compared. Forall three size groups of excluded Roma households the

total of other incomes moved just over 200 euro (from235 euro with 1-2-member households through 208euro with 5 and more member households). However,average sums calculated per one member werereduced with the size of the household a great dealmore dramatically: from 124 euro of other incomes for1-2-member households to 63 euro for 3-4-memberhouseholds and 32 euro for householdswith 5+ members. In all three groups work incomesmade up the highest item in the scope of other

incomes, but the ratio of work incomes frompermanent employment and incomes from occasionalwork changed. In 1-2-member households incomesfrom irregular work dominated (165 euro foroccasional work to 26 euro for work from employmentfor one such household; they had a 70% and an 11%share in total other incomes).The remaining two morepopulous groups of households showed a higher sumof work incomes from employment than from irregularwork incomes. With households having 3-4 membersthe share of work incomes from permanent

employment achieved 50% and from irregular work28% of total other incomes; with householdshaving 5+ members this was 47.5% of work incomesfrom permanent employment and 21% from irregularwork. Data suggest that in each comparison of sizegroups of household, nevertheless, there are thosethat have permanent work as well as those that try forimproved income via different occasional jobs.

When seeking answers regarding which householdsborrowed the most in the course of a month, the mostpopulous households came out in first place inaverage sums per household. On average in suchhouseholds a loan in the course of the monitored

month achieved 41 euro, while 1-2-memberhouseholds followed with 29.44 euro and on average3-4-member households borrowed the least (20.71euro). Obviously, the order changed in the calculationof the mentioned sums per household member 1-2 member households borrowed the most perhousehold member. A more telling indicator is whatshare of total monthly income was made up of loans.This was 6.3% for households with 5+ membersand 6.1% in 1-2-member households; for the groupwith 3-4 members it was 3.9%. After exclusion of socialincomes, that is, in the total of other incomes, loansshared the most in the scope of the largest households(nearly 20% of other incomes), followed by householdswith 1-2 members, which had a 12.5-percent share ofloans in total other incomes, and finally householdswith 3-4 members with a not quite 9% share of loans inincomes other than social incomes.

On the basis of the research probe the number ofmembers of a household also significantly

influences the average income of a household.Calculated per household the total sum of incomesincreased with a growing number of members ofexcluded Roma households; however, calculatedper one household member the sum of incomesreceived dropped with the growing size of thehousehold. Households with 5 and more memberswith less than 100 euro per capita, had thesmallest average income per household member.With a growing number of household members themutual ratio of social and other incomes alsochanges in favour of the social.

The same rule growth of the sum of incomes witha growing number of members in the calculationper household and a drop of the sum in thecalculation per member also applies for socialincomes. Members of the largest families thus getper head the least in social incomes.


25/103

The lower share of family benefits found in the totalsocial incomes in comparison with the share ofbenefits and allowances in material need does notconfirm the statement regarding turning childbirthinto a gainful activity, which in public discussionsin Slovakia is regularly repeated.17 The more childrena household has, the less it gets in social incomesper household member; furthermore, the majorityreceive benefits for the poor economic situation thehousehold is living in, not in the form of a familybenefit. Large families have in the calculation perone member less in family benefits and benefits inmaterial need; in percentage expression they receivein the scope of social incomes a smaller volume ofbenefits in material need and only a little more infamily benefits.

Also confirmed was the fact that multiple-memberfamilies aspire to a work income, although it

comes to them in a limited range. At the same timin average expressions, a work income frompermanent employment brings a higher sum tothese households than from occasional work. Butthe amount of incomes from work activities is onaverage for the entire surveyed sample ofhouseholds relatively small.18

In the course of the monitored month household

with 5+ members most resorted to loans, followeby households with 1-2 members. Income in thecourse of the month was not suff icient to cover tneeds of these two groups of excluded householdthe achieved level of income best corresponded fhouseholds with 3-4 members, but even in thescope of these households a portion was foundwhich had to fall back on this strategy of securina living for its household members (although loacan also be used for other reasons).


