http://europeandcis.undp.

org/ourwork/roma/

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Published by UNDP Europe and the CIS, Bratislava Regional Centre

In cooperation with the Institute for 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 2013 ISBN: 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 otherwise prior 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 correspond unconditionally with the official position of the United Nations Development Program.

Author of the report is: Jarmila Filadelfiová

Field research was conducted by a team of researchers of IVO: Jarmila Filadelfiová, Oľga Gyárfášová, Martina Sekulová, Ján Bartoš Statistical consultations and assistance with data computing provided Ján Vittek In the preparation of the methodology, field work and elaboration of the report cooperated Daniel Škobla The following provided expert reflections and remarks on the text: Jan Grill, Silvia Porubänová, Marek Szilvási The broader research plan was discussed among the UNDP team, consisting of: Andrey Ivanov, Jaroslav Kling, Ben Slay, Daniel Škobla

Thank you to the following people for their help with data collection: Alena Adamková, Štefan Babindák, Adrian Berky, Magda Berkyová, Barbora Bučková, Ján Čekeľ, Ľubica Čillagová, Mária Demeová, Peter Dobrík, Eva Doktorová, Ladislav Duda, Igor Dužda, Valéria Džmurová, Slavomír Gajdoš, Peter Gonda, Peter Gomolák, Iva Grejtáková, Irma Horváthová, Monika Horváthová, Karol Horváth, Ivan Horváth, Zlatuše Kančiová, Štefan Kiss, Zuzana Kollárová, Janette Knapeková, Ingrid Kosová, Erika Kušická, Anna Oláhová, Marie Oláhová, Tomáš Palenčár, Natália Príhodová, Dana Pustulková, Vladimír Sendrei, Monika Sendreiová, Juraj Štofej, Marián Trišč, Tereza Weizerová

3

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

CONTENTS
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................................................6

1. COMPOSITION OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALISED ROMA SETTLEMENT BY BASIC CLASSIFYING ATTRIBUTES .............................................................................................................................................8

2. SIZE, STRUCTURE AND DIFFERENTIATION OF INCOMES OF MARGINALISED ROMA HOUSEHOLDS .........................13 2.1. Total incomes by type – sums and proportions ...............................................................................................................13 2.2. Incomes by working member of a household ...................................................................................................................17 2.3. Incomes by number of household members.....................................................................................................................20 2.4. Incomes by young children ...................................................................................................................................................26 2.5. Incomes by school-attending children ..............................................................................................................................31 2.6. Incomes by dependent children together.........................................................................................................................34 2.7. Range of receiving and amounts of incomes by kind and by type of housing ........................................................38 2.8. Summary of the income situation .......................................................................................................................................42

3. OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES OF MARGINALISED HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE ....................................................................44 3.1. Total expenditures – sums and proportions .....................................................................................................................44 3.2. Expenditures by working member of a household ..........................................................................................................47 3.3. Expenditures by number of members of a household....................................................................................................50 3.4. Expenditures by young children...........................................................................................................................................53 3.5. Expenditures by school-attending children .....................................................................................................................56 3.6. Expenditures by total dependent children .......................................................................................................................59 3.7. Range of expenditure and amounts of expenditures by kind and by type of housing .........................................61 3.8. Summary of the expenditures situation ............................................................................................................................68

4. INCOMES VERSUS EXPENDITURES ...............................................................................................................................................70 4.1. Differences in incomes and expenditures – summary ...................................................................................................70 4.2. Differences in incomes and expenditures by household structure ...........................................................................72 4.3. Drawing of incomes in the course of a month ..................................................................................................................74

4

4.4. Summary for a comparison of incomes and expenditures ...........................................................................................79

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

5

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

SUMMARY
The determined sum of net incomes of Roma households from marginalised settlements calculated per month comes out as low per household as it does in the calculation per one member. The framework Slovakia-wide averages of individual incomes or wage thresholds valid around the time when the empirical survey was conducted indicate that incomes in excluded settlements move below average sums and in the majority of cases beneath the standardised levels for poverty risk. Although with some groups of households the volume of financial resources on the income side is increasing, for example, with multi-member households or households with school-attending or dependent children together, after calculations per one household member, fewer financial resources actually emerged. The one exception was households with a working member or members, where income came out higher in total amount per household as well as in calculations per one member of a household. Work incomes improve total household income in a significant way; on the other hand, they are rather rare in the surveyed environment (low employment) and work payments coming into this environment are on a low level (on average low work incomes from employment are deeply below the average wage of an employee in the Slovak Republic). Despite the small expansion of work incomes in the surveyed environments (usually irregular) and the average low pay for work, work incomes in a noticeable way signal an improvement in the life situation of the surveyed excluded households. At the same time, however, this points to the very low life standard of households without a working member. Their family budget is one work income lower, in most cases involuntarily, than appeared in the scope of the survey of situational accounts, where the possibilities to find employment were ranked among the most frequent desires for a family and more work opportunities among the common wishes. Social benefits are decidedly unable to balance or top up this deficit. The result is that members of Roma households without work incomes have significantly fewer financial resources for their own consumption. The limitation in consumption was found to be enormous with some households. They had to fully forego the majority of so-called higher needs, to limit many standard necessities to a minimal measure and even for those most basic needs only a limited sum of financial resources remain available to them – at least according to the determined volume of expenditures. The share of expenditures for basic needs, such as food and housing, recorded the highest of all expenditures in households with the lowest incomes. This means that excluded Roma households with the lowest incomes on average spent from available sums of financial resources the largest part of their total expendable resources on food and housing (most of the money which they spent during a month, they spent on food and fees for housing). But at the same time it is necessary to remark that even in households with a better income position it’s not possible to talk about a “good” situation; their position always came out on a low level in framework comparisons with the Slovak-wide averages. In the overall weak economic environment of marginalised Roma settlements households with poor economic status are even more undersized in consumption. The range of individual sums expended in the course of a month was relatively narrow; if the extreme values of expenditures caused by an exceptional situation are not considered, there were no principal differences between average sums expended for individual types of expenditures. Empirical data thus indicates that a large group of the surveyed households go “all out”: they eliminated abovestandard and limited standard expenditures, and they try to cover the most fundamental ones, if possible.

6

A comparison of the level of incomes and expenditures showed that budgets are almost balanced; if some households in the course of the month do not borrow, they are unable to cover the needs of household members. Without loans budgets ended in a minus, and this more often affected households without a working member and those with a young child or children. The deficit in incomes with great probability is offset by dining strategies focused on less quality

and healthy foods and by replacement of basic foods by “from-scratch” types of meals. Monitoring the consumption of selected foods indicated the very low consumption of fruits and vegetables (with the exception of potatoes) and above-standard consumption of flour and pasta. With alternative types of foods, the healthier variants were found only in minimal amounts; cheaper and less quality alternatives predominated.

7

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

1. COMPOSITION OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS FROM MARGINALISED ROMA SETTLEMENT BY BASIC CLASSIFYING ATTRIBUTES
One part of the extensive research activities carried out within this project was the surveying of incomes and expenditures as well as the consumption of selected foods in households living in excluded Roma settlements. This research activity linked directly to quantitative research of Roma households (end of 2010), which did not manage to capture the detailed structure of incomes and expenditures in the desired period. Quantitative research of the census type, which attempts to capture a broad circle of dimensions for a household and its individual members (it mapped all together nine broad modules – demographic characteristics, mother tongue and common language of communication, migration and exclusion related to housing, housing and household furnishings, health status and accessibility of health care, education and expenditures on education, exclusion from the labour market, life level and extreme deprivation) and is carried out with the help of standard agency surveyors not close to the surveyed environment and furthermore it is a one-time survey; it is not able to record incomes and expenditures in their entire structure and details for analytical purposes. Respondents as a rule present an approximate estimate of the basic group of incomes for the month in which the “realness” or truthfulness cannot be checked; and to supplement the already exceptionally vast quantitative research by expenditures would exceed the capacity of the survey.1 Therefore, in meetings among experts alternative solutions were sought after which would be capable of capturing the most detailed structure of individual incomes as possible and at the same time bring information about the basic types of expenditures as well as information on strategies of handling incomes. In discussions2 the form of this empirical probe began to gradually take shape. The necessity to capture the structure of incomes and expenditures was repeatedly stated, and emphasis was also placed on consumption of basic commodities falling into a fundamental food basket as well as on their quantitative comparison with so-called healthy alternatives. In the final stage the research probe acquired the form of empirical mapping of monthly incomes and expenditures: each day during one month all incomes and expenditures of a household were recorded into a form in euro. In order to eliminate monthly particularities, it was decided to collect data for two months, not one (the choice fell on August and September – one holiday and one “school” month). Trained researchers who were generated on the “snowball principle” from the vicinity of excluded Roma communities helped the selected households with record-keeping (these were predominately field social workers or residents of excluded settlements). The researchers visited the selected households several times a month and recorded together with them the requested data. During the absence of a researcher the head of the household saved up receipts or recorded incomes and payments into the provided logbook, or recollected the actual movements of money with the help of an assistant. Such a process of data collection should have avoided the distortion of data tabulated from all the surveys regarding incomes, especially with whole-month

1

8

2

What’s more, we note that from standard statistical surveys devoted to the structure of incomes and expenditures a specific group of residents of marginalised Roma communities cannot be generated – due to insufficent empirical fulfilment of such units of the research. 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.

estimates or whole-month recollections; at the same time it reduced the chance of presenting incorrect data, because the distribution of the resulting information to a number of partial incomes and expenditures, we assume, reduces the chance for deliberate misrepresentation. The research sample for mapping incomes and expenditures (and of selected consumption of foods) was made up of Roma households living in excluded settlements of a different type – in segregated settlements, settlements separated on the edge of a village or concentrated within a town or village. At the same time, the rule was set that only one household 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 households per researcher was set in order to eliminate the effect of stereotyping of data recording or duplicity of households. Researchers could work maximally with two households in the course of a month; thus, the number of questionnaires per one assistant was at most four (two in August and two in September). Since this empirical probe involved exceptionally complicated questioning, the majority of assistants did not use the maximum number of opportunities. The average number of households per one assistant was 3 questionnaires, while some worked only with one household and other with four households distributed over time. The number of units was set arbitrarily at 100 households. Such a range for the research sample was derived from several assumptions and was at the same time supported by a quantitative estimate. The first assumption was the relative homogeneity of the environment on which the research probe focused – separated Roma settlements. The differences between units in excluded environments are smaller than the

differences between the households of the general population. The second assumption rested on the consideration that fewer extreme cases can also be found in excluded environments than in the total population without limitation to excluded communities.3 Both assumptions were ultimately confirmed by qualitative research of Roma households which was the first empirical research activity carried out in the project.4 The quantitative estimate of the sample size was derived from the following facts: statistical surveys of household incomes and expenditures (so-called family accounts) are carried out in 6,143 randomly selected households from a total number of more than 2 million households in the Slovak Republic, which represents just under 0.3%. The Roma population according to the most recent estimates moves on the level of 380 thousand (Vaňo 2001, 2002); under the assumption that approximately half of all Roma live diffused, we get 190 thousand residents from excluded settlements. With an average number of five members per household (UNDP, 2012) we get an estimated number of 38 thousand excluded households. The number of 100 household thus makes up approximately the same share as in the case of the general survey of family accounts. What’s more, 100 households in homogeneous environments create a good foundation for simplified statistical calculations. On the basis of quantitative research of Roma households from 2010 (UNDP, 2012) two quota attributes were set for selection of households into this empirical probe, namely the presence of a working member in the family (the quota was set at a ratio of 20 households with a working member to 80 households without a working member) and the number of dependent children in a household (0 children - 20%; 1-2 children - 33%; 3-4 children 27% and 5+ children - 20%). Each of the researchers received a breakdown of their households on the basis

3 4

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. 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 repeatedly confirmed and with different indicators that Roma households living diffused had a better economic and social situation (UNDP, 2012).

9

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

of these two quotas, which he or she had to select in their surroundings in excluded settlements. In order to avoid overlapping, the researchers immediately in the scope of training had to declare the names of the villages where they are carrying out a visit to a settlement. The determined proportions managed to be approximately achieved in the survey.5 The region was also observed during the selection of households, although this attribute was not among the quotas set. The highest share fell into the East Slovakia region (more than 60%), followed by Central Slovakia (up to 30%) and the smallest share of households was in the West Slovakia region (around 10%). The majority of the data collection ran in the months of August and September, as was planned, while in October only the supplementing of missing households according to the region and number of children took place. In the end result, data was collected from 103 households, and three questionnaires from the processing of incomes and expenditures were excluded.6 Exactly 100 households representing excluded Roma settlements of a different type were then included in the subsequent analysis of incomes, expenditures and the selected consumption of goods in the form of a food basket. The final 100 households which were included in the analysis of incomes and expenditures were differentiated not only according to basic quota attributes but also on the basis of other classifying characteristics. The parameters set managed to be approximately observed according to the distribution in geographic space of Slovakia, the only difference versus the planned proportion being the moderately above-standard East Slovakia at the expense of the western part of the territory. The total sample of Roma households representing excluded settlements consisted of 63 units falling into the East Slovakia

Graph 1 Composition of the sample of 100 Roma households by region

6

31

East Slovakia Central Slovakia
63

West Slovakia

Note: The planned shares for regional coverage were: more than 60% East Slovakia, Central Slovakia over 30%, West Slovakia around 10%. The final result depended to a significant measure also on where adequate assistants could be found and trained. Regarding the work of field social workers, the least amount of information came from West Slovakia.

region, 31 representing Central Slovakia and 6 households representing West Slovakia (Graph 1). The quota for representation of households with a working member and without a working member in the end managed to be completely fulfilled. As Graph 2 shows, in the analysed sample of 100 Roma households from excluded settlements, the share of households 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 working member, 5 with two working members and only 1 household with three working members. According to the level of spatial segregation of housing settlements, if it’s even possible to refer here

5

10

6

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 from the selection on the basis of the changed situation – therefore, only approximate fulfillment of the quota indicators. The differences, however, were not very large. 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.

to “levels” (it is perhaps difficult namely to express the distance between individual types of housing on a continuum), the sample of 100 analysed households was distributed relatively evenly. Researchers assigned settlements to the individual types of settlements, and on the basis of their statements 29 households were from segregated settlements, 38 from separated settlements on the edge of villages and 33 households belonging to local habitations in concentrated settlements within a village (Graph 3). For this characteristic, however, no exact quota was set; in the scope of training the assistants only received general information about what is considered as an excluded settlement and what type of settlement may be involved.7 An important characteristic which is further often used with analysis of incomes and expenditures was

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

29 33

segregated settlements separated settlements on the edge of a village concentrated within a village

38

Graph 2 Composition of the sample of 100 Roma households by number of working members
1

Note: For this attribute no quota was determined during the selection of households. The preceding quantitative research of the living conditions of Roma households selected for the purpose of strengthening the possibilities of mutual comparison for each type of housing an equal number of households; therefore, it was unable to gauge the share of Roma households representing the individual types of housing.

5

16

0 members 1 member 2 members 3 members
78

the size of the household, that is, the real number of persons making up the household. The count ranged from 1 to 19 members of a household in one dwelling (Graph 4). For the purpose of analysis of incomes and expenditures, the number of members was recategorised into three groups: households with 1-2 members (9 households), with 3-4 members (28 households) and with the average 5 members and more (63 surveyed households). The number of children living in a household in the empirical probe was specified in a different way. In analyses the number of young children, i.e. children of a preschool age, is used in part. According to this indicator 48 households did not have even one such child, 25 of the surveyed households had one young

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

7

Researchers assigned the visited settlements to individual types of housing by subjective consideration; they didn’t have exactly determined and specified criteria for classification available.

11

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Graph 4 Composition of the sample of 100 Roma households by number of members
1

31 households without such a child and 69 households with such a child. The most frequent were households with one or two children attending school. Some surveyed households had only young children or only school-attending children, but the majority of them had children in both categories. For analytical purposes, therefore, the total number of all dependent children in a household was also used. A total of 13 surveyed households were without a dependent child and 87 had at least one dependent child. Households with 2 and 3 dependent children (25 and 26 households, respectively) had the highest representation, while 13 households had 4 dependent children and 14 households had 5 and more. During the analysis of incomes, expenditures and consumption of selected foods, attributes representing the makeup and size of households, such as the total number of members and working members in a household and the number of young, schoolattending or dependent children, were primarily used.8 In view of the size of the sample, the classification of households into two groups – without a child and with one or more children of the given definition – was most commonly used. Only the total number of household members is classified into three groups: households consisting of 1-2 members, of 34 members and of 5 or more members.

1 member
5 6 9 8

2 members 3 members 4 members 5 members
19

17

6 members 7 members 8 members

11

24

9 a or more members

child, 16 households had two young children and in 11 households there were three and more young children (Table 1). Another classifying attribute was the presence of school-attending children among members of the household. The composition of the sample of households on the basis of school-attending children – those who attended primary school or a higher degree of education – was differentiated into

Table 1 Composition of the sample of 100 Roma households by number of children
0 children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 and more children Total Young children 48 25 16 9 1 1 100 School-attending children 31 13 24 21 7 4 100 Dependent children total 13 9 25 26 13 14 100

12

8

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

2. SIZE, STRUCTURE AND DIFFERENTIATION OF INCOMES OF MARGINALISED ROMA HOUSEHOLDS
As is presented above, incomes in the selected households were surveyed for one entire month; on the relevant day when the household obtained the given income, its amount was written in net form (how much they got “in hand”) into a logbook. They were monitored in segments according to individual types; together there were 16 types – seven social and nine other incomes. With social incomes the following types were listed independently: pensions, family benefits and allowances, one-time family allowances, healthcare benefits, benefits for the health disabled, unemployment benefits and benefits and allowances in material need.9 Other incomes were recorded in these segments: work income from permanent employment, irregular work incomes, incomes from property, child maintenance payments, financial gift, material gift, incomes from home production, other incomes and finally loans. During the final processing some incomes were excluded, since they did not occur at all or only in a minimal number. Thus, one-time family allowances were classified under the category of family benefits; health benefits were combined with the allowance for the health disabled, incomes from property and home production and financial and material gift were also combined, while child maintenance payments did not occur at all in the survey. In the final processing, then, five types of social and five types of work incomes are listed in the tables.

2.1. Total incomes by type – sums and proportions
In the average formulation the total income for one surveyed marginalised Roma household came out to be 597.60 euro and calculated per one member of the household this represented 112.75 euro.10 At the same time social incomes made up 63.7% of total income and the remaining 36.3% fell to other incomes (Table 2). In the structure of incomes of households from excluded settlements, then, social incomes predominate: the share of social and other incomes represented two-thirds to one-third. In comparison with incomes for the whole population of the Slovak Republic11 according to family accounts for the year 2010 (Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (SO SR), 2011) the listed level of incomes of excluded households is significantly lower and their basic composition different. Average incomes per person for the surveyed Roma households were about twothirds smaller (112.75 to 348.95 euro), and the ratio of social and other incomes, which was for the entire population of the Slovak Republic almost exactly opposite (31.9% social to 68.1% of other incomes), also differed. Representation of work incomes in total incomes was for excluded Roma households rather low, which corresponds with the high measure of unemployment

9

10

11

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 there were 17 households with undifferentiated social incomes. The structure of social incomes was not monitored up to the level of individual types of family benefits and allowances in material need. Their receipt is precisely recorded in the database of benefit recipients (administratíve data of the Central Office of Work, Social Affairs and Family); through improved analytical possibilities of work with this database, which is being worked on, information will be available regarding different types of benefit recipients in an exhausting format. Another reason for not specifying individual benefits and allowances was the already high demands of field work data collection (the specification of receipt by days in the month). The third reason for resigning the detailed structure of benefits and allowances for support of the family and households in material need was the repeated experience from empirical surveys that respondents from excluded settlements only in a smaller range are able to differentiate and correctly name the individual elements of social incomes for family support and in material need. For context we mention that in 2010 (the last available year at the time of processing the report) the median of equivalent available income per person and month, which is 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% of median 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 were the 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. 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 emphasised that comparison with all households in the Slovak Republic is only orientational for approximating the framework of individual sums; a direct comparison is not possible given the different type of surveying.

13

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

found in this environment (UNDP, 2012). Total work incomes (from employment and also irregular incomes) achieved on average 158.52 euro per household, which in the calculation per one member made up not quite 30 euro and as a percentage 26.5% of total incomes. Thus, only 9.8% fell into the remaining types of incomes – without social and work incomes. Loans (with 5.2%) had the highest share of these, while incomes from home production and property and gifts shared only 2.7% and 1.4% in total incomes. A look at the internal structure of social incomes indicates that for excluded Roma households benefits and allowances for material need obtained the highest weight. On average for one household this was 150.33 euro from a total of 380.46 euro from social incomes (in calculations per one member 28.36 euro from the total of social incomes per member); in percentage expression this represented 39.5% of the total sum of social incomes and 25.2% of total income. Family benefits were ranked in the second place from the viewpoint of financial volume also on the basis of share in total incomes. For one excluded household this came out to be on average 99.66 euro of family benefits, which meant 18.80 euro per one member of a household. The share of family benefits in total social incomes thus achieved 26.2% and in total incomes 16.7%. In the structure of social incomes presented in the table, however, so-called “undifferentiated incomes” made up more than 20%; that is, social incomes are listed only in aggregate form if the household was unable to differentiate the individual items of social incomes.12 The shares of the material need and family benefits calculated only for households which differentiated social incomes were in this case 10% and 7% higher, respectively, but their mutual proportion was preserved – material need achieved a higher share in social incomes than did family

benefits. Specifically, benefits in material need represented 49.9% of total social incomes and family benefits 33.1%. Together they amounted to 83% of all social incomes, while the remaining social benefits and allowances represented only 17%. From this, 15.4% were made up of pensions and only 1.6% unemployment benefits and healthcare benefits or health disabled allowances. In general households in Slovakia the structure of social incomes (for year 2010) was completely different, with the largest volume represented by pensions (77.4% of total social incomes), and then, well behind, family benefits (14.3%); only 8.3% were made up of other social incomes. In the calculation per one household member pensions for households in surveyed marginalised Roma settlements represented only 8.76 euro, while the average for the Slovak Republic was 86.16 euro. Such a large difference did not occur with family benefits: the average per one member achieved for the surveyed households 18.80 euro and for the entire Slovak Republic 15.92 euro. A higher sum on the side of marginalised Roma households was found with benefits in material need (28.36 euro to 2.66 euro per member), while the remaining two benefits showed a higher sum for the general population; in the surveyed sample these were on the level of 1 euro per member and less (sickness and unemployment benefits). The sum of other incomes, that is, of other than social incomes, achieved on average for the surveyed Roma households 217.14 euro per household and not quite 41 euro per household member. In the framework of these incomes the highest item was incomes from permanent employment (nearly 45%) and incomes from irregular work (more than 28%). However, this was not a high financial item expressed in euro: the average income from permanent employment did not achieve even 100 euro per one surveyed household

12

14

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

(18.35 calculated per member) and income from irregular work moderately surpassed 61 euro (11.56 euro per member). While work incomes made up 26.5% of total income, in the scope of the total sum of other incomes (other than social incomes) they formed, even at their low financial level, nearly 73%. Additional components of other incomes were incomes from home production and property and gifts, but their amounts made up only a small part of the remaining 27% of other incomes (7.5% and 3.8%). Loans made up the third largest item (15.8%) in them, which indicates that many of the surveyed Roma households from the excluded environment had in the course of the month to secure financial resources in this way. A loan per one surveyed household achieved for one month 34.29 euro, and in the calculation per household member the sum for loans was 6.47 euro (nearly 6% of total income). • Research data collected in the scope of the empirical probe indicated that incomes of marginalised Roma household are decidedly not high, and in the context of the legally defined sum of life minimums or in the context of thresholds set for poverty risk, they end up rather below average (compare with the sums in note 9). • Another demonstrable fact is the significantly higher representation of social incomes in the total incomes of the surveyed excluded households, by which in them the share of the benefit in material need exceeded financial income from benefits and allowances for support of the family. According to the results of the empirical probe households from marginalised Roma settlement receive in the scope of social assistance in the largest volume state social benefits intended for cases of an unfavourable economic situation (households found in material need), while a smaller volume of financial resources fell under state benefits intended for aid to families.

Graph 5 Structure of household incomes by type (in %)
1,4 5,7 2,7

Social incomes total Work incomes total

26,5

Income from home production
63,7

Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans

• Social insurance benefits, including pensions, were only minimally represented in the structure of incomes of the surveyed households. The share of pensions in the total social incomes can be evaluated as low or very low, while unemployment allowances and health benefits occurred in only a minimal measure. During discussions on the abuse of the social system by Roma households, which in the public sphere in Slovakia are not at all unusual,13 this flip side of the coin is often neglected: the minimal or no participation of excluded Roma households in sources from pensions and sickness provisions and in provisions for cases of unemployment are simply not talked about. • The verbal expression “abusing of benefits” does not stand up on the basis of the obtained data even in a different sense. The average amount of benefits in the calculation per household and per individual was not even high in the surveyed environments. 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 public declaration (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...).

15

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 2 Overview of total net monthly incomes of marginalised Roma community (MRC) households by type and in different forms – compared with all households in the Slovak Republic (in euro and in %)
Sum per household (in euro) Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total in this: Incomes from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Social incomes total Pensions – total Family benefits Sick pay and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total 597.60 380.46 217.14 597.60 380.46 158.52 16.19 8.15 34.29 380.46 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 79.28 217.14 97.27 61.25 16.19 8.15 34.29 Sum per 1 member (in euro) 112.75 71.79 40.97 112.75 71.79 29.91 3.05 1.54 6.47 71.79 8.76 18.80 0.79 28.36 0.11 14.96 40.97 18.35 11.56 3.05 1.54 6.47 % of total income 100.0 63.7% 36.3% 100.0 63.7% 26.5% 2.7% 18,13 1.4% 5.7% 100.0 12.2% 26.2% 1.1% 39.5% 0.2% 20.8% 100.0 44.8% 28.1% 7.5% 3.8% 15.8% Calculation for Slovak Republic 2010 (euro/member) 348.95 111.33 237.62 348.95 111.33 219.49

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

111.33 86.16 15.92 2.70 2.66/4.14* 2.41 237.62 1.40

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

member the surveyed households from marginalised Roma settlements showed 71.79 of social incomes, for the Slovak Republic as a whole for the year preceding this empirical survey, this was 111.33 euro. The social incomes of the surveyed Roma households ended up in the calculation per capita to be on average lower than the average for all of Slovakia.

representation of loans for the monthly incomes of these households, which achieved nearly 6% of their overall monthly income. • The work incomes of the surveyed households came out, unlike those from general households, in minority positions – on average they only moderately exceeded one-quarter of total income (for the whole of the Slovak Republic work incomes in 2010 exceeded three-fifths of total incomes). The huge range and forms of exclusion from the

16

• The probe into incomes in marginalised Roma settlements indicated a relatively high measure of

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

2.2. Incomes by working member of a household
The report on the living conditions of Roma households noted in several places the strong impact that the work commitment of household members has on their level of living. Households with a working member, or with work experience from abroad, experienced significantly less material (extreme) deprivation; the quality of their housing and household furnishings was improved, and they looked more optimistically on their future and better evaluated their living situation (UNDP, 2012). The realised mapping of incomes of Roma households from excluded settlements confirmed the significant increasing of overall income with the work commitment of some household members, equally as well as the different wage structure of the two groups of households separated by work activity (Tables 3 through 5). The average total income for marginalised Roma households in which at least one member worked in comparison with households without a working member was increased by 272.78 euro per household: from 515.59 euro to 888.37 euro. With the figure per one member the difference in total income was nearly double: 94.63 euro for the group without a working member to 186.14 euro for the group with one. Households with a working member otherwise had on average significantly lower social incomes (250.32 euro versus 417.17 euro for the group without a working member), but the decisive difference was recorded with the total of other incomes. These in calculations per one household increased from 98.42 euro for households without a working member up to 638.05 euro for households with a working

member. In the calculation per capita the difference in total social incomes between households without a working member and those with a working member was 76.56 euro versus 52.45 euro; for the total of other incomes this came out the opposite: 18.06 euro per group without a working member versus 133.69 euro for the group with one. In percentage form the ratio of the sum of social and other incomes was for households without a working member 81% to 19%, while for household with a working member this was turned around: 28% of social to 72% of other incomes. Since the classifying attribute is in this case the presence of work activity in the household, upon comparison the relatively dramatic growth in work incomes in households having one or several working members is not surprising. While the figure per one household without a working member was 52.56 euro of work incomes (exclusively incomes from irregular work), for households with a working member this was 10-times more (total work income per household was 534.19 euro). When expressing total work income per one member the sum was 9.65 euro in the absence of work activity versus 111.93 euro in households with a working member. The total work income had a 10% share in total incomes in the case of households without a working member, and in households with a working member made up 60%. The lower total sum of social incomes in households with a working member versus those without a working member was primarily the result of the lower benefits and allowances in material need; in the calculation per household member the difference was 30.79 euro versus 18.56 euro. Family benefits namely remained in both groups on approximately the same level – not quite 19 euro per one household member. In households without a working member the share of the material need benefit in total social incomes14 was significantly higher than the share of family benefits (52.6% versus 32.1%), while for

14

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

17

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

households with a working member the representation of both types of state support was balanced (36.9% material need and 37.7% family benefits). With a working member in the household not only does the mutual proportion of social and other (other than social) incomes change significantly, but also the internal structure of other incomes. From a comparison of their structure, it follows that aside from the “growing” of the work income from permanent employment on the side of households with a working member, these also had a higher sum of work incomes from irregular work. On average this involved a sum of 19.29 euro per member, while the group of households without a working member had not quite 10 euro of incomes per member from irregular work. Despite the two-times lower sum of work incomes from irregular work in households without a working member, in the total structure of other incomes expressed in percentages they made up more than half of other incomes (53.4%). Households with a working member at the same time had higher financial volumes for all remaining types of other incomes. They recorded higher incomes from home production and property, received more gifts and also borrowed more in the course of the month. While for a household without a working member loans in the course of a months were 23.90 euro per household and 4.39 euro for one member of the household, for the group of households with a working member this

was 71.14 euro per household and 14.90 euro per member (approximately 3-times more). In the course of a month, then, both compared groups or Roma households borrowed, but the amount of the loans was on average higher for households with a working member. But the share of loans in the scope of all other incomes came out higher for households without a working member – more than 24.3%; more than 15% was made up of gifts, and incomes from home production and property made up not quite 7%. For a household with a working member work incomes from permanent employment made up nearly 70% of total other incomes and work incomes from irregular work 14.4% (together work incomes were 83.7% of other incomes); loans in them in the course of a month achieved a share of 11% of other incomes; the remaining 5% was the total for gifts and incomes from home production and property. • Empirical data confirmed that even in environments of excluded Roma settlements work activity increases in a significant way the total income of a household and does so in overall expression per household as well as in the calculation per one member. • However, even the presence of a working member in excluded households is not enough to approach the average incomes for the Slovak Republic, ultimately even in comparison with data

Graph 6 Comparison of the structure of incomes of households by a working member (in %)
0 10 20 30 28,2% 10,2% 3,0% 2,2% 1,3% 1,5% 4,6% 8,0% 60,1% 40 50 60 70 80 80,9% 90 100

Social incomes total Work incomes total Incomes from home production Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans

18

working members

1+ working members

Table 3 Overview of net incomes of MRC by representation of working members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Incomes total v tom: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes – gift Other incomes – loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (100) 597.60 380.46 217.14 597.60 380.46 158.52 16.19 8.15 34.29 380.46 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 79.28 217.14 97.27 61.25 16.19 8.15 34.29 - from this by working member 0 working (78) 1+ working (22) 515.59 888.37 417.17 250.32 98.42 638.05 515.59 888.37 417.17 250.32 52.56 534.19 15.24 19.55 6.72 13.18 23.90 71.14 417.17 250.32 44.78 52.23 102.27 90.40 2.92 8.64 167.74 88.60 0.77 0.00 98.69 10.45 98.42 638.05 0.00 442.14 52.56 92.05 15.24 19.55 6.72 13.18 23.90 71.14

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

from the preceding year. In calculations per one member of a household total incomes for excluded Roma households was still almost twotimes smaller (186.14 euro for the group of Roma households with a working member versus 348.95 euro for all of the Slovak Republic in 2010). • The different composition of Roma households has a decidedly strong impact on the result – the calculating of total income for a larger number of members of Roma households lowers the sum per individual. Comparing the sums for individual

types of incomes and their internal structure, however, indicates that the reasons for income lagging behind the Slovak-wide average in the surveyed household will also be found elsewhere: as is presented in the previous chapter 2.2.1, primarily in those excluded from incomes from permanent employment and probably also in the lower average earnings in view of the geographic distribution of marginalised households in the territory of Slovak Republic and the education and qualification structure of this part of the labour force;15 and as is shown further, also in stopping the 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 less qualified work.For example, on the basis of results of regional classification only the Bratislava Region achieved the average gross monthly wage higher than the Slovak-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 to approximating the average gross monthly wage for the Slovak Republic. Employees earned the lowest average wage of 680 euro in the Prešov Region. In the bestearning 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 in the Bratislava Region (according to data from SO SR Selected 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).

19

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 4 Overview of net incomes in calculation per member of a MRC household by representation of working members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes – gift Other incomes – loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (530) 112.75 71.79 40.97 112.75 71.79 29.91 3.05 1.54 6.47 71.79 8.76 18.80 0.79 28.36 0.11 14.96 40.97 18.35 11.56 3.05 1.54 6.47 - from this by working member 0 working (425) 1+ working (105) 94.63 186.14 76.56 52.45 18.06 133.69 94.63 186.14 76.56 52.45 9.65 111.93 2.80 4.10 1.23 2.76 4.39 14.90 76.56 52.45 8.22 10.94 18.77 18.94 0.54 1.81 30.79 18.56 0.14 0.00 18.11 2.19 18.06 133.69 0.00 92.64 9.65 19.29 2.80 4.10 1.23 2.76 4.39 14.90

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

according to the increased number of children in a household (households with a claim to a benefit in material need are divided into only two groups according to the number of children – households with up to five children and those with five and more children). • Work activity in the scope of a household does not automatically mean that such a household ceases to draw benefits in material need, although the sum and the share of the benefits and allowances in material need in total incomes with work activity of household members is significantly reduced versus households without a working member. The financial “benefit” from work activity is unable in a large group of marginalised households to overcome or remove the situation of material need.

2.3. Incomes by number of household members
The number of members of a household is generally considered to be another significant factor which differentiates in a principle way the amount of its incomes. How the size and structure of incomes changes according to the number of members of a household for marginalised Roma communities is shown in Tables 6 through 8. Three groups of households are compared: with 1-2 members, with 3-4 members and with 5 and more members. Such a method of presentation is approached on the basis of previous analyses, which specified the number of members at which a principle turning point in incomes took place; the size of the total sample was also observed.

20

Table 5 The share of individual types of incomes in total incomes of MRC households by representation of working members (in %)
% in total of the given group of incomes Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes – gift Other incomes – loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disables Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total Total 100.0 63.7% 36.3% 100.0 63.7% 26.5% 2.7% 1.4% 5.7% 100.0 12.2% 26.2% 1.1% 39.5% 0.2% 20.8% 100.0 44.8% 28.1% 7.5% 3.8% 15.8% - from this by working member 0 working 1+ working 100.0 100.0 80.9% 28.2% 19.1% 71.8% 100.0 100.0 80.9% 28.2% 10.2% 60.1% 3.0% 2.2% 1.3% 1.5% 4.6% 8.0% 100.0 100.0 10.7% 20.9% 24.5% 36.1% 0.7% 3.5% 40.2% 35.4% 0.2% 0.0% 23.7% 4.1% 100.0 100.0 0.0% 69.3% 53.4% 14.4% 15.5% 3.1% 6.8% 2.1% 24.3% 11.1%

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

With a growing number of household members the total income for the household continually grew. While for a 1-2-member household an average income of 482.52 euro was achieved, in households with 3-4 members this grew to 526.05 euro and in the case of households with 5 and more members to 645.85 euro. Thus, through the lens of total income per household the highest incomes came out for the most numerous households. The calculation per one member significantly changes this result, however. The average of 112.75 euro per one member of a marginalised Roma household was significantly differentiated by household size. Income per member in the case of 1-2-member households was more than double the average at 255.45 euro; for a 3-4-member household this was reduced to 143.00 euro and with households of 5 and more members, it ultimately dropped below 100 euro per member (99.24 euro).