24

17 From recent public statements we mention, for example, two teachers from East Slovakia (http://janmacek.blog.sme.sk/c/301577/Otvoreny-list-uciteliek-z-vychodneho-Slovenska.html), as well as the Response of the Minister of Education to their open letter, which reproduces and recognises a similar statement(http://www.minedu.sk/index.php?lang=sk&rootId=10632). The Response of the Minister was subsequently reproduced inSlovensk nrodn noviny (Slovak NatioNews), which stated: Minister aplovi also acknowledged the teachers reproof regarding the current poor social work, when some citizens turn childbirthinto a gainful activity. They no longer take care of raising them: Its been forgotten that decency in school, at school facilities, fulfilment of compulsory schoolattendance is a mirror of the family and for not fulfilling these universal human obligations, punishment in the field of stopping of family benefits or socialsupport must follow, concluded the Minister in his response to the social network. (E. Semanco: primn vpove o tvrdej kolskej realite zainkovala).Slovensk nrodn noviny, Tuesday, 21 August 2012; available in the Slovak language at: http://www.snn.sk/index.php/slovensko/829-uprimna-vypoved-o-tvrdskolskej-realite-zaucinkovala).

18 Regarding level of earnings for individual types of work activity, see Chapter 2.7.

Graph 7Comparison of the structure of household incomes by the number of members (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Social incomes total

Work incomes total

Incomes from home

production

Other incomes gifts

Other incomes loans

1-2 members 3-4 members 5+ members

1,6%2,1%

3,0%

51,3%55,9%

67,8%

39,5%34,8%

22,1%

1,5%3,3%

0,7%

6,1%3,9%

6,4%


26/103

Table 6Overview of net incomes in MRC households by number of household members (in euro)

Sum in euro per household and month Total (100)- from this by number of members

1-2 (9) 3-4 (28) 5+ members (63)

Incomes total 597.60 482.52 526.03 645.85

in this: Social income total 380.46 247.51 294.06 437.86Other incomes total 217.14 235.01 231.97 207.99

Incomes total 597.60 482.52 526.03 645.85

in this:

Social income total 380.46 247.51 294.06 437.86

Work incomes total 158.52 190.46 182.74 143.19

Income from home productionand property

16.19 7.78 11.29 19.56

Other incomes gifts 8.15 7.33 17.23 4.22

Other incomes loans 34.29 29.44 20.71 41.02


in this:

Pensions 46.42 106.89 27.50 46.19

Family benefits 99.66 0.00 77.35 123.81

Health and Health Disabled 4.18 0.00 2.96 5.32Material need 150.33 75.29 122.79 173.29

Unemployment 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.95

Undifferentiated 79.28 65.33 63.46 88.30


in this:

Income from permanent employment 97.27 26.00 116.96 98.70

Income from irregular work 61.25 164.46 65.78 44.49

Income from home productionand property

16.19 7.78 11.29 19.56

Financial or material gift 8.15 7.33 17.23 4.22

Loans 34.29 29.44 20.71 41.02

Table 7Overview of net incomes calculated per member of an MRC household by numberof household members (in euro)

Sum in euro per household per month Total (530)- from this by number of members

1-2 (17) 3-4 (103) 5+ members(410)

Incomes total 112.75 255.45 143.00 99.24

in this:Social income total 71.79 131.03 79.94 67.28


Incomes total 112.75 255.45 143.00 99.24

in this:


Work incomes total 29.91 100.83 49.68 22.00Income from home production andproperty

3.05 4.12 3.07 3.01

Other incomes gifts 1.54 3.88 4.68 0.65

Other incomes loans 6.47 15.59 5.63 6.30


in this:

Pensions 8.76 56.59 7.48 7.10

Family benefits 18.80 0.00 21.03 19.02

Health and Health Disabled 0.79 0.00 0.81 0.82


27/103

2.4. Incomes by young children

As it is presented in the introduction of this section,a comparison of incomes (as well as expenditures andconsumption of selected food) was also carried out bythe presence of children in the household. Three

different definitions for children were used youngchildren (before school attendance), school-attending children (attending school from primary uthrough university) and dependent children (youngchildren and school-attending children combined).Tables 9 through 11 show what the presence of youn


26

in this:

Material need 28.36 39.86 33.38 26.63

Unemployment 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15

Undifferentiated 14.96 34.59 17.25 13.57


in this:

Income from permanent employment 18.35 13.76 31.80 15.17

Income from irregular work 11.56 87.07 17.88 6.84

Income from home production andproperty

3.05 4.12 3.07 3.01

Financial or material gift 1.54 3.88 4.68 0.65

Loans 6.47 15.59 5.63 6.30

Table 8Share of individual types of incomes in total incomes of MRC households by numberof household members (in %)

% in total of the given group of incomes Total - from this by number of members

1-2 3-4 5+ membersIncomes total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

in this:Social income total 63.7% 51.3% 55.9% 67.8%

Other incomes total 36.3% 48.7% 44.1% 32.2%

Incomes total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

in this:

Social income total 63.7% 51.3% 55.9% 67.8%

Work incomes total 26.5% 39.5% 34.8% 22.1%


2.7% 1.6% 2.1% 3.0%

Other incomes gifts 1.4% 1.5% 3.3% 0.7%

Other incomes loans 5.7% 6.1% 3.9% 6.4%


in this:

Pensions 12.2% 43.2% 9.4% 10.5%

Family benefits 26.2% 0.0% 26.3% 28.3%

Health and Health Disabled 1.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.2%

Material need 39.5% 30.4% 41.8% 39.6%

Unemployment 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Undifferentiated 20.8% 26.4% 21.5% 20.2%


in this:

Income from permanent employment 44.8% 11.1% 50.4% 47.5%

Income from irregular work 28.1% 70.0% 28.4% 21.4%


7.5% 3.3% 4.9% 9.4%

Financial or material gift 3.8% 3.1% 7.4% 2.0%

Loans 15.8% 12.5% 8.9% 19.7%


28/103

children in the family does to the amount of incomesand their structure.

The presence of a young child in a household (at leastone regardless of their total number) createdbetween the compared two groups of householdsa difference in total income on the level ofapproximately 100 euro. The average total incomeper household for the group without a young child was646.98 euro; for households where at least on youngchild lived, total income was 552.02 euro. Calculatedper member the sum of financial resources wasreduced with the presence of a young child: from142.45 euro in households without such a child to92 euro with 1+ young child.

What radically changed with a young child in ahousehold was the mutual ratio between social andother incomes. While for a household without ayoung child the ratio of social and other incomes wasapproximately equal (342.69 euro to 304.28 euro; inpercentages 53% to 47%), for households with ayoung child the volume of so-called other incomeswas dramatically reduced. Social incomes in suchhouseholds achieved on average 415.32 euro perhousehold and other incomes 136.70 euro perhousehold; in percentages, the ratio of such incomes

was 75.2% of social to 24.8% of other incomes.An even more notable difference appeared betweenhouseholds with a young child and without a youngchild upon comparisons of total work incomes. Theirvolume for the group of households without youngchildren achieved 239.47 euro per household, whilethe average for the group with a young child was only83.79 euro of total work incomes. In the calculationper one member the difference between the comparedgroups was 52.73 euro to 13.97 euro in households

with a young child. The average share of total workincomes in the total household incomes was alsolower for the group without a young child. While itmade up 37% for the group of households withouta young child, in households with a young child it

dropped by more than half to 15.2%. Aside from theincrease in family benefits, with great probability theloss of work incomes associated with parenthood alsohad a share in such a large difference.

The compared groups on the basis of the presence ofa young child showed in relation to social income, noonly an approximately one-quarter difference in theirtotal amount (the sum of social incomes perhousehold was in the group without young children343 euro and in the group with a young child415 euro) but also a difference on the level of onlyabout 5 euro when calculated per capita (75.46 euroof social incomes for the group of households withoutyoung children and 69.22 euro for the group witha young child). Where a huge difference was recorded

however, was the mutual ratio of the amount of familbenefits and benefits and allowances in materialneed. On average for one household without youngchildren, this came out to be not quite 35 euro offamily benefits, and in households with minimally onyoung child this was on average nearly 156 euro perhousehold (the calculation for one member generatedthe sums of 7.62 euro to 26.62 euro). On the otherhand, benefits in material need were higher fora household without young children: 168.86 euro

versus 133.23 euro per household (and 37.18 versus22.20 per household member). The share of familybenefits and material need benefits in total socialincomes19 then came out notable different betweenthe compared groups. While for households withoutyoung children family benefits obtained only 14.1%and benefits in material need 68.9%, the average forthe group with 1 and more young children was45.2% for family benefits and 37.7% of benefitsin material need.

At the same time, here it is necessary to underline thefact that representation of these two state benefitswas for both groups found to be completely identical family benefits and benefits in material need togetheformed 83% of all social incomes; only their structure

19 In calculations for those household which differentiated individual types of social incomes (n = 83).


29/103

in terms of the mutual proportions was different.However, in relation to the state budget, since in bothcases state benefits and not insurance benefits areinvolved, the situation is the same (and the sums forthe total family benefits and material need benefit are

also approximately equal per household member).On the basis of social incomes only the mutual ratio ofthese two type of benefits changed; the volume ofstate benefits per capita remained the same (onlythey are paid out either from the budget item of statefamily benefits or from the budge for materialneed benefits).20

Afterward, only 17% of social incomes remained inboth compared groups for other benefits andallowances, and from this the majority in bot

incomes, expenditures and consumption of households in marginalized roma settlements

Documents