Quantitative research of Roma households from the end of 2010 at the same time indicated than an income lower than 100 euro per household member increases the danger of such households with extreme deprivation, for example, in the form of the absence of food for children, limitation of the possibility of cooking and of heating in the household. The average income for Roma households which experienced repeatedly the mentioned deprivation was on a level of around 90 euro per member (UNDP, 2012, pgs. 193-213). Upon comparison of social and other incomes, social incomes came out higher in all three size groups of households and did so in calculations per household as well as in calculations per capita. But the percentage share of social incomes versus all other incomes changed: the lowest representation of social

21

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

incomes occurred in 1-2-member households (51.3%), while in 3-4-member households the share increased to 56% and with the largest households with 5+ members up to 67.3%. Thus, the more members of a household, the larger share of social incomes in total incomes, but expressed in specific sums of social incomes per one member this meant the least finances per member for the most populated households: 67.28 euro of social incomes per member of the most populated households; 79.94 euro per member of households with 3-4 members and 131.03 euro per member of households with 1-2 members. (With the sum of so-called other incomes the sum of incomes was reduced for both indicators – per household and also per member – with the growing size of the household.) The volume of total work incomes was reduced with the number of household members with both of the measures used, in total per household and also in calculation per household member. In the direction from the smallest through the largest households this was 190 to 183 to 143 euro per household and 101 to 50 to 22 euro per one member. With an increasing number of household members the percentage share of total work incomes in all income also dropped: from 39.5% with 1-2-member household through 34.8% with 3-4-member households, to 22.1% with households having 5 and more members. In relation to sums of social incomes, with an increasing number of household members such incomes gradually increased in total expressions per household; a more principal difference was expressed among 3-4-member households and households with 5+ members. While with 1-2-member households the sum of the total social income per household came out to 247.51 euro and in 3-4-member households 294.06 euro, households with 5 and more members achieved 437.86 euro (approx. 150 euro more than in the preceding group). But upon tracking incomes calculated per

one member the trend was completely the opposite – with a growing size of the households, social income per member fell. From the average of 131 euro for the smallest households to not quite 80 euro with households with 3-4 members and to 67.28 euro with households with 5 and more members. Members of the largest households achieved the smallest sum of social incomes. This is probably connected with setting of the system of benefits and allowances in material need, when for the basic benefit the amount is continually undefined with an increasing number of household members but is instead segmented into two levels divided by the number of children up to five and 5+ children (aside from the number of children, the amount of the benefit differed also according to the number of parents – for one-parent and two-parent families). Since the same type of parental household gets the same sum of basic benefit, if it has 5 or 8 children, per one member the multitude of higher household comes out in the calculation as a smaller sum; other benefits, even when they have a universal character, are not able to balance out this basic deficit. The structure of social incomes was different for the different number of households: in 1-2-member households pensions predominated in social incomes (more than 106 euro versus 27 and 46 euro for the other two groups), while in more populous households benefits in material need predominated (173 and 123 euro versus 75 euro for households with 1-2 members). In the scope of total social incomes the share of material need was lowest for 1-2-member households, and in the total of social incomes of the three groups of households it changed as follows:16 41.3% in 1-2-member households; in 3-4-member households it represented 53.3%, with 5+ member households it decreased to just under one-half of total social incomes – to 49.6%. In relation to the representation of family benefits in total incomes, these continually rose with the number of members. While for households with

22

16

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

1-2 members family benefits didn‘t occur at all, with 3-4-member households family benefits made up 33.5% of all social incomes and for the group of households with 5+ members 35.4%. In total for all three size groups of households the share of benefits and allowances in material need was higher than the share of family benefits (41.3% to 0 family benefits in the case of the smallest households; 53.3% to 33.5% in the case of the middle group; and 49.6% to 35.4% for the group of the most populous households). The classifying size of households versus the sums of other incomes did not bring any great differences, so long as total sums per household are compared. For all three size groups of excluded Roma households the total of other incomes moved just over 200 euro (from 235 euro with 1-2-member households through 208 euro with 5 and more member households). However, average sums calculated per one member were reduced with the size of the household a great deal more dramatically: from 124 euro of other incomes for 1-2-member households to 63 euro for 3-4-member households and 32 euro for households with 5+ members. In all three groups work incomes made up the highest item in the scope of other incomes, but the ratio of work incomes from permanent employment and incomes from occasional work changed. In 1-2-member households incomes from irregular work dominated (165 euro for occasional work to 26 euro for work from employment for one such household; they had a 70% and an 11% share in total other incomes).The remaining two more populous groups of households showed a higher sum of work incomes from employment than from irregular work incomes. With households having 3-4 members the share of work incomes from permanent employment achieved 50% and from irregular work 28% of total other incomes; with households having 5+ members this was 47.5% of work incomes from permanent employment and 21% from irregular work. Data suggest that in each comparison of size groups of household, nevertheless, there are those that have permanent work as well as those that try for improved income via different occasional jobs.

When seeking answers regarding which households borrowed the most in the course of a month, the most populous households came out in first place in average sums per household. On average in such households a loan in the course of the monitored month achieved 41 euro, while 1-2-member households followed with 29.44 euro and on average 3-4-member households borrowed the least (20.71 euro). Obviously, the order changed in the calculation of the mentioned sums per household member – 1-2 member households borrowed the most per household member. A more telling indicator is what share of total monthly income was made up of loans. This was 6.3% for households with 5+ members and 6.1% in 1-2-member households; for the group with 3-4 members it was 3.9%. After exclusion of social incomes, that is, in the total of other incomes, loans shared the most in the scope of the largest households (nearly 20% of other incomes), followed by households with 1-2 members, which had a 12.5-percent share of loans in total other incomes, and finally households with 3-4 members with a not quite 9% share of loans in incomes other than social incomes. • On the basis of the research probe the number of members of a household also significantly influences the average income of a household. Calculated per household the total sum of incomes increased with a growing number of members of excluded Roma households; however, calculated per one household member the sum of incomes received dropped with the growing size of the household. Households with 5 and more members, with less than 100 euro per capita, had the smallest average income per household member. With a growing number of household members the mutual ratio of social and other incomes also changes – in favour of the social. • The same rule – growth of the sum of incomes with a growing number of members in the calculation per household and a drop of the sum in the calculation per member – also applies for social incomes. Members of the largest families thus get “per head” the least in social incomes.

23

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Graph 7 Comparison of the structure of household incomes by the number of members (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 50 51,3% 55,9% 67,8% 39,5% 34,8% 22,1% 60 70 80

Social incomes total Work incomes total Incomes from home production Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans
1,6% 2,1% 3,0% 1,5% 3,3% 0,7% 6,1% 3,9% 6,4%

1-2 members

3-4 members

5+ members

• The lower share of family benefits found in the total social incomes in comparison with the share of benefits and allowances in material need does not confirm the statement regarding “turning childbirth into a gainful activity”, which in public discussions in Slovakia is regularly repeated.17 The more children a household has, the less it gets in social incomes per household member; furthermore, the majority receive benefits for the poor economic situation the household is living in, not in the form of a family benefit. Large families have in the calculation per one member less in family benefits and benefits in material need; in percentage expression they receive in the scope of social incomes a smaller volume of benefits in material need and only a little more in family benefits. • Also confirmed was the fact that multiple-member families aspire to a work income, although it

comes to them in a limited range. At the same time in average expressions, a work income from permanent employment brings a higher sum to these households than from occasional work. But the amount of incomes from work activities is on average for the entire surveyed sample of households relatively small.18 • In the course of the monitored month households with 5+ members most resorted to loans, followed by households with 1-2 members. Income in the course of the month was not sufficient to cover the needs of these two groups of excluded households; the achieved level of income best corresponded for households with 3-4 members, but even in the scope of these households a portion was found which had to fall back on this strategy of securing a living for its household members (although loans can also be used for other reasons).

17

24

18

From recent public statements we mention, for example, two teachers from East Slovakia (http://janmacek.blog.sme.sk/c/301577/Otvoreny-list-uciteliek-zvychodneho-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 in Slovenské národné noviny (Slovak National News), which stated: “Minister Čaplovič also acknowledged the teachers´ reproof regarding the current poor social work, when some citizens turn childbirth into a gainful activity. They no longer take care of raising them: “It’s been forgotten that decency in school, at school facilities, fulfilment of compulsory school attendance is a mirror of the family and for not fulfilling these universal human obligations, punishment in the field of stopping of family benefits or social support must follow,” concluded the Minister in his response to the social network.” (E. Semanco: Úprimná výpoveď o tvrdej školskej realite zaúčinkovala). Slovenské národné noviny, Tuesday, 21 August 2012; available in the Slovak language at: http://www.snn.sk/index.php/slovensko/829-uprimna-vypoved-o-tvrdejskolskej-realite-zaucinkovala). Regarding level of earnings for individual types of work activity, see Chapter 2.7.

Table 6 Overview of net incomes in MRC households by number of household members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social income total Work incomes total in this: Income from home production and property Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans Social income total Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work in this: Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social income total Other incomes total Total (100) 597.60 380.46 217.14 597.60 380.46 158.52 16.19 8.15 34.29 380.46 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 79.28 217.14 97.27 61.25 16.19 8.15 34.29 - from this by number of members 1-2 (9) 3-4 (28) 482.52 526.03 247.51 294.06 235.01 231.97 482.52 526.03 247.51 294.06 190.46 182.74 7.78 7.33 29.44 247.51 106.89 0.00 0.00 75.29 0.00 65.33 235.01 26.00 164.46 7.78 7.33 29.44 11.29 17.23 20.71 294.06 27.50 77.35 2.96 122.79 0.00 63.46 231.97 116.96 65.78 11.29 17.23 20.71 5+ members (63) 645.85 437.86 207.99 645.85 437.86 143.19 19.56 4.22 41.02 437.86 46.19 123.81 5.32 173.29 0.95 88.30 207.99 98.70 44.49 19.56 4.22 41.02

in this:

Other incomes total

Table 7 Overview of net incomes calculated per member of an MRC household by number of household members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social income total Work incomes total in this: Income from home production and property Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans Social income total in this: Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Social income total Other incomes total Total (530) 112.75 71.79 40.97 112.75 71.79 29.91 3.05 1.54 6.47 71.79 8.76 18.80 0.79 - from this by number of members 1-2 (17) 3-4 (103) 255.45 143.00 131.03 79.94 124.42 63.06 255.45 143.00 131.03 79.94 100.83 49.68 4.12 3.88 15.59 131.03 56.59 0.00 0.00 3.07 4.68 5.63 79.94 7.48 21.03 0.81 5+ members(410) 99.24 67.28 31.96 99.24 67.28 22.00 3.01 0.65 6.30 67.28 7.10 19.02 0.82

25

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

in this: Other incomes total

Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work

28.36 0.11 14.96 40.97 18.35 11.56 3.05 1.54 6.47

39.86 0.00 34.59 124.42 13.76 87.07 4.12 3.88 15.59

33.38 0.00 17.25 63.06 31.80 17.88 3.07 4.68 5.63

26.63 0.15 13.57 31.96 15.17 6.84 3.01 0.65 6.30

in this:

Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans

Table 8 Share of individual types of incomes in total incomes of MRC households by number of household members (in %)
% in total of the given group of incomes Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social income total Work incomes total in this: Income from home production and property Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans Social income total Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work in this: Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social income total Other incomes total Total 100.0 63.7% 36.3% 100.0 63.7% 26.5% 2.7% 1.4% 5.7% 100.0 12.2% 26.2% 1.1% 39.5% 0.2% 20.8% 100.0 44.8% 28.1% 7.5% 3.8% 15.8% - from this by number of members 1-2 3-4 100.0 100.0 51.3% 55.9% 48.7% 44.1% 100.0 100.0 51.3% 55.9% 39.5% 34.8% 1.6% 1.5% 6.1% 100.0 43.2% 0.0% 0.0% 30.4% 0.0% 26.4% 100.0 11.1% 70.0% 3.3% 3.1% 12.5% 2.1% 3.3% 3.9% 100.0 9.4% 26.3% 1.0% 41.8% 0.0% 21.5% 100.0 50.4% 28.4% 4.9% 7.4% 8.9% 5+ members 100.0 67.8% 32.2% 100.0 67.8% 22.1% 3.0% 0.7% 6.4% 100.0 10.5% 28.3% 1.2% 39.6% 0.2% 20.2% 100.0 47.5% 21.4% 9.4% 2.0% 19.7%

in this:

Other incomes total

2.4. Incomes by young children
As it is presented in the introduction of this section, a comparison of incomes (as well as expenditures and consumption of selected food) was also carried out by the presence of children in the household. Three

26

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

children in the family does to the amount of incomes and their structure. The presence of a young child in a household (at least one – regardless of their total number) created between the compared two groups of households a difference in total income on the level of approximately 100 euro. The average total income per household for the group without a young child was 646.98 euro; for households where at least on young child lived, total income was 552.02 euro. Calculated per member the sum of financial resources was reduced with the presence of a young child: from 142.45 euro in households without such a child to 92 euro with 1+ young child. What radically changed with a young child in a household was the mutual ratio between social and other incomes. While for a household without a young child the ratio of social and other incomes was approximately equal (342.69 euro to 304.28 euro; in percentages 53% to 47%), for households with a young child the volume of so-called other incomes was dramatically reduced. Social incomes in such households achieved on average 415.32 euro per household and other incomes 136.70 euro per household; in percentages, the ratio of such incomes was 75.2% of social to 24.8% of other incomes. An even more notable difference appeared between households with a young child and without a young child upon comparisons of total work incomes. Their volume for the group of households without young children achieved 239.47 euro per household, while the average for the group with a young child was only 83.79 euro of total work incomes. In the calculation per one member the difference between the compared groups was 52.73 euro to 13.97 euro in households with a young child. The average share of total work incomes in the total household incomes was also lower for the group without a young child. While it made up 37% for the group of households without a young child, in households with a young child it

dropped by more than half – to 15.2%. Aside from the increase in family benefits, with great probability the loss of work incomes associated with parenthood also had a share in such a large difference. The compared groups on the basis of the presence of a young child showed in relation to social income, not only an approximately one-quarter difference in their total amount (the sum of social incomes per household was in the group without young children 343 euro and in the group with a young child 415 euro) but also a difference on the level of only about 5 euro when calculated per capita (75.46 euro of social incomes for the group of households without young children and 69.22 euro for the group with a young child). Where a huge difference was recorded, however, was the mutual ratio of the amount of family benefits and benefits and allowances in material need. On average for one household without young children, this came out to be not quite 35 euro of family benefits, and in households with minimally one young child this was on average nearly 156 euro per household (the calculation for one member generated the sums of 7.62 euro to 26.62 euro). On the other hand, benefits in material need were higher for a household without young children: 168.86 euro versus 133.23 euro per household (and 37.18 versus 22.20 per household member). The share of family benefits and material need benefits in total social incomes19 then came out notable different between the compared groups. While for households without young children family benefits obtained only 14.1% and benefits in material need 68.9%, the average for the group with 1 and more young children was 45.2% for family benefits and 37.7% of benefits in material need. At the same time, here it is necessary to underline the fact that representation of these two state benefits was for both groups found to be completely identical – family benefits and benefits in material need together formed 83% of all social incomes; only their structure

19

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

27

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

in terms of the mutual proportions was different. However, in relation to the state budget, since in both cases state benefits and not insurance benefits are involved, the situation is the same (and the sums for the total family benefits and material need benefit are also approximately equal per household member). On the basis of social incomes only the mutual ratio of these two type of benefits changed; the volume of state benefits per capita remained the same (only they are paid out either from the budget item of state family benefits or from the budge for material need benefits).20 Afterward, only 17% of social incomes remained in both compared groups for other benefits and allowances, and from this the majority in both samples was made up of pensions (in approximate equal representation). Health benefits and unemployment benefits almost didn’t occur at all in the surveyed specifically defined samples – without regard to the presence of absence of young children in the household. In the structure of other incomes (other than social incomes), aside from the above-described differences in work incomes (more work incomes for a household without young children) differences also appeared for the remaining types of these incomes. Households without a young child received on average a larger sum as gifts (approx. 12 euro versus 5 euro) and also borrowed more in the course of the month (approx. 43 to 27 euro); they had less incomes only in incomes from home production and property (approx. 10 euro versus 20 euro). Loans in the course of a month made up per one member of a household without young children more than 9 euro and for a household with a young child not quite 5 euro. Households with young children had to borrow in the course of a month a larger share in total income than the other group.

• Young children in the household mean a smaller overall income, but mainly a significantly lower work income. Data thus confirmed the general rightfulness known from surveys of the living situation of families with a young child, or young families.21 The birth of a child and departure of one parent from the labour market leads to a greater threat to the family’s financial budget. The fact that the mentioned rightfulness also appears in the surveyed environments of excluded Roma settlements may signal or point to the representation also in these environments of such families, in which parenthood means the interruption of work activities. The mentioned finding would be in conflict with the stereotyped notion that in these environments people go on parental leave exclusively from the household and not from the labour market. • From the viewpoint of volume of state benefits in the total of social incomes without regard to type, this remains the same in households with a young child and those without one; the only difference is that regarding households with a young child they arrive in greater volume in the form of family benefits and regarding households without young children benefits in material need predominate in terms of volume. A change of status of the household associated with the presence of a young child does not change state benefits in total, but only alters their structure. • Overall, households with a young child obtain per household one-third more in social benefits, while work benefits are reduced for them by up to onequarter. Thus, what most significantly worsens for household with a young child is the significant minus on the side of work incomes.

20

28

21

The mutual linking of these two benefits when defining individual claims also probably contributes to this – parts of some family benefits are calculated into the definition of a claim for the material need benefits and the like. See several studies and the final reports of the Institute for Labour and Family Research: http://www.sspr.gov.sk/IVPR/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=11&lang=sk.

Graph 8 Comparison of the structure of household incomes by young children (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 50 53,0% 37,0% 15,3% 1,6% 3,9% 1,8% 0,8% 6,6% 4,8% 60 70 80 75,2%

Social incomes total Work incomes total Incomes from home production Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans

0 children

1+ children

Table 9 Overview of net incomes of MRC households by young children (in euro)
Suma in euro per household and month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social income total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social income total Other incomes total Total (100) 597.60 380.46 217.14 597.60 380.46 158.52 16.19 8.15 34.29 380.46 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 79.28 217.14 97.27 61.25 16.19 8.15 34.29 - from this by young children 0 children (48) 1+ children (52) 646.98 552.02 342.69 415.32 304.28 136.70 646.98 552.02 342.69 415.32 239.47 83.79 10.42 21.51 11.90 4.68 42.50 26.71 342.69 415.32 39.63 52.69 34.61 159.70 1.77 6.40 168.86 133.23 0.00 1.15 97.83 62.15 304.28 136.70 154.04 44.87 85.43 38.93 10.42 21.51 11.90 4.68 42.50 26.71

in this:

Social income total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

Table 10 Overview of net incomes calculated per member of MRC household by young children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Incomes total in this: Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (530) 112.75 71.79 40.97 - from this by young children 0 children (218) 1+ children (312) 142.45 92.00 75.46 69.22 67.00 22.78

29

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total in this: Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Social incomes total Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled in this: Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Other incomes total Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work in this: Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans

112.75 71.79 29.91 3.05 1.54 6.47 71.79 8.76 18.80 0.79 28.36 0.11 14.96 40.97 18.35 11.56 3.05 1.54 6.47

142.45 75.46 52.73 2.29 2.62 9.36 75.46 8.72 7.62 0.39 37.18 0.00 21.54 67.00 33.92 18.81 2.29 2.62 9.36

92.00 69.22 13.97 3.58 0.78 4.45 69.22 8.78 26.62 1.07 22.20 0.19 10.36 22.78 7.48 6.49 3.58 0.78 4.45

Table 11 Overview of individual types of incomes in total income of MRC households by young children (in %)
- from this by young children % in total of the given group of incomes Incomes total Social incomes total in this: Other incomes total Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total in this: Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Social incomes total Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled in this: Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Other incomes total Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work in this: Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans 39.5% 0.2% 20.8% 100.0 44.8% 28.1% 7.5% 3.8% 15.8% 49.3% 0.0% 28.5% 100.0 50.6% 28.1% 3.4% 3.9% 14.0% 32.1% 0.3% 14.9% 100.0 32.8% 28.6% 15.7% 3.4% 19.5% 36.3% 100.0 63.7% 26.5% 2.7% 1.4% 5.7% 100.0 12.2% 26.2% 1.1% 47.0% 100.0 53.0% 37.0% 1.6% 1.8% 6.6% 100.0 11.6% 10.1% 0.5% 24.8% 100.0 75.2% 15.3% 3.9% 0.8% 4.8% 100.0 12.7% 38.5% 1.5% Total 0 children 100.0 63.7% 100.0 53.0% 1+ children 100.0 75.2%

30

2.5. Incomes by school-attending children
A school-attending child was for the needs of the research defined as a child attending some type of school, namely from primary school up through university study. Differences in total sums of incomes and in percentage shares for the group without a school-attending child and at least one schoolattending child are presented in Tables 12 through 14. While a comparison by the presence of young children before school attendance showed that the presence of such a child in the household significantly lowered its overall income (households with one and more young children were shown to have a lower overall income than the group of households without a young child in the calculation per household as a whole and per capita), with a school-attending child the result of the comparison was different. The group of households with 1+ school-attending children had a higher total income per household compared with households without a school-attending child on average by approx. 110 euro (632.50 euro versus 520.90 euro); this sum calculated per one household member, however, in the end result meant a lower sum for that household. In households without a school-attending child the average income per member came out to be 146.71 euro, and the average per member of a household with a school-attending child fell to only 103.86 euro. The average increase of total income for a household from the group with a school-attending child thus showed moderate growth of social, as well as other incomes. But these increased sums of the two basic types of incomes after calculations per household member (in consequence of a higher number of children in these households) meant lower resulting financial amounts. A school-attending child or children in household lowers the income per capita, despite the fact that the overall volume of financial resources in the household is higher. The share of social and other incomes was for the compared groups almost entirely equal (63% of social to 37% of other incomes for the

group without a school-attending child and 64% to 36% for the group with a school-attending child). The presence of a school-attending child did not change on average the mutual ratio of the two basic types of incomes – social and others. With a comparison of the total sum of work incomes these were approx. 30 euro higher for the group of households with a school-attending child (168.11 euro versus 137.17 euro); but such a difference in work incomes was not enough to “balance out” income in the calculation per household member. The average total work income per one member was for a household without a school-attending child 38.66 euro and for households with such a child only 27.62 euro. Households with a school-attending child had a larger work income from permanent employment, while the other compared group had exceeded the sums in the case of income from irregular work (50 euro of incomes from permanent employment in households without a school-attending child to 118 euro for the group with a school-attending child; 87 euro of incomes from irregular work in households without a schoolattending child to 50 euro for the group of households with a school-attending child). In relative expressions the total share of work incomes in total income remained the same – over 26%. In relation to social incomes, with them a greater difference appeared between the two compared groups. Households without a school-attending child get monthly on average a higher sum of family benefits (118.32 euro versus 91.27 euro per household; in the calculation per member this came out to 29 euro versus 25.92 euro per capita). More family benefits in households without a schoolattending child could be the result of the fact that this group is, aside from household without children (of pensioners22 and others) filled predominately with households in which there are only young children (those that also draw the family allowance in addition to child benefits). The share of family benefits in total

22

For the group of households without school-attending children the sum for pensions came out markedly higher: 66.81 euro per household versus 37.26 euro for the group with a school-attending child.

31

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

social incomes23 was for households without a schoolattending child 41.1% and the share of the material need benefit was 31.9% (a total 73% of total social benefits). For the group of households with 1+ schoolattending child the share of family benefits came out significantly lower (29.7%) and for benefits in material need again higher (57.5%). The common representation of these two groups of state benefits exceeded 87.2% of total social incomes in households with a school-attending child, which is 14% more than for households without a school-attending child. Again this shows that pensioners are more represented in the group without school-attending children (health and unemployment benefits occurred only rarely). In the structure of other incomes, a higher sum was found in the calculation per household for working incomes in households with school-attending children. And how did the comparable sum come out for the remaining type of incomes other than social incomes? Households without a school-attending child obtained a moderately larger financial amount from home production and property (17.89 euro versus 15.42 euro), received significantly more finances as gifts (19.47 euro versus 3.06 euro), while households with a school-attending child again in the course of a month borrowed a larger sum (40.90 euro per household with a school-attending child versus 19.58 euro per household without a school-attending child). Monthly loans

expressed as a share of total income were 2-times higher for households with a school-attending child in comparison with the other group. While loans made up 6.5% of total monthly income for the group of households with 1+ school-attending children, for the surveyed households without a school-attending child this was only 3.8%. • Excluded Roma households with school-attending children showed on average higher total incomes per household, but per household member they have really fewer finances. According to the basic types of incomes they have in terms of volume more work and social incomes, but in calculations per member they had less of both incomes. • It is as if the presence of school-attending children increased the volume of work incomes from permanent employment and total work incomes. But the higher result from work activity is lost in its calculations per household member. An equal or higher sum from work activities came out to be a lower sum for a household with school-attending children upon dividing per household member. • Households with a school-attending child in the course of the month borrowed more than was the average for the group without school-attending children. They had to replace the deficit in real income per household member with a higher volume of financial loans.

Graph 9 Comparison of the structure of household incomes by school-attending children (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Social incomes total Work incomes total Incomes from home production Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans
3,4% 2,4% 3,7% 0,5% 3,8% 6,5% 26,4% 26,6%

0 children

1+ children

32

23

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

Table 12 Overview of net incomes of MRC households by school-attending children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (100) 597.60 380.46 217.14 597.60 380.46 158.52 16.19 8.15 34.29 380.46 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 79.28 217.14 97.27 61.25 16.19 8.15 34.29 - from this by school-attending children 0 children (31) 1+ children (69) 520.59 632.20 326.48 404.71 194.11 227.49 520.59 632.20 326.48 404.71 137.17 168.11 17.89 15.42 19.47 3.06 19.58 40.90 326.48 404.71 66.81 37.26 118.32 91.27 8.81 2.10 91.97 176.55 1.94 0.00 38.65 97.53 194.11 227.49 49.94 118.54 87.24 49.57 17.89 15.42 19.47 3.06 19.58 40.90

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

Table 13 Overview of net incomes in calculation per member of MRC households by school-attending children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (530) 112.75 71.79 40.97 112.75 71.79 29.91 3.05 1.54 6.47 71.79 8.76 18.80 0.79 28.36 0.11 14.96 - from this by school-attending children 0 children (110) 1+ children (420) 146.71 103.86 92.01 66.49 54.70 37.37 146.71 103.86 92.01 66.49 38.66 27.62 5.04 2.53 5.49 0.50 5.52 6.72 92.01 66.49 18.83 6.12 33.34 14.99 2.48 0.35 25.92 29.00 0.55 0.00 10.89 16.02

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

33

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Other incomes total Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans

in this:

40.97 18.35 11.56 3.05 1.54 6.47

54.70 14.07 24.58 5.04 5.49 5.52

37.37 19.47 8.14 2.53 0.50 6.72

Table 14 Share of individual types of incomes in total income of MRC households by school-attending children (in %)
% in total of the given group of incomes Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total Total 100.0 63.7% 36.3% 100.0 63.7% 26.5% 2.7% 1.4% 5.7% 100.0 12.2% 26.2% 1.1% 39.5% 0.2% 20.8% 100.0 44.8% 28.1% 7.5% 3.8% 15.8% - from this by school-attending children 0 children 1+ children 100.0 100.0 62.7% 64.0% 37.3% 36.0% 100.0 100.0 62.7% 64.0% 26.4% 26.6% 3.4% 2.4% 3.7% 0.5% 3.8% 6.5% 100.0 100.0 20.5% 9.2% 36.2% 22.6% 2.7% 0.5% 28.2% 43.6% 0.6% 0.0% 11.8% 24.1% 100.0 100.0 25.7% 52.1% 45.0% 21.8% 9.2% 6.8% 10.0% 1.3% 10.1% 18.0%

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

2.6. Incomes by dependent children together
Let’s look further at how the presence of a dependent child without regard to whether the child is young or of school-attending age, differentiates household income and its individual elements. In the surveyed sample of marginalised Roma households there were namely households with only young children, then households with only school-attending children, but the largest group was represented by households in which children of different standing were combined.

How incomes differed on the basis of the presence of a dependent child in the household is presented in Tables 15 through 17. A comparison on the basis of the presence of a dependent child or children came out in an equal mode as with groups divided by the presence of a school-attending child. Households with a dependent child had higher total income per household, but in calculations per household member their average sum came out lower. But the differences in sums were overall more notable than with

34

comparisons on the basis of school-attending children. The average sum of total incomes per household without a dependent child achieved 484.59 euro and for a household with 1+ dependent child 614.49 euro. In sums per household member households without dependent children came out to be 203.22 euro and households with dependent children 107.13 euro. Social incomes formed for households with a dependent child two-thirds of their total income (66.1% of social incomes and 33.9% of other incomes). With the group of households without dependent children the total income consisted of 43.1% of social and 56.9% of other incomes. The total sum of social incomes was on average higher by nearly 200 euro for households with a dependent child (406.09 euro to 208.97 euro for households without dependent children). In the calculation per one member, however, it turned out to be, as with total incomes, a lower sum (70.8 euro versus 87.63 euro in households without children). In relation to total work incomes, these were found to be less on the side of the group of households with a dependent child: in total expression per household (153.56 euro versus 191.70 for the group without dependent children), as well as per one member (26.77 euro versus 80.39 euro for the group without dependent children). According to the type of work income there were more finances from permanent employment in households with dependent children; for households without dependent children incomes from occasional work predominated. Households without dependent children achieved 145.78 euro of work incomes from occasional or irregular work to 45.92 euro of work incomes from permanent employment; households with dependent children had work income from irregular on the level of 48.62 euro and from permanent work 104.94 euro per household. A look at the internal structure of social incomes for both compared groups of households revealed

significantly different sums of individual state benefits, as well as their share in total social incomes. Households with dependent children have more family benefits and benefits in material need (114.55 and 161.11 euro versus zero income from family benefits and 78.82 euro in benefits in material need for the group of households without dependent children). The share of family benefits in total social incomes24 for the group of households with dependent children was 34.2% (in the case of households without dependent children no family benefits were found) and benefits and allowances in material need 50.1% (47.8% for households without dependent children). And with dependent children, a higher volume of benefits in material need than of family benefits was shown in social incomes. Overall, state aid represented on average more than 84% of all social incomes for households with dependent children and 47.8% for the group of households without dependent children. In the calculation per one member, households with a dependent child on average came out to be not quite 20 euro of family benefits and more than 28 euro of benefits in material need (together approx. 48 euro of state benefits per household member). Average sums for pensions were in their case low and benefits for social insurance for illness and unemployment were negligible. In the framework of the whole of social incomes for the group of households without children pensions made up the largest portion, followed by benefit in material need. In addition to work incomes differences were shown also in other elements of the other incomes. Significantly more finances in the form of gifts came to households without dependent children (36.23 euro per household versus 3.95 euro for the other group of households), while income from home production and property was only moderately higher on the side of households with dependent children (16.42 euro to 14.62 euro), and similarly the volume of loans (34.5 euro to 33.08 euro). The share

24

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

35

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

of loans in total income was moderately higher in the case of households without a dependent member (6.8%) than in households with a dependent child (5.6%). • Although more finances on average come into households with dependent children, per one member they have about half as much money in the family budget than households without dependent children. • In relation to the total of social incomes the same rule as with school-attending children was shown. Even though in terms of volume the sum of financial resources from the social system is higher to households with dependent children, on average per one member so-called “social money” is less here. Members of larger households, then, even with the largest number of dependent children, get a smaller portion per member from

the social system than in households with a small number of members. • In the case of comparing households with dependent children and without them the specific position of the family benefit was gotten into – they relate exclusively to the first group. But the drawing of family benefits by households with dependent children does not remove the receipt of benefits in material need. In calculations per household member, these are smaller in the case of households with a dependent child in comparison with households without such children; in overall terms of sum per household more benefits in terms of volume get to this group. • Thus, households with dependent children, as well as those without dependent children, cannot get by without loans; in relation to total income households without children borrowed more.

Graph 10 Comparison of the structure of household incomes by dependent children (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 43,1% 66,1% 39,6% 25,0% 3,0% 2,7% 7,5% 0,6% 6,8% 5,6% 50 60 70

Social incomes total Work incomes total Incomes from home production Other incomes – gifts Other incomes – loans

0 children

1+ children

Table 15 Overview of net incomes of MRC households by dependent children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Incomes total in this: Incomes total in this: Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (100) 597.60 380.46 217.14 597.60 380.46 158.52 16.19 - from this by dependent children 0 children (13) 1+ children (87) 484.59 614.49 208.97 406.09 275.62 208.40 484.59 614.49 208.97 406.09 191.70 153.56 14.62 16.42

36

Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Social incomes total Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

8.15 34.29 380.46 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 79.28 217.14 97.27 61.25 16.19 8.15 34.29

36.23 33.08 208.97 85.54 0.00 0.00 78.20 0.00 45.23 275.62 45.92 145.78 14.62 36.23 33.08

3.95 34.47 406.09 40.57 114.55 4.80 161.11 0.69 84.36 208.40 104.94 48.62 16.42 3.95 34.47

Table 16 Overview of net incomes in the calculation per member of MRC household by dependent children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Incomes total in this: Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans Social incomes total Other incomes total Total (530) 112.75 71.79 40.97 112.75 71.79 29.91 3.05 1.54 6.47 71.79 8.76 18.80 0.79 28.36 0.11 14.96 40.97 18.35 11.56 3.05 1.54 6.47 - from this by dependent children 0 children (31) 1+ children (499) 203.22 107.13 87.63 70.80 115.58 36.33 203.22 107.13 87.63 70.80 80.39 26.77 6.13 2.86 15.19 0.69 13.87 6.01 87.63 70.80 35.87 7.07 0.00 19.97 0.00 0.84 32.79 28.09 0.00 0.12 18.97 14.71 115.58 36.33 19.26 18.30 61.13 8.48 6.13 2.86 15.19 0.69 13.87 6.01

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

Table 17 Share of individual types of incomes in total income of MRC households by dependent children (in %)
% in total of the given group of incomes Incomes total in this: Total 100.0 63.7% - from this by dependent children 0 children 1+ children 100.0 100.0 43.1% 66.1%

Social incomes total

37

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Other incomes total Incomes total Social incomes total Work incomes total Income from home production and property Other incomes - gifts Other incomes - loans Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material need Unemployment Undifferentiated Income from permanent employment Income from irregular work Income from home production and property Financial or material gift Loans

in this:

Social incomes total

in this:

Other incomes total

in this:

36.3% 100.0 63.7% 26.5% 2.7% 1.4% 5.7% 100.0 12.2% 26.2% 1.1% 39.5% 0.2% 20.8% 100.0 44.8% 28.1% 7.5% 3.8% 15.8%

56.9% 100.0 43.1% 39.6% 3.0% 7.5% 6.8% 100.0 40.9% 0.0% 0.0% 37.4% 0.0% 21.7% 100.0 16.7% 52.9% 5.3% 13.1% 12.0%

33.9% 100.0 66.1% 25.0% 2.7% 0.6% 5.6% 100.0 10.0% 28.2% 1.2% 39.7% 0.2% 20.7% 100.0 50.4% 23.3% 7.9% 1.9% 16.5%

2.7. Range of receiving and amounts of incomes kind and by type of housing
The used method of data collection regarding incomes of marginalised Roma households also allows individual types of incomes to be monitored in more detailed overviews. Table 18 presents to what extent the receipt of individual incomes was distributed in the surveyed sample of households, in the kind of intervals the obtained sums moved, as well as a comparison of the sums of the income for all surveyed households with the average income per group of households with the given income. The individual types of incomes had a different range of receiving, and not every household showed every type of monitored income. Nearly all of the surveyed households from marginalised Roma settlements listed some amount of total social incomes (only 1% did not list any social income). The amount of the sum of total social incomes which came into the households varied from 22 euro to 962 euro (after exclusion of exceptional social incomes, the maximum sum dropped to 758.20 euro). The average benefit calculated for the entire sample achieved 380.46 euro; since nearly

100% of households had some income, the average for the group of households with the given income was nearly identical (384.30 euro). Among the individual types of social incomes the most households with differentiated social incomes drew family benefits – a total of 71%. Specific financial sums were presented in a range from 21.25 euro to 790 euro, and after exclusion of exceptional family benefits (onetime contributions upon a birth and a bonus payment to an allowance on the birth of a child) the ceiling for family benefits was 449 euro. The calculation for all households with the mentioned amount of family benefits came out to not quite 100 euro per household and for the subset of those actually drawing the given benefit, it increased to 140.36 euro. The second most widespread incomes were incomes and allowance in material need: this type was listed in 65% of the differentiated surveyed households. The smallest listed benefit represented 46 euro for the household and the highest 504 euro for that household, which on average for all relevant households (with differentiated social incomes) meant 150.33 euro. The average amount of benefit drawn by those receiving the benefit was 231.28 euro.

38

Some type of pension was drawn and listed in 17% of the differentiated surveyed households, and the amount of the pension for one household covered an interval of 99 euro to 494 euro. The total average of pensions achieved 46.42 euro and the average sum of pensions per household with this type of social income was 273 euro. The remaining benefits were found only rarely in the surveyed environment, and for an overall picture their amount is not noteworthy. In the work incomes category a different range and amount for work incomes from permanent employment and for irregular work incomes was shown. In the surveyed sample households with a work income from permanent employment represented 18%, but its amount was very diverse – from 173 euro to 1,800 euro for a household. The average amount for all households achieved less than 100 euro (97.27 euro), and for the group of households have this type of work income the average per household came out to be 540.39 euro. In the context of average income in the economy of the Slovak Republic for year 2011, when a net monthly wage for an employee was 655 euro, the level of incomes from permanent employment found in marginalised settlements is testimony about their very low level. For situations when the total of all incomes from employment for excluded households comes out smaller than the average sum for one employee, it’s possible to speak about in the surveyed environments not only spatial but also wage marginalization. Having a work commitment and especially the amount of payment for that work lags far behind the average employee in Slovakia. In comparisons with incomes from employment, irregular work incomes occurred in significantly more households: 27% of the surveyed households had a work income of this type in the course of the monitored month. The scale of irregular work incomes recorded was likewise relatively wide, with the smallest

of their monthly sum totalling 23 euro and the highest 1,050 euro; however, the continuous scale ended at a significantly lower sum of 450 euro (more than a thousand euro in earnings was recorded only one time). A specific characteristic of irregular work incomes was the method of their receipt, which consisted in their being divided into several small financial amounts in the course of a month. This is indicative of irregular work activities which are only occasionally found. On average per one household of the surveyed sample work incomes of this type achieved for the entire month 61.25 euro and the average per household having such an income was 226.84 euro. Incomes from home production and property, for which 16% of households listed at least some amount, occurred in significantly lower sums (an interval from 10 to 300 euro; an overall average of 16.19 euro; average amount received of 101.16 euro), similarly as financial and material gifts, which in the course of the surveyed month occurred in 12% of the sample of households (an interval from 10 to 150 euro; an average for all households of 8.15 euro; an average for households with this income of 67,87 euro). Households obtained them either one-time (one sum for the month) or several time for the month. During the month a total of 27% of households supplemented their own total income by a new borrowed sum.25 Even the sums borrowed were relatively varied, with the smallest sum of loans calculated for the one monitored month at 20 euro and the highest at 1,000 euro,26 though the following “highest” sum of loans had a significantly smaller value (388 euro and this also involved a loan for an extraordinary expenditure – to repair a house), then up to 214 euro. The surveyed households borrowed predominately in the monitored month sums in the tens of euro, sometimes even in smaller portions. The average of loans in the calculation per one surveyed household

25 26

But the data does not correspond to the range of debt of the surveyed marginalised households, which is significantly higher (regarding the total indebtedness of Roma households from marginalised settlement, see part 3); it only applies to the range of new loans in the scope of the monitored month. Such a sum of loans was only rare, involving an exceptional expenditure (the purchase of a vehicle).

39

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 18 Overview of drawing on and amount of incomes by type (in % and in euro)
Share of households (in %): Type of income for the month Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled Material needs benefits Unemployment benefits Social incomes total Work income from permanent employment Irregular work incomes Financial and material gifts Incomes from home production and property Loans Without income1 83 29 96 35 99 1 82 73 88 84 73 With income 17 71 4 65 1 99 18 27 12 16 27 Interval of sums (in euro) 99.00 – 494.00 21.25 – 790.00* /21.25 – 449.00/ 60.00 – 190.00 46.00 – 504.00 60.00 22.00 – 962.00* /22.00 – 758.20/ 173.00 – 1800.00 23.00 – 1050.00* /23.00 – 450.00/ 10.00 – 150.00 10.00 – 300.00 20.00 – 1000.00* /20.00 – 388.00/ Average (in euro): For entire sample 46.42 99.66 4.18 150.33 0.60 380.46 97.27 61.25 8.15 16.19 34.29 For group with income 273.06 140.36 104.50 231.28 60.00 384.30 540.39 226.84 67.87 101.16 127.00

Notes: 1) In the case of individual social incomes the number lists the share of households without the given income, including households with undifferentiated social incomes. *If in the framework of the given other incomes an extreme sum occurred sporadically as a consequence of an exceptional income event in the monitored month, in the line below, the interval of the sums without these exceptional, extreme values is defined.

achieved 34.29 euro; the amount of loans calculated as the average of those households which actually borrowed a sum of money represented 127.00 euro. The dispersion of calculated sums was relatively extensive even for total income per household, although alongside the income scale representing the Slovakia-wide average it was significantly narrower (EU SILC, 2010). The smallest income found was 220 euro for one household 27 and the highest was 2,276 euro.28 The distribution of households by total income (Table 19) showed that nearly one-third of the surveyed households had a total income to 400 euro inclusive (a total of 32%); approximately one-half of households had a household income to 500 euro inclusive. In cumulative expression, three-quarters of households

from marginalised Roma settlements were found to be in the income level up to 700 euro, only the remaining quarter of households had a higher income (11% had an income above 1,000 euro). Public discussion often concentrates around the statement that Roma families receive, despite not having jobs, social incomes on the level of an average income. A look at the composition of the sample of the surveyed Roma households on the basis of total social incomes to a large measure contradicts such a notion. An absolute majority of households (63%) namely had a total social income per household below the threshold of 400 euro inclusively, and from this a third was at 300 euro and less and in 13% even 200 euro and less. Meanwhile, 37% of households recorded a social income

27

40

28

The mentioned income represented a household with two adults with one school-attending child in which no one worked. The second lowest household income was set at 245 euro (a 4-member household with two school-attending children and with no working member) and the third at 270 euro (a 3-member household with one young child without a working member). This involved households with members, of whom 3 worked and with two 2 school-attending children. The second highest income was 1,894 euro and the third was 1,396 euro; in both cases the households had 2 working members.

Table 19 Composition of the surveyed households by income zones (in %)
to 200 euro 201 – 300 euro 301 – 350 euro 351 – 400 euro 401 – 450 euro 451 – 500 euro 501 – 600 euro 601 – 700 euro 701 – 1,000 euro 1,001 or more euro Total Total income per household 3 15 14 8 11 13 11 14 11 100.0 Social income per household 13 19 15 16 7 9 11 4 6 100.0

over 400 euro for the monitored month, and the larger portion of them fell into the zone of total social incomes between 401 to 600 euro, and only 10% of households had more than 600 euro of social incomes. Among households with higher social incomes were those which had in the monitored month a paid allowance and a bonus to an allowance on the birth of a child29 and households with several cumulated old-age pensions, decidedly not households receiving standard social benefits (benefits and allowances in material need, parental allowances and bonuses for children). For an overall idea regarding the income situation of excluded households we supplement the presentation of incomes with a comparison of their average amount per individual types of marginalised settlements, as determined by the researchers.30 As can be seen from Table 20, the most balanced state among them came out for family benefits – the average per recipient of this benefit was around 140 euro in all three groups. No large differences were found even in the amount of benefits and allowances in material need or in total social incomes, where the difference in average receipt of the benefit came out to be around 30 euro.

Upon looking at individual types of so-called other incomes differences between households by type of housing were even greater. Above all, the amount of work incomes received were differentiated: for incomes from employment, as well as for irregular work incomes, the average sums found were higher for households living concentrated within a village. With incomes from employment the difference came out to be greater than 300 euro in comparison with segregated and approximately 130 euro in comparison with separated households (692 euro versus 364 euro for segregated and 515 for separated). Segregated households showed on average the lowest sum and concentrated the highest, even for irregular work incomes, although the difference with them was not so large (177 euro to 222 euro to 253 euro for concentrated households). The average amount of gifts received was highest for separated households (by 10 to 20 euro), while incomes from home production were highest for segregated (by 15 and 70 euro) and loans highest for households concentrated within communities (nearly 170 euro in comparison with more than 100 euro for the segregated group and not quite 90 euro for the separated group). Total household income also steadily grew by level of

29

30

The allowance upon the birth of a child in the year of the survey 2011 in the amount of 151.37 euro, but especially the bonus to the allowance, which the valid law defined on the level of 678.49 euro, significantly increased the monthly volume of social benefits in the relevant households. The allowance is intended to cover expenditures associated with the birth of a child. The presented data are only orientational, for a valid comparison between the three types of housing of Roma households a broader range of the research sample would be necessary, as well as a more exact definition of the individual types of housing. With the absence of some incomes in the scope of the group of households, the total number of units in the subsamples was reduced to a meaure which no longer corresponded to the statistical foundation for valid results.

41

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 20 Arithmetic averages for individual incomes by type of housing (in euro)
Separated on the edge (38) Segregated(29) Pensions Family benefits Health and Health Disabled benefits Benefits in material need Unemployment benefits Social incomes total Work incomes from permanent employment Irregular work incomes Financial and material gifts Incomes from home production and property Loans Total income For entire sample 62.14 82.36 9.14 135.82 390.83 50.24 36.55 11.93 22.10 14.10 525.76 For group with an income 257.43 140.50 136.50 218.82 404.79 364.25 176.67 57.67 128.20 102.25 Concentrated(33) For entire sample 19.71 113.81 1.58 190.32 1.58 362.97 108.39 46.79 10.99 10.95 25.92 566.01 For group with an income 187.25 139.50 60.00 249.38 60.00 362.97 514.88 222.27 83.50 69.33 89.55 For entire sample 63.36 98.55 2.58 117.03 391.49 125.79 99.59 1.54 17.02 61.67 697.10 For group with an income 348.50 141.40 85.00 214.56 391.49 691.83 252.81 51.00 112.30 169.58

Note: The data in the table are only orientational; with the absence of some incomes in the scope of the groups of households, the total number of units was reduced to a measure not corresponding to the statistical foundation for valid results.

exclusion: from 525.76 euro for households living in segregated settlements, through 566.01 euro for those living separated on the edge of communities, up to 697.10 euro for households living concentrated within a community. Although the validity of data with comparisons of individual types of housing of marginalised Roma settlements does not correspond with the statistical foundations and does not warrant the formulation of stronger conclusions, the data all the same only indicates a drop of work incomes and a smaller sum of total incomes with the deepening of spatial exclusion.31

no direct comparison with all households in the Slovak Republic can be made, a framework average sum of several standard income thresholds for the Slovak Republic, such as the median available equivalent income per person and month, the poverty line as 60% of the median income, average income per household member and month, minimum wage or average net monthly wage from the period near the time of data collection, all indicate significant undersizing of incomes on the side of excluded households. Thus, total income as well as sums for individual types of incomes is changing on the basis of household composition. The differences are expressed according to the presence of a working member and according to the number of members and representation of children in the household. Similarly as with general households, the amount of total income for households was more strongly influenced by the presence of a working member in the household. Upon

2.8. Summary of the income situation
The level of incomes found for marginalised Roma households clearly cannot be evaluated as high – neither with monitoring of total income per household, nor in calculations per household member. Although

42

31

For more details about the amount of work and total incomes in connection with the type of housing, see the report from the quantiative research from 2010, which was a component of the project (UNDP, 2012, pgs. 174 and 213).

comparisons with the level of total income for a household without a working member, its amount shifts up on average by one-third. The sum of total income per household also changes with the growing number of household members and with the presence of school-attending and dependent children – it increases; but after calculations per one member multiple-member households and households with a school-attending child actually have fewer financial resources. The average monthly income expressed per one member moderately exceeded 100 euro for the entire sample, but in some comparable groups it dropped below this threshold, which has already been linked with extreme deprivation (UNDP, 2012). Households with young children, without a working member and those consisting of five and more members had an income of less than 100 euro per member and month. These same three groups of households exceeded the total average also upon comparisons of social incomes per household; the amount of social incomes moderately increased versus the average even with the presence of a dependent or school-attending child. But again it applied that in the calculation per one member social incomes were smaller in households with children. In terms of work incomes, their sum in comparisons with total income was logically higher (up to fourfold) for households with a working member and greater still for households without young children and households with 1-2 members. And a larger sum of work incomes remained to these households even after calculations per one member. In contrast, the moderately higher volume of work incomes per household for the group with school-attending or dependent children was removed upon calculations per member in comparison with the opposite group – households without such children obtained a better financial advantage. In the given environments, an

above-average work income for a household after calculations per one member in multi-member households and households with children fall below average, similarly as with social incomes. Children and members of larger households are also disadvantaged with an equal level of work incomes in the form of a smaller volume of incomes per capita; social incomes with the present setup of the system of social assistance does not only not remove this disadvantage, but actually deepens it even further – and large households also have less social income per one member. The monitored incomes of marginalised Roma households showed that a proportionally large part of the surveyed households in the course of the month supplemented their total income with a loan. Loans had the largest share in other incomes for households in which no one worked, then in multiple-member households, and those in which there was a young child or children. Differences were found not only in total incomes but also for individual types of social and other incomes. While the threshold defining the lower band of income interval came out very low, the sums representing the upper limit were not especially high for individual incomes. Moreover, the upper threshold of the income intervals related only to very few households, to whom such incomes were brought by some exceptional circumstances. Empirical data indicated that average sums of incomes vary also by type of housing, but the numerical interpretation of such defined subsamples does not enable more fundamental statements to be made.32 The income situation of households from marginalised Roma settlements was found in general to be low, and for some groups of households, for example, those without a working member or with several members, it is possible in the monitored uniform environments to evaluate them as extremely undersized.

32

We note that a comparison of incomes among settlements for three types of marginalised environments does not belong among the aims of thus research; the research probe would have to cover a larger number of surveyed units and use a different model of household sample selection.

43

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

3. OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES OF MARGINALISED HOUSEHOLDS BY T YPE
The expenditures of households living in marginalised Roma settlement were surveyed in the same way as incomes. For each day during a single month (August or September 2011) financial sums paid out were recorded by type of expenditure. Overall 31 types of expenditures were recorded into the logbook for household expenditures. Their definitions were derived from expenditure items specified for the surveying of incomes, expenditures and consumption which belong among the root set of regular surveys of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic,33 but after consideration of the surveyed environment the classification of expenditures were significantly simplified. An approach was selected in which some types of expenditures – those which were assumed to occur only rarely – were combined into broader categories, though space remained for recording of all types of expenditures, only with a loss of possibility of subsequently differentiated them in more detail.34 Because the reduced listing of items left some expenditure commodities empirically uncovered or covered only minimally, during the processing of data further reductions were made. In addition to empirical interpretation, the logical association of individual items were considered. The tabular presentations are processed on the basis of the resulting 13 overall types of expenditures (see the tables below). the course of one month achieved on average 552.99 euro per household. In calculations per one household member this was 104.34 euro in expenditures. A comparison35 with the average for the Slovak Republic (307.76 euro per member) indicates an approximately 3-times lower sum of expenditures in these specific environment. From the overall sum of expenditures found per household (552.99 euro) the largest portion was for food and non-alcoholic beverages. On average for one household this was in financial terms 210.84 euro, and in the calculation per one household member 40.35 euro. With such sums the average share of expenditures for food and non-alcoholic beverages achieved 38.8% of total ascertained expenditures for households living in marginalised Roma settlements (on average for the Slovak Republic food and beverages achieved 22.1% of total expenditures). The second highest expenditure according to both sum and percentage share in the structure of total expenditures were expenditures for housing (rents, water, energy, heating, etc.). The surveyed households spent on this on average 96.63 euro (18.23 euro per one household member). The sum of expenditures determined for housing made up 17.5% of all expenditures. Expenditures for two basic needs, housing and food, thus take up a total of 56.3% of all expenditures in the surveyed households (the average for the Slovak Republic for these two commodities in 2010 was 42.5%). The third highest sum in the list of expenditures for the surveyed households was loan repayments. On

3.1. Total expenditures – sums and proportions
As Table 21 shows, the total sum of expenditures of households from marginalised Roma settlements in

33 34 35

44

See: http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=40513. But as empirical data showed, even many excluded commodities occurred only rarely or not at all in the surveyed sample. For a list of all 31 monitored items, see the tables in Chapter 3.7. We repeatedly emphasise and note that only framework comparisons are possible, because the collection of data and overall methodological surveys were different. Data listed for the Slovak Republic at the same time are a year “older”, since at the time of writing the report Slovak-wide results for 2011 were not available. For the user, however, it is not a problem after their publication to supplement them and compare them with data from the same year survey.

average in calculations per household this came out to be 57.87 euro and per one member 10.92 euro; loan repayments took up 10.5% of total expenditures. Together the mentioned three largest volume expenditures (food and beverages, housing and loan repayments) took up almost exactly two-thirds of all expenditures paid for the surveyed households in the course of the monitored month (66.8%). The remaining third of expenditures went out from homes predominately for securing additional basic needs for household members. The average household from marginalised Roma settlements spent for a month 45.52 euro on clothing and shoes (8.59 per one member); to the higher essential expenditures in terms of volume were included36 expenditures for travel and transport (20.91 per households and 3.89 for one member), repairs and household furnishings (20.63 and 3.89 euro), personal care items (19.18 and 3.62 euro), postage and telecommunications (12.39 and 2.34 euro), health (9.60 and 1.81 euro) and education together with office supplies (7.41 and 1.40 euro). Expenditures for education were differentiated according to the month: while in August this type of expenditure achieved on average 3.66 euro, in September this was two-times more – on average 7.02 euro per household. With the growing number of school-attending children, household expenditures for education also grew.37 The surveyed excluded households only spent the remaining 8.8% of total expenditures for covering socalled higher or above-standard needs. From this, expenditures for culture, restaurant services and other expenditures made up only 1.5% and 7.3% of total expenditures of household spent on alcohol and tobacco products (on average 40.40 euro per households and 7.60 euro per household member). Upon framework comparisons with the overall average for the Slovak Republic the volume of expenditures for

all comparable commodities was higher, for many of them up to many times higher: with expenditures for housing or repairs and furnishings, this was 3-times more, for travelling and transport or postage and telecommunications 8-times more; expenditures for health were approximately 5-times higher, while for expenditures for culture and restaurants on average more than 60-times more went per month from the average Slovak household in comparisons with the surveyed Roma household (37.1 euro per member versus 0.55 euro). The expenditures for alcohol and tobacco also came out higher on the side of general households of the Slovak Republic, on average this was 1.50 euro more per household member (Table 21). • Monthly expenditures of household living in marginalised Roma settlements can on average be evaluated as very low. The obtained amount of expenditures per person achieved approximately only one-third of average expenditures for the Slovak Republic and did so even with comparisons with data from the preceding year (year 2010).

Graph 11 Structure of household expenditures by type (in %)

33,2

38,8

Food and non-alcoholic beverages Housing (total) Loan repayments

10,5 17,5

Other expenditures

36 37

Listed in order from highest sums of expenditures. Differentiated also by type of spatial exclusion: households living in segregated settlements spent the least for education (2.25 euro), then followed households living separated on the edges of communities (4.70 euro), and ultimately households living concentrated within communities showed the highest sum (7.74 euro). The type of housing differentiated expenditures for education, with the smallest found in segregated settlements, although here was the most school-attending children.

45

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 21 Overview of total monthly expenditures from MRC households by type and in different forms – a comparison with all households in the Slovak Republic (in euro and in %)
Sum per household (in euro) Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures 552.99 213.84 40.40 45.52 96.63 20.63 20.91 12.39 19.18 7.41 9.60 57.87 2.91 5.69 Sum per 1 member (in euro) 104.34 40.35 7.62 8.59 18.23 3.89 3.95 2.34 3.62 1.40 1.81 10.92 0.55 1.07 Calculation for Slovak Republic (euro/member) 307.76 68.10 9.37 16.39 62.86 12.43 22.18 16.18 1.14* 9.38 37.10 52.62**

% of total income

in this:

100.0 38.8% 7.3% 8.2% 17.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 1.3% 1.7% 10.5% 0.5% 1.0%

Notes: Data for the Slovak Republic calculated according to the publication Incomes, Expenditures and Consumption of Private Households in the Slovak Republic 2010 (SO SR 2011); data for 2011 had not been published at the time of processing the report. The statistic of family accounts uses the indicator sum in euro per person and year; for the needs of comparisons, these sums are divided by the number 12 months. The comparison is only orientational for approximating a framework of individual sums, and a direct comparison is not possible given the different types of surveys. *The number for the whole of the Slovak Republic only for expenditures for education (without office supplies). **The number gives the total sum also for the missing two items (all other expenditures, including personal care and loan repayments).

• More than half (over 55%) of monthly expenditures of the surveyed households were made up of expenditures for food and housing. After adding in loan repayments (on average 10% of total monthly expenditures) on average only one-third remained to them for other types of expenditures. • The analysis revealed that even this third of remaining expenditures were predominately spent for covering the most basic needs, such as health, education, necessary clothing and shoes, travel and postal expenses or personal care. The covering of so-called “advanced” needs was found only in minimal form in the expenditure structure in the surveyed environments. And if such a type of expenditures were expended, it involved exclusively cases of households with a working

member or members and with a higher overall incomes. The majority of households from marginalised Roma settlements touch upon expenditures relating to such commodities as newspapers and books, goods and services for culture and recreation, accommodation services or dining or refreshments in restaurant facilities only in symbolic form. In the surveyed environments no expenditures for an organised holiday or expenditures for antiques or artistic works were found at all in the scope of the research probe. • Thus, a portion of the monitored types of expenditures is in the environment of marginalised Roma settlements completely unknown or discovered only in rare cases; the majority of free finances after payment for housing and securing food were focused on other basic needs. Empirical

46

data also indicates that a large part of households from the surveyed excluded environment is indebtedness, because loan repayments represented in the course of the monitored month up to the third most voluminous expenditure.38

3.2. Expenditures by working member of a household
As is clear from the analysis of the incomes of marginalised households, but also from other surveyed attempts at capturing the life conditions in excluded Roma settlements, the work of some members of a family obviously improves the average household income. And as Tables 22 through 24 show, with the presence of a working member the overall structure and level of expenditures also changes. With comparisons of total expenditures for a household the level of expenditures was more than 300 euro higher for the group of households where there was at least one working member. The total volume of expenditures for the monitored month achieved for the group of households with a working member or members 794.47 euro, and only 484.88 euro for the group of households without a working member. In the calculation per household member this huge difference in expenditures deepened even further: the sum of monthly expenditures occurring per one member of households with a working member came out to be 166.46 euro39 and for households where no one was working achieved 88.99 euro. Thus, households without a working member could allow only half as much in expenditures per capita than households with a working member or members. The higher sum of expenditures paid in the course of the monitored month is evident for the group of households with a working member in nearly all types of expenditures. The one exception was in

expenditures for health, where the sum spent for both compared groups was equal in the calculation per household member; in the calculation per household this ultimately came out moderately in favour on the side of households without a working member (9.82 euro versus 8.83 euro). Despite this fact, financial resources spent on health in marginalised Roma settlements are not high: the spent portion per one household corresponds approximately to the sum the average household in the Slovak Republic paid for one member (compare with Table 20). Regarding basic expenditures, households with a working member paid out for food and non-alcoholic beverages on average 70 euro more a month (267.29 euro versus 198.76 euro), per one member this was 20 euro more (56.00 euro versus 36.48 euro). Expenditures for housing were with them higher by nearly one-third (125.60 versus 88.46 per household) and they also had higher sums for loan payments (71.47 euro versus 54.04 euro for households without a working member). Despite the higher sums spent on the side of households with a working member, the total share for food and housing came out for them approximately 10% smaller (49.5% versus 59.4% of total expenditures), and the share of the three commodities with the highest expenditures – food and housing together with loan repayments – was also smaller (58.5% and for households without a working member more than 70%). Even after payments for higher costs for the most fundamental needs and higher repayments more resources remained to families linked to the labour market for other expenditures. From other types of expenditures households with a working member spent significantly more financial resources primarily on repairs and furnishings (approximately 8-times more), while sums for travel and transport (more than 49 euro to not quite 13 euro

38 39

For the acknowledged indebtedness of surveyed households, see (UNDP, 2013). For context we mention that in the framework comparison with the average for the Slovak Republic this was still less by approximately one-half (see Table 21).

47

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

per household), postage and telecommunications (more than 28 euro versus not quite 8 euro) and education, including office supplies, (over 14 euro versus not quite 5.5 euro) were on average three-fold higher for them. With the calculation per one schoolattending child expenditures for households with a working member on education were nearly 10 euro, while the group of households without a working member spent during the month less than 3 euro per one school-attending child. Households with a working member also had higher remaining types of expenditures, such as clothing and shoes, restaurant and culture, or so-called other expenditures. Expenditures for alcohol and tobacco moved around 40 euro for both compared groups, and in households with a working member this was moderately higher. In the calculation per adult member, expenditures spent on alcohol and tobacco products were also higher for households with a working member: 16.95 euro to 14.99 euro per adult member. However, the approximately equal sum spent on tobacco and alcohol products made up a higher share of total expenditures in households without a working member: around 8% of the monthly budget versus 5.6%. • Average monthly expenditures for Roma households living in marginalised settlement lag behind the average for the Slovak Republic in calculation per household member by

approximately two-thirds; but the absence of a working member in the household means falling even further behind, because for the surveyed Roma households without a working member the sum of expenditures was nearly half as low compared with excluded Roma households with a working member. The volume of expenditures for households from excluded settlements is in framework comparisons with the average for the Slovak Republic lower in overall terms and households without a working member are lagging behind in consumption still further. • The lagging behind of households without a working member versus the group with a working member was evident in all of the monitored expenditures with one exception – expenditures for health. Expenditures for health were in both compared groups approximately the same in volume, but overall very low – not even 2 euro per household member. • The smaller sums spent by households without a working member on basic life needs, such as food and housing, at the same time meant a higher proportion of such basic expenditures in total expenditures. This means that after paying for the most basic needs, although in smaller sums, less money was available for other expenditures to those families connected to the labour market.

Graph 12 Comparison of the structure of expenditures of households by working member (in %)
0 10 20 30 33,7% 18,2% 15,8% 11,1% 9,0% 29,5% 41,5% 40 41,2% 50

Food and non-alcoholic beverages Housing (total) Loan repayments Other expenditures 0 working 1+ working

48

• The only “luxury” which households from marginalised Roma settlements allow themselves is smoking and alcohol, namely without regard to the presence of a working member in the

household. The listed sums spent were for both compared groups approximately the same; in calculation per one adult they differed by only 2 euro.

Table 22 Overview of expenditures of MRC households by representation of working members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total (100) 552.99 213.84 40.40 45.52 96.63 20.63 20.91 12.39 19.18 7.41 9.60 57.87 2.91 5.69 - from this by working member 0 working (78) 1+ working (22) 484.88 794.47 198.76 267.29 39.19 44.68 38.85 69.19 88.46 125.60 8.40 64.01 12.90 49.32 7.89 28.34 16.58 28.41 5.44 14.38 9.82 8.83 54.04 71.47 2.06 5.95 2.50 17.00

in this:

Table 23 Overview of expenditures in the calculation per household member of MRC households by representation of working members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total (530) 104.34 40.35 7.62 8.59 18.23 3.89 3.95 2.34 3.62 1.40 1.81 10.92 0.55 1.07 15.42 4.23 - from this by working member 0 working (425) 1+ working (105) 88.99 166.46 36.48 56.00 7.19 9.36 7.13 14.50 16.23 26.32 1.54 13.41 2.37 10.33 1.45 5.94 3.04 5.95 1.00 3.01 1.80 1.85 9.92 14.98 0.38 1.25 0.46 3.56 14.99 2.99 16.95 9.59

in this:

- in euro per one adult member Alcohol and tobacco - in euro per one school-attending child Education and office needs

49

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 24 Overview individual types of expenditures in total expenditures of MRC households by representation of working members (in %)
% of total expenditures Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total 100.0 38.8% 7.3% 8.2% 17.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 1.3% 1.7% 10.5% 0.5% 1.0% - from this by working member 0 working 1+ working 100.0 100.0 41.2% 33.7% 8.1% 5.6% 8.0% 8.7% 18.2% 15.8% 1.7% 8.1% 2.7% 6.2% 1.6% 3.6% 3.4% 3.6% 1.1% 1.8% 2.0% 1.1% 11.1% 9.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 2.1%

in this:

3.3. Expenditures by number of household members
With the number of household members the volume of total expenditures increased in terms of financial expression per household. While the total sum of expenditures in 1-2-member households achieved 396.29 euro, with 3-4-member households this was approximately 90 euro more (482.27 euro) and with 5 and more members by an additional 120 euro (606.81 euro). However, in calculations per one member small households had the highest expenditures (209.80 euro) while households with 5 or more members had the least (only 93.24 euro). Although multimembered households spent more money during the monitored month, per one member the average expenditure was more than two-times smaller.40 The principles of increasing of financial volume of household expenditures with a growing number of

members and their drop when calculating per person also applied with the majority of surveyed types of expenditures. A particularly large difference was found in expenditures for food. While 1-2-member households spent not quite 170 euro for food and non-alcoholic beverages, 3-4 member households spent more than 190 euro and 5 and more-member households spent a total of nearly 230 euro for food. These sums calculated per capita were reversed: in the smallest households nearly 90 euro were spent per one member, while with 3-4-member households this was 52 euro and in the case of the largest households only 35 euro per person and month. In percentages of total expenditures those for food were in all three size-groups of households the most voluminous – they made up 42.6% of total expenditures in the smallest households, 40.2% in the medium-size category, and 37.6% for the most populated households.

40

50

In the mapping of incomes and expenditures of Roma households, for several reasons we did not use equivalent scales, which ascribe a coefficient of 1 to only the first adult in a household and for each additional adult and child this is reduced (to 0.5 and 0.3; or a different coefficient). This was partly the small range and very heterogeneous composition of the research sample, also the standard preference for calculation of incomes and expenditures per “head” in the case of surveys of very vulnerable groups, as well as the endless discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these two possibilities for measuring. On the whole we are inclined to be of the opinion that calculation per household is more telling and includes within it fewer mistakes from the arbitrary determination of the level of coefficients. For some groups of households equivalent scales give a worse result (also see: Gerbery, D. – Bodnárová, B. – Džambazovič, R.: Prieskum názorov expertov na životné minimum. [Survey of the opinion of experts on the life minimum] Bratislava, IVPR 2010).

Graph 13 Comparison of the structure of household expenditures by number of members (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 42,6% 40,2% 37,6% 19,1% 20,1% 16,4% 11,9% 8,4% 11,1% 50

Food and non-alcoholic beverages Housing (total) Loan repayments Other expenditures

1-2 members 3-4 members 5+ members

26,4% 31,3% 34,9%

Together with housing costs, which were highest for households with 5 or more members (more than 99 euro versus 97 euro for medium and not quite 76 euro for the smallest category of households), these two expenditures recorded around 60% of all expenditures (nearly 62% of expenditures of 1-2-member households, more than 60% of those for 3-4-member households and 54% of five or more member households).

After subtracting loan repayments, only 26% of total incomes to households with 1-2 for all other types of expenditures, 31% to households with 3-4 members and 35% to those with 5 and more members. In specific sums for a household this was in order from the smallest category of households to the largest: 105 euro to 151 euro to 211 euro. The surveyed households spent only this amount of finances on other types of expenditures other than food, housing and loan repayments.

Table 25 Overview of expenditures of MRC households by number of household members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total (100) 552.99 213.84 40.40 45.52 96.63 20.63 20.91 12.39 19.18 7.41 9.60 57.87 2.91 5.69 - from this by number of members 1-2 (9) 3-4 (28) 396.29 482.27 168.84 193.26 32.96 33.35 16.93 33.93 75.56 97.11 0.44 15.70 14.30 20.91 13.89 7.61 13.35 22.28 0.00 3.52 9.57 8.56 47.33 40.54 1.11 2.38 2.01 3.13 5+ members (63) 606.81 229.41 44.60 54.76 99.42 25.71 21.85 14.30 18.64 10.20 10.07 67.08 3.41 7.35

in this:

41

Predominately solitary individuals and retired couples, rarely cohabiting adult relatives.

51

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

The structure of other expenditures for the three compared sizes of households was also differentiated. The smallest households spent less money than the other two groups for repairs and furnishings and for education and did so both in calculations per household and per member. While 1-2 member households had no expenditures for education,41 multiple households spent on average 4.20 euro for one school-attending child. The remaining two types of expenditures came out in calculation per member highest for the small households, although they spent in total a smaller sum on them. Expenditures for health were in them 2 to 3times higher per one member (5 euro versus 2.33 and 1.13 euro for the larger households). In relation to expenditures for alcohol and tobacco, in calculations per one member they were approximately 2 euro higher for households with 1-2 members (17.5 euro to 15.5 euro in the case of larger households). • The same as with incomes, it also applies with expenditures that with the number of members of a household the overall sum spent for the

household increased, but per member expenditures were significantly lower in multiplemember households. • In all three compared groups of households expenditures for food and housing made up the largest portion and the third largest in terms of volume was for loan payments. Even the size of the household did not change the order of the three most costly expenditures. For covering all other needs a third and less of all expenditures, which represented sums between 100 to 200 euro, were left to the individual size categories of excluded households. Households made up of only one or two members spent for other expenditures on average the smallest sum per household. • Expenditures in calculations per member came out highest for 1-2-member households in all of the monitored commodities of other expenditures, aside from education and repairs and furnishings. But overall even the expenditures for smaller households were below average.

Table 26 Overview of expenditures in calculation per household member of MRC households by number of household members (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport in this: Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures - in euro per one adult member Alcohol and tobacco - in euro per one school-attending child Education and office needs Total (530) 104.34 40.35 7.62 8.59 18.23 3.89 3.95 2.34 3.62 1.40 1.81 10.92 0.55 1.07 15.42 4.23 - from this by number of members 1-2 (17) 3-4 (103) 209.80 131.10 89.39 52.54 17.45 9.06 8.96 9.22 40.00 26.40 0.24 4.27 7.57 5.68 7.35 2.07 7.07 6.06 0.00 0.96 5.06 2.33 25.06 11.02 0.59 0.65 1.07 0.85 17.45 15.56 4.28 5+ members (410) 93.24 35.25 6.85 8.41 15.28 3.95 3.36 2.20 2.86 1.57 1.55 10.31 0.52 1.13 15.19 4.23

52

Table 27 Share of individual types of expenditures in all expenditures of MRC households by number of household members (in %)
% of total expenditures Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport in this: Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total 100.0 38.8% 7.3% 8.2% 17.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 1.3% 1.7% 10.5% 0.5% 1.0% - from this by number of members 1-2 3-4 100.0 42.6% 8.3% 4.3% 19.1% 0.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 0.0% 2.4% 11.9% 0.3% 0.5% 100.0 40.2% 6.9% 7.0% 20.1% 3.3% 4.3% 1.6% 4.6% 0.7% 1.8% 8.4% 0.5% 0.6% 5+ members 100.0 37.6% 7.4% 9.0% 16.4% 4.2% 3.6% 2.4% 3.1% 1.7% 1.7% 11.1% 0.6% 1.2%

3.4. Expenditures by young children
Tables 28 through 30 show what happens to the total sums of expenditures and their structure if there are one or several young children among the members of a household. The data documents that the presence of a young child in a households lowered the total volume of expenditures of these households in comparison with the group of households where there were no young children. While the average sum of monthly expenditures for a household without a young child was 572.73 euro, households with a young child paid out 534.77 euro. But as can be seen, the difference in total monthly expenditures wasn’t particularly dramatic, differing on average by not quite 40 euro. The deficit to the disadvantage of households with a young child or children was also preserved with calculations per capita: they paid out 89.13 euro versus 126.11 euro for households without a young child. The higher overall sum of expenditures in households without young children projected also to higher expenditures for the most costly commodities, which were in this case food. Households with young children spent less on food through the lens of total expended

sum per household (191.57 euro versus 237.96 euro for households without a preschooler), as also with sums per one member (31.93 euro versus 52.40 euro). The purchase of food and non-alcoholic beverages made up in them 35.7% of all expenditures; for households without young children this was 41.5%. The second largest expenditure in terms of volume remained in both groups housing costs, which were higher on the side of households with young children. They paid out nearly 103 euro for housing (households without young children approximately 90 euro), which represented 19.2% of their total monthly expenditures (15.7% for households without young children). Together resources expended on the mentioned two basic commodities, food and housing, nearly balanced out between the compared categories of households: 54.9% was the average share for households with a young child, while in the other group this was 57.2%. The higher expenditures for food in one category balanced out the higher expenditures for housing in the other. After taking out loan repayments, again the third highest type of expenditure in both groups, 32.7% for other types of expenditures remained to households

53

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Graph 14 Comparison of the structure of household expenditures by young children (in %)
0 10 20 30 35,7% 15,7% 19,2% 40 41,5% 50

Food and nonalcoholic beverages Housing (total) Loan repayments Other expenditures
8,5% 12,4%

0 children 1+ children
34,3% 32,7%

with a young child and 34.3% for those without a young child. Thus, again not a great difference from overall expenditures. Where did these relatively “free” paid out finances go to? In sums per household families with young children gave more for personal care (22 to 16 euro) and so-called other expenditures (9 to 2 euro), and even for alcohol and tobacco products (45 to 35 euro). Both categories of households gave an approximately equal sum for clothing and shoes (over 45 euro), health (9-10 euro) and restaurants and culture (approx. 3 euro per household). In the remaining types of outcomes a higher sum was paid out

for households without a young child: repairs and furnishings (33 to 9 euro), travel and transport (25 to 17 euro), postage and telecommunications (18 to 7 euro) and education (more than 9 euro to not quite 6 euro per household). In calculations per one member, however, expenditures for the group of households without young children were higher or the same for all monitored commodities. In relation to expenditures for education (including office supplies), these turned out in calculations per one member to be 2 euro in the group without young

Table 28 Overview of expenditures of MRC households by young children (in euro)
- from this by young children Sum in euro per household and month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport in this: Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Total (100) 0 children (48) 552.99 213.84 40.40 45.52 96.63 20.63 20.91 12.39 19.18 7.41 9.60 57.87 2.91 5.69 572.73 237.96 34.83 45.56 90.14 32.84 24.77 17.86 16.44 9.16 9.10 48.53 3.30 2.23 1+ children (52) 534.77 191.57 45.54 45.49 102.62 9.37 17.35 7.34 21.71 5.79 10.06 66.50 2.56 8.88

54

Other expenditures

children and not even 1 euro in households with a young child; upon specification of these expenditures per one school-attending child financial resources of 4.49 euro to 3.91 euro in favour of households without young children were expended. An approximately equal and very low sum was paid per individual in expenditures for health (2 euro and less). A larger difference was shown with calculations of expenditures for alcohol and tobacco for one adult person – for households with a young child they came out on average to be 3 euro higher. • The presence of absence of a young child of preschool age changed expenditures in terms of volume, but no appreciably. Households with a young child had moderately lower overall expenditures per household and in calculations per one member, where the paid out sum fell below the level of 90 euro per one person per household. • But the covering of basic needs (food and housing) and mandatory loan repayments occurred on approximately an equal level (more than 400

euro); then approximately a third of all expenditures paid out were left for other items. • Although the sum expended per household for individual types of expenditures was greater one time on the side of households with young children and with other types of expenditures on the side of the category without young children, when sums are expressed per person financial costs for nearly for all items were larger for households without young children. More financial resources “got away” per member of households without young children not only for covering the most basic needs but also for travel, clothing and shoes or telephoning. • However, in principle, the differences ascertained between the two groups of comparisons on the basis of the presence or absence of young children were not particularly large, from the viewpoint of the level and structure of expenditures the presence of a young child did not play a more significant role.

Table 29 Overview of expenditures in calculation per household member of MRC households by young children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total (530) 104.34 40.35 7.62 8.59 18.23 3.89 3.95 2.34 3.62 1.40 1.81 10.92 0.55 1.07 15.42 4.23 - from this by young children 0 children (218) 1+ children (312) 126.11 89.13 52.40 31.93 7.67 7.59 10.03 7.58 19.85 17.10 7.23 1.56 5.45 2.89 3.93 1.22 3.62 3.62 2.02 0.96 2.00 1.68 10.69 11.08 0.73 0.43 0.49 1.48 13.93 4.49 16.68 3.91

in this:

- in euro per one adult member Alcohol and tobacco - in euro per one school-attending child Education and office needs

55

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 30 Share of individual types of expenditures in total expenditures for MRC households by young children (in %)
% of total expenditures Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total 100.0 38.8% 7.3% 8.2% 17.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 1.3% 1.7% 10.5% 0.5% 1.0% - from this by young children 0 children 1+ children 100.0 100.0 41.5% 35.7% 6.1% 8.5% 8.0% 8.5% 15.7% 19.2% 5.7% 1.8% 4.3% 3.2% 3.1% 1.4% 2.9% 4.1% 1.6% 1.1% 1.6% 1.9% 8.5% 12.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 1.7%

in this:

3.5. Expenditures by school-attending children
As follows from the overview Tables 31 through 33, more expenditures per household and less per one member – that would be a brief characterisation of the comparison of groups of households with a schoolattending child and without. Although the total sum of expenditures for a household was for the group with a school-attending child nearly 70 euro higher (574.18 euro to 505.82 euro), significantly fewer resources were paid out per one member of such households (on average 94.33 euro versus 142.55 euro per member in households without a schoolattending child). Expenditures for basic needs for both groups of households far surpassed half of all expenditures. For households with a school-attending child this was 55.8% of all expenditures (39.2% of this for food) and for a household without a school-attending child 57.2% (37.6% of this for food). Together with loan repayments approximately two-thirds of all household expenditures were trimmed away. As was shown, in the overall structure of expenditures there were no great differences even between these two categories of households.

The remaining third paid out for other expenditures was variously divided between the individual types of expenditures. The largest deviation, given the division of the sample by school-attending children, was recorded with expenditures for education (including office supplies): for the group of households with a school-attending child the paid out sum achieved on average 10.44 euro per household, while with the group without such a child not even 1 euro. In the calculation per 1 school-attending child expenditures for education represented 4.12 euro. In the calculation per household member nearly all of the other types of expenditures were higher for the group of households without a school-attending child (aside from repairs and furnishings and postage and telecommunications). From them the largest portion was paid out for clothing and shoes (more than 11 euro; for households with a school-attending child not quite 8 euro per member), followed by expenditures for tobacco and alcohol (10 euro versus 7 euro per member; in the calculation per adult equal at approximately 15 euro). For personal care a member of a household without a school-attending child spends just over 7 euro, and the average for the group with a school-attending child was smaller than 3 euro.

56

Graph 15 Comparison of the structure out household expenditures by school-attending children (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 41,5% 35,7% 15,7% 19,2% 8,5% 12,4% 34,3% 32,7% 50

Food and nonalcoholic beverages Housing (total) Loan repayments Other expenditures

0 children 1+ children

The next expenditure item in order by sum per member was travel and transport (nearly 7 euro versus 3 euro), and then expenditures for health (3.52 euro versus 1.36 euro for a household with a schoolattending child). The remaining expenditures were very low, so in calculations per one member as well as in the share of total expenditures (under 2%). • Unlike with young children, where their presence reduced total expenditures per household and per one member, upon comparison of households

differentiated by the representation of a schoolattending child or children a different association was shown. Households with a school-attending child showed a higher total sum of expenditures, but a lower sum calculated per one member. And even for this category of households this came out to be less than 100 euro per one person on average. • Expenditures per household member came out in nearly all monitored items higher for the group of

Table 31 Overview of expenditures of MRC households by school-attending children (in euro)
- from this by school-attending children Sum in euro per household and month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport in this: Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Tota l(100) 0 children (31) 552.99 213.84 40.40 45.52 96.63 20.63 20.91 12.39 19.18 7.41 9.60 57.87 2.91 5.69 505.82 190.23 35.31 39.26 99.26 5.36 23.27 7.77 26.31 0.66 12.48 58.65 3.13 4.12 1+ children (69) 574.18 224.44 42.69 48.34 95.44 27.50 19.85 14.46 15.98 10.44 8.30 57.52 2.82 6.40

57

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 32 Overview of expenditures in calculations per household member of MRC households by school-attending children (in euro)
- from this by school-attending children Sum in euro per household per month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport in this: Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures - in euro per one adult member Alcohol and tobacco - in euro per one school-attending child Education and office needs 4.23 4.12 15.42 15.00 15.58 Total (530) 0 children (110) 104.34 40.35 7.62 8.59 18.23 3.89 3.95 2.34 3.62 1.40 1.81 10.92 0.55 1.07 142.55 53.61 9.95 11.06 27.97 1.51 6.56 2.19 7.42 0.19 3.52 16.53 0.88 1.16 1+ children (420) 94.33 36.87 7.01 7.94 15.68 4.52 3.26 2.38 2.63 1.72 1.36 9.45 0.46 1.05

Table 33 Share of individual types of expenditures in total expenditures of MRC households by school-attending children (in %)
- from this by school-attending children % of total expenditures Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport in this: Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Total 0 children 100.0 38.8% 7.3% 8.2% 17.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 1.3% 1.7% 10.5% 0.5% 1.0% 100.0 37.6% 7.0% 7.8% 19.6% 1.1% 4.6% 1.5% 5.2% 0.1% 2.5% 11.6% 0.6% 0.8% 1+ children 100.0 39.2% 7.4% 8.4% 16.6% 4.8% 3.5% 2.5% 2.8% 1.8% 1.4% 10.0% 0.5% 1.1%

58

Other expenditures

households which did not have a schoolattending child, with the one exception being expenditures for education – where the structure of incomes of households with schoolattending children was richer (and expenditures for remaining commodities were shortened). • Aside from the mentioned specifics in expenditures, the structure of expenditures on the basis of a school-attending child in the family did not differ much; the reason probably will be the overall very low level of expenditures generally in the surveyed environment.

households without children came out to be two-times higher: 180.14 euro versus 99.63 euro. Households with a child paid out more resources for basic needs (215.33 euro versus 203.86 euro for food and non-alcoholic beverages and 101.01 euro versus 67.31 euro for housing), and their loan repayments were higher (56.61 euro versus 46.23 euro). Despite the higher sum expended for these three most voluminous expenditures, because of the larger sum of overall expenditures, these actually made up a smaller share of the total expenditures of households with children. The most basic expenditures and loan payments represented 65.7% of the overall expenditures, while for households without children this was 73.9%. Thus, the share of all other types of expenditures achieved for households with children a remainder 34.3% and for the group with children just 26.1%. The largest difference between the compared households was shown in total sum spent on clothing and shoes (49.28 euro versus 20.39 euro per household); per one member, however, this sum came out the same (over 8.50 euro). Still, with some expenditures a large difference between households with and without children was evident, namely repairs and furnishings. This expenditure came out during the monitored month to be on average 23 euro for households with children and just 4.79 for those without children. For travel and transport, both groups of households spent the same overall sum, but for one member of the childless households this was nearly 9 euro and per

3.6. Expenditures by total dependent children
The noted association between total expenditures per household and their calculation per one member, which resulted from the comparison on the basis of a school-attending child, strengthened even further upon comparison of all dependent children without regard to their age (Tables 34 through 36). The significantly higher sum of total expenditures for a household with a dependent child, after recalculating per member, became a lag in expenditures. While the average expenditures of the group of households with a child stopped at the level of 571.43 euro, for households without a child this was nearly 142 euro less (429.58 euro). In the calculation for one person, expenditures for

Graph 16 Comparison of the structure out household expenditures by dependent children (in %)
0 10 20 30 40 37,6% 15,7% 17,7% 10,8% 10,4% 26,1% 34,3% 50 47,7%

Food and nonalcoholic beverages Housing (total) Loan repayments Other expenditures

0 children 1+ children

59

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

member of households with children not quite 4 euro. A similar rule can to a smaller or larger measure seen also with the remaining expenditures (see Tables 34 and 35).

In relation to expenditures for health, these were equal in total in both categories of households (over 9 euro), though for one member this came out to be two-times more in the group without children. On the

Table 34 Overview of expenditures of MRC households by dependent children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household and month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total (100) 552.99 213.84 40.40 45.52 96.63 20.63 20.91 12.39 19.18 7.41 9.60 57.87 2.91 5.69 - from this by dependent children 0 children (13) 1+ children (87) 429.58 571.43 203.86 215.33 28.74 42.14 20.39 49.28 67.31 101.01 4.79 23.00 20.93 20.91 10.54 12.67 12.97 20.11 0.00 8.52 9.42 9.63 46.23 59.61 1.00 3.20 3.39 6.03

in this:

Table 35 Overview of expenditures in calculations per household member of MRC households by dependent children (in euro)
Sum in euro per household per month Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total (530) 104.34 40.35 7.62 8.59 18.23 3.89 3.95 2.34 3.62 1.40 1.81 10.92 0.55 1.07 15.42 4.23 - from this by dependent children 0 children (31) 1+ children (499) 180.14 99.63 85.49 37.54 12.05 7.35 8.55 8.59 28.23 17.61 2.01 4.01 8.78 3.65 4.42 2.21 5.44 3.51 0.00 1.48 3.95 1.68 19.39 10.39 0.42 0.56 1.42 1.05 12.05 15.87 4.23

in this:

- in euro per one adult member Alcohol and tobacco - in euro per one school-attending child Education and office needs

60

Table 36 Overview of individual types of expenditures in total expenditures of MRC households by dependent children (in %)
% of total expenditures Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothing and shoes Housing (total) Repairs and furnishings Travel and transport Postage and telecommunications Personal care Education and office needs Health Loan repayments Restaurants and culture Other expenditures Total 100.0 38.8% 7.3% 8.2% 17.5% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.5% 1.3% 1.7% 10.5% 0.5% 1.0% - from this by dependent children 0 children 1+ children 100.0 100.0 47.4% 37.6% 6.7% 7.4% 4.7% 8.6% 15.7% 17.7% 1.1% 4.0% 4.9% 3.7% 2.5% 2.2% 3.0% 3.5% 0.0% 1.5% 2.2% 1.7% 10.8% 10.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.8% 1.1%

in this:

other hand, households without children were in the monitored month freed from expenditures for education; the group with children paid over 8.50 euro for this item (4.23 for one school-attending child). Expenditures for alcohol and tobacco were found to be higher for households with children – in total costs (42.14 euro versus 28.74 euro) and in calculations per one adult member (15.87 euro versus 12.05 euro). • A comparison of expenditures of excluded Roma households with a child and without children showed the same trend as with incomes. The total higher sum of resources paid out for a household with a child, after recalculating per member, ends up at a lower financial part and does so by nearly half in comparisons with households without children. • Although sums of expenditures for basic needs are higher on the side of households with dependent children, in the overall structure of expenditures they have a smaller share. The scale of expenditures is in the case of households with children more variegated by the expenditures for education.

• Both compared groups are familiar with loan repayments; they also affect households with dependent children, and even in the monitored month such households paid a larger sum on average per household. In the structure of both groups, such expenditures made up more than 10% of all expenditures.

3.7. Range of expenditure and amounts of expenditures by kind and by type of housing
As in the chapter on incomes, the following tables offer an overview of the range of expenditure of individual types of expenditures in more detailed segments (for all 31 recorded expenditures), the expenditure intervals for individual items, as well as two arithmetic averages for monthly expenditures expressed in euro. One average presents the average expenditure for the given item per household calculated for the entire surveyed sample and the second only for households which in the monitored month actually took part in the given expenditure (that is, the average expenditure actually paid out). Such indicators of expenditure and the amounts of

61

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

expenditures per household supplement the overall description of the economic situation and supplement the image regarding the consumer behaviour of marginalised Roma households.42 As can be seen from Table 37, from all 31 tracked items only one was recorded in all of the surveyed households – expenditures for food. The smallest sum of this type paid in the course of the monitored month was 16.95 euro and the highest 526.80 euro. This then involves a relatively vast interval,43 its lower threshold, however, occurred only exceptionally; the following interval began at the sum of 60 euro, which actually upon dividing into the number of days meant 2 euro per day and household. The upper threshold was also not very frequent, because average monthly expenditures for food represented approximately 200 euro (less than 7 euro per household per day). The majority of households (56%) had monthly expenditures for food up to this threshold (Table 38), while for the other 44% the sum calculated per individual day in the month was higher.44 When taking into consideration the fact that in the case of excluded Roma households relatively populated households are involved,45 the determined sum of expenditures on food is not at all high, more the opposite, in fact. For non-alcoholic beverages at least 91% of the surveyed households listed at least some sum during the month; the interval of specific sums of expenditures on non-alcoholic beverages moved between 0.30 euro to 212 euro (after exclusion of the extreme value the upper threshold was on the level of 63.15 euro). The average monthly expenditures for on non-alcoholic beverages achieved 14.79 euro (in the calculation for all households this was a bit less –

13.46 euro). Non-alcoholic beverages ranked in the surveyed environment among the most extensive, but not with a very high expenditure. Food and drinks in factory or school dining halls or in restaurant facilities were not a frequent expenditure in the surveyed households: in the first case only 11% of households were affected and in the second only 5%. Even the listed monthly sums for these expenditures were not great – with school and factory dining halls they were from 1 to 20 euro and with restaurants from 3 to 31.40 euro. Members of households from the surveyed excluded settlements visited restaurant facilities only rarely and the expenditures expended are not high (11.48 euro). Expenditures for alcoholic beverages were listed in 62% of the surveyed households and the sum expended varied from 0.40 to 61.28 euro. Per one household for the total sample, the average sum spent on alcohol was 9 euro, and for households which actually listed this type of expenditure the average for the month was 14.57 euro. Tobacco and tobacco products were found among expenditures in more than three-quarters of the surveyed sample (77% of households). The listed sums of expenditures for smoking moved in the interval from 0.50 to 99.00 euro; the average sum was 40.74 euro (the average for all households was 31.37 euro). The data indicates that the use of tobacco products is in the surveyed Roma households relatively widespread. In relation to expenditures for housing, the most telling indicator for them are the total monthly expenditures for all services connected with housing, because not all households were able to differentiate the individual commodities associated with housing and energy needs.46 In at least one of four surveyed

42

43 44

62

45

Let‘s recall that households with the help of assistants recorded expenditures (equally as with incomes and consumption of selected foods) for individual days in the course of the month and the resulting sum is calculated; thus, this did not involve any “overall estimate” of the given expenditure for the month, which could be significantly misrepresented. In the framework of the given research sample, in comparison with the Slovak-wide scale this is significantly narrower (SO SR, 2011). The distribution of the surveyed households into individual expenditure intervals was in the case of expenditures for food as follows: to 100 euro = 16% of households; 101 – 150 euro = 20% of households; 151 – 200 euro = 20% of households; 201 – 250 euro = 19% of households; 251 – 300 euro = 10% of households; 301 – 400 euro = 9% of households; 401 or more (ceiling of 526.80) euro = 6% of households. The average number of members of a household represented 5.3 persons (the average number of dependent children total = 2.7; average number of school-attending children = 1.75; average number of young children = 0.93).

items for housing costs 89% of households listed some sum, while the remaining 11% did not have housing costs or did not want to list any.47 The total expenditures for housing covered the interval from 20.00 – 340.00 euro (exceptionally a cost of 8 euro was recorded). The average expenditure for housing for the entire number of households was 99.63 euro, while among households with housing costs the average sum for this expense came out to 108.57 euro. From among the consumer items and appliances the most distributed among the surveyed excluded households were expenditures for clothing (77% of households had them in the course of the month; the sum moved from not quite 3 to 148 euro; the average monthly expenditure of a household for clothing was 35.17 euro); similarly to this were also expenditures for shoes (74% of households; the interval of the monthly sum from 3 to 67 euro; the average expenditure of a household for shoes was about 25 euro). The majority of households also purchased in the course of the month personal care items (82% of households; a sum from 1.66 to 108.12 euro; average expenditure just over 27 euro). A total of 30% of the surveyed sample purchased household appliances and furnishing during the monitored month (from 1 to 44 euro; average of 13 euro), 18% bought material and services for home repair (5 to 68 euro, exceptionally 943 euro; on average nearly 94 euro) and 41% of households had expenditures for postage and telecommunications (from 0.50 to 300 euro; an average expenditure of 30 euro). Other consumer items and communal or other services had in the surveyed environment only a small range48 and financial expenditures for them were on average not very high. Some expenditure items like organised holidays or the purchase of antiques and artistic works were not recorded at all in the surveyed environment.

Let’s look independently at the remaining three expenditure items: expenditures for health, for education and for loan repayments. Expenditures for health in the course of the month were listed by 60% of the excluded Roma households, and the expended sum shifted from 3.00 to 73.65 euro. The expenditure for health for one surveyed household was on average 9.60 euro; the average per household having this expenditure achieved 16 euro. In the framework of expenditures for education, 23% of surveyed households listed a sum, which moved from 1.90 euro up through 78.90 euro. The average expenditure for education and school was shown to be 21.71 euro (the average for all households was lower than 5 euro). In the preceding analysis office supplies were also calculated into expenditures for education. Upon independent listing, 11% of the surveyed households had this type of expenditure and on average 22 euro per household were expended for office supplies by those that listed this expenditure. Loan repayments represent a specific type of financial cost for households. In the scope of the surveyed sample of households from marginalised Roma settlement they were very widely distributed; in the course of the monitored month as many as 68% of households paid some form of loan or debt repayment. The amount of the payment was relatively varied, with the interval listed beginning at 10 euro and stopping at 431 euro. The average payment for the entire surveyed sample was 57.87 euro per household and the average expended sum (from households which during the month made some form of loan repayment) exceeded 85 euro. The listed data on the range and amount of monthly debt and loan repayments testify to the high measure of indebtedness of households from marginalised Roma settlements.49

46 47 48

49

Rent for housing was listed by 33% of households, expenditures for energy by 82%, for water by 40% and other services for housing only by 7%. The highest listed sums were for electricity (from 14.50 to 300 euro) and then for rent (from 8 to 205 euro). For more detailed information, see Table 37. Households with zero costs for housing lived predominately in segregated settlements (5%), and then in separated settlements on the edge of a village (4%). Only two cases occurred among residents of concentrated settlements within a village. This predominately involved residents of shacks, without water and electricity. The purchase and operation of vehicles (11% of the surveyed sample), personal care services (9%), jewellery and personal objects (4%), newspapers and books (7%), goods and services for culture and recreation (8%), accommodation services (3%), other goods and services (5%); 15% of the surveyed households listed other expenditures. For more on the level of indebtedness of excluded Roma households, see also (UNDP, 2013).

63

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 37 Overview of expenditure and amounts of expenditures per household by type (in% and in euro)
Share of households (v %): Shares in %; Averages – per household and month in euro 1. Food 2. Non-alcoholic beverages 3. Alcoholic beverages 4. Food and drinks - in factory and school dining rooms 5. Food and drinks – in restaurants 6. Tobacco and tobacco products 7. Clothing 8. Shoes 9. Rental for housing 10. Energy – electricity, gas, solid fuels, heating 11. Water – rate and measured 12. Other housing services 13. Material and services for home repair Living together 14. Household appliances and furnishings 15. Antiques and artistic works 16. Vehicles – purchase and operation 17. Travel – transport services 18. Postage and telecommunications 19. Personal care objects, drug store items 20. Personal care services 21. Jewellery and personal objects 22. Newspapers and books 23. Office supplies 24. Education, school 25. Goods and services for culture and recreation 26. Organised holidays 27. Accommodation services 28. Health 29. Other goods and services 30. Other expenditures 31. Loan repayments and debts No expenditure 0 9 38 89 95 23 23 26 67 18 60 93 82 11 70 100 89 32 59 18 91 96 93 89 77 92 100 97 40 95 85 32 With an expenditure 100 91 62 11 5 77 77 74 33 82 40 7 18 89 30 0 11 68 41 82 9 4 7 11 23 8 0 3 60 5 15 68 Interval of sums (in euro) 16.95* – 526.80/ 60.10 – 526.80/ 0.30 – 212.00*/ 0.30 – 63.15/ 0.40 – 61.28 1.00 – 20.00 3.00 – 31.40 0.47 – 248*/ 0.47 – 99.20/ 2.79 – 148.00 3.00 – 180.00*/ 3.00 – 67.00/ 8.00 – 205.00 14.50 – 300.00 5.00 – 68.00 5.00 – 128.00*/ 5.00 – 30.00/ 5.00 – 943.00*/ 5.00 – 68.20/ 8.00* – 340.00/ 20.00 – 340.00/ 1.00 – 43.57 0.80 – 215.00*/ 0.80 – 82.00/ 2.20 – 76.31 0.50 – 300.00*/ 0.50 – 64.00 1.66 – 108.12*/ 1.66 – 80.00/ 3.00 – 31.00 1.50 – 4.13 0.50 – 5.60 0.80 – 57.00 1.90 – 78.90 2.00 – 13.00 15.00 – 30.90 3.00 – 73.65*/ 3.00 – 40.00/ 1.50 – 18.00 4.00 – 283.30*/ 4.00 – 52.50/ 10.00 – 431.00 Average (in euro): For entire sample 200.37 13.46 9.03 0.85 0.57 31.37 27.08 18.44 24.00 60.19 10.01 2.43 16.87 96.63 3.77 5.51 15.40 12.39 18.26 0.92 0.11 0.21 2.41 4.99 0.52 0.66 9.60 0.30 5.38 57.87 For group with the expenditure 200.37 14.79 14.57 7.71 11.48 40.74 35.17 24.92 72.72 73.40 25.03 34.71 93.71 108.57 12.56 50.10 22.64 30.22 22.27 10.22 2.73 2.96 21.95 21.71 6.45 21.97 16.00 6.10 35.89 85.11

64

Note: *When an unusual sum resulting from an exceptional expenditure for the following month was discovered in the given type of expenditures, the line below indicates the interval of sums without these extreme values.

Table 38 Composition of surveyed households by expenditure zones (in %)
up to 100 euro 101 – 150 euro 151 – 200 euro 201 – 250 euro 251 – 300 euro 301 – 400 euro 401 – 500 euro 501 – 600 euro 601 – 700 euro 701 – 800 euro 801 – 1,000 euro 1,001 or more euro Total Total expenditures (per household) 2 3 7 17 23 20 10 9 1 8 100,0 Expenditures for food (per household) 16 20 20 19 10 9 5 1 100,0

The interval of the calculated sums for one month was relatively expansive even for the whole of household expenditures: the smallest obtained summary expenditure for the month in a household was 139.20 euro and the highest was 2,185.74 euro.50 As Table 38 shows, the distribution of the surveyed excluded households by total expenditures was concentrated in zones from 300 to 700 euro. A sum of expenditures up to 300 euro inclusive was paid by 12% of households and a sum over 800 euro only 9% of households. Approximately one-third of the surveyed households have total expenditures up to 400 euro inclusive (29%); half of households (52%) had total expenditures for the household up to 500 euro inclusive; nearly three-quarters of households from marginalised Roma settlements had a sum of expenditures up to the threshold of 600 euro (72%). Only the remaining 28% of surveyed households spent in the course of the month more than 600 euro (of this 19% to a sum of 1 000 euro and only 9% over this sum). Table 39 presents a comparison of average monthly household expenditures for individual types of marginalised settlements. In relation to expenditures

for food, their average amount was for the individual types of housing relatively equal, with a moderate increase in households living in segregated settlements. They spent for food approximately 30 euro more in comparison with households living concentrated within villages and towns and 3 euro more in comparison with households from settlements separated on the edges of a village. Expenditures for non-alcoholic beverages were similar – the total sum for a household from a segregated settlement on average was moderately increased (by 3 to 4 euro). Consumption of food and beverages in schools or factory dining halls and in restaurants were in all three types of compared environments listed only minimally, and the volume of financial resources expended was equally minimal. Expenditures for alcoholic beverages also came out of the survey moderately higher for households from segregated settlements (11.53 euro in the calculation for all households and 19.67 euro for a household with expenditures for alcohol), while expenditures for tobacco products were significantly out of balance on the side of households from concentrated and separated settlements (by 10 to 15 euro versus a segregated household). In summary it is possible to

50

The lowest monthly expenditures were for households which consisted of a couple in middle age and without children, where no one worked; the highest sum of expenditures was counted for a household with two adults and three school-attending children, where one of the parents was self-employed.

65

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

state that the amount of expenditures for food and snacks among excluded households from different environments did not differ substantially. Where relatively large differences were shown was in expenditures for housing. Households living concentrated within a village paid the most for housing in terms of total amount: in the calculation for all such households 123.43 euro and the average expenditure for housing here achieved 131.39 euro. Total expenditures for housing were in the other two types of living 35 to 50 euro lower.51 Upon a more detailed look at the individual components of housing the largest financial difference was recorded for rents, where an expenditure up to two-times higher was paid by the group of households living concentrated in villages (103 euro versus 65 and 49 euro for segregated and separated households). Expenditures for energy and water were also differentiated, especially in the calculation for all households (they were highest for concentrated); the average sum expended, however, was approximately equal. The great difference between the overall average and the average sum of the monthly fee for energy and water may indicate that a relatively large portion of households did not pay for these goods in the monitored month. Expenditures paid for the purchase of materials for repairing housing and for furnishing a household also belong among the important expenditures associated with housing. According to the empirical data, expenditures for materials and services intended for the repair of a dwelling were several times higher for the group of households living concentrated. While the average expenditure in them achieved 41.66 euro (and 171.86 was the average realised for this commodity), households from separated settlements spent only 5.37 euro on the purchase of materials for repair of a dwelling (for households with this

expenditure it was 40.78 euro) and households from segregated settlements only 3.72 euro (realised average expenditures of 21.60 euro). For household appliances and furnishings all three compared environments expended only minimum resources during the monitored month (less than 5 euro on average). Separated and segregated environments therefore spend significantly less on improving their own housing, which could have two explanations: budget stress doesn’t allow them this type of expenditures – after paying for the most basic needs and debt there is not enough financial resources remaining for repair of a dwelling – or they do not have interest in improving their living conditions or no improvements are needed.52 More marked differences among the three compared types of housing appears in two expenditure items which are associated with transport. While expenditures for the purchase and operation of vehicles were barely known in segregated settlements, expenditures for travel and transport services were the highest for this group. Households living concentrated with a village expended on average for the monitored month for the purchase and operation of vehicles more than 8.50 euro and separated on the edge of a village more than 6 euro, while for the group of households from segregated settlements this was only 1.30 euro. The payments made (the average for households with this expenditure) exceeded in concentrated and separated households 70 euro, while in the case of segregated this was less than 10 euro. Without expenditures for travel and transport services segregated households had the highest average sum (20.71 euro per household for the month), and in the other two environments characterised by smaller spatial exclusion this was approximately 13 euro. The use and operation of one’s

51

52

66

According to the type of housing households living in housing blocks with more than ten flats paid the highest sum for housing (180.55 euro) and households living in smaller housing units (108.84 euro), followed by households living in an independent walled house (102.91 euro); the total expenditures for housing of those living in a wooden house and shack were significantly smaller (20.50 euro and 51.40 euro). As the empirical finding mentioned in the report Situačná analýza vybraných aspektov životnej úrovne domácností vylúčených rómskych osídlení [Situational analysis of selected aspects of the life level of households in excluded Roma settlements] shows (UNDP, 2013), the first hypothesis of insufficient financial resources for repairing a dwelling has higher probability. A large group of the surveyed households declared that they did not in recent times make any home repairs because they didn’t have the money for it (UNDP, 2013); among the wishes for a family responses expressing the desire for better living conditions was widely represented (UNDP, 2013).

Table 39 Arithmetic averages for individual expenditures by type of housing (in euro)
Segregated Per household and month in euro For entire sample 210.67 16.25 11.53 0.45 1.70 19.68 30.92 21.88 16.98 56.92 9.29 5.62 88.81 3.72 2.78 1.30 20.71 5.88 17.66 0.21 0.19 0.09 1.53 2.25 0.59 0.69 11.04 0.93 6.23 43.53 For group with the expenditure 210.67 16.83 19.67 3.25 16.47 31.72 38.98 28.85 49.24 78.60 22.45 54.33 107.31 21.60 11.51 9.45 27.30 15.51 23.28 3.00 2.81 2.49 14.83 10.87 5.66 20.00 17.80 9.00 25.58 63.12 Separated on the edge For entire sample 207.84 10.99 8.49 0.55 0.08 38.34 23.79 18.27 20.41 48.94 9.44 0.53 79.32 5.37 4.97 6.08 13.28 6.80 18.85 1.32 0.05 0.22 2.07 4.70 0.42 1.21 6.93 0.04 1.12 65.19 For group with the expenditure 207.84 12.28 12.91 7.00 3.00 42.85 29.16 23.94 64.63 59.99 25.64 20.00 88.65 40.78 12.59 77.00 19.41 19.88 21.71 16.67 1.99 2.06 26.17 22.35 8.00 22.95 13.17 1.50 10.62 95.28 Concentrated For entire sample 182.72 13.87 7.45 1.54 0.15 33.61 27.51 15.61 34.30 76.01 11.30 1.82 123.43 41.66 3.256 8.55 13.17 24.54 18.11 1.09 0.10 0.30 3.59 7.74 0.56 11.40 0.06 9.55 62.04 For group with the expenditure 182.72 15.78 12.30 12.70 5.00 44.36 39.47 22.39 102.89 83.61 26.64 20.00 131.39 171.86 13.41 70.57 21.73 47.63 22.14 9.00 3.29 5.00 28.37 23.69 6.21 17.10 2.00 105.10 93.06

1. Food 2. Non-alcoholic beverages 3. Alcoholic beverages 4. Food and drinks - in factory and school dining rooms 5. Food and drinks – in restaurants 6. Tobacco and tobacco products 7. Clothing 8. Shoes 9. Rental for housing 10. Energy – electricity, gas, solid fuels, heating 11. Water – rate and measured 12. Other housing services Living together 13. Material and services for home repair 14. Household appliances and furnishings 15. Antiques and artistic works 16. Vehicles – purchase and operation 17. Travel – transport services 18. Postage and telecommunications 19. Personal care objects, drug store items 20. Personal care services 21. Jewellery and personal objects 22. Newspapers and books 23. Office supplies 24. Education, school 25. Goods and services for culture and recreation 26. Organised holidays 27. Accommodation services 28. Health 29. Other goods and services 30. Other expenditures 31. Payments for loans and debts

own vehicles was in segregated environments practically unknown and inaccessible, which is related to the use of transport services, as all three compared environments used transport services during the monitored month, but the costs were significantly greater for households from segregated settlements. Spatial distance from different needed services increased the costs for transport in households living in segregated settlements.

The monitoring of other essential expenditures did not show any great differences by type of housing. Expenditures for clothing were in all three groups of households relatively balanced with a moderate weighting in favour of the segregated group (they moved from 24 euro for separated households to 31 euro for segregated), similarly as expenditures for shoes (from 16 euro or concentrated households to 22 euro for segregated). A fully equal sum of

67

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

expenditures occurred for all three groups with objects of personal consumption (an average of 18 euro per household); a very similar and very small sum was shown with personal care services, the purchase of jewellery and personal items or with other goods and services (average expenditures around 1 euro or less). Likewise, so-called above-standard and cultural needs expenditures for the surveyed households, without regard to the environment, were low and the expended sums were the nearly the same. Expenditures for books and newspapers moved from 0.10 to 0.30 euro on average per household (the average monthly realised payment was from 2 to 5 euro), for goods and services in culture and recreation from 0.62 to 0.59 euro (realised 6 to 8 euro), and expenditures for accommodation services from 0.69 to 1.21 euro (realised from 20 to 21 euro). Expenditures of the three different groups of excluded Roma households, however, did show a difference during the monitored coverage of other essential needs, such as education and health. Average expenditures for education were found to be highest for household living concentrated within a village or town (7.74 euro versus 4.70 euro for separated and 2.25 euro for segregated households), equally as expenditures for office supplies (3.59 euro versus 2.07 euro for separated and 1.53 euro for segregated households). In terms of expenditures for health, the average sum spent was approximately equal for the group of households from concentrated and segregated settlements (just over 11 euro), and the average expenditures for households living separated represented a more notable small sum (6.93 euro). From all 31 monitored types of expenditures the highest relative difference was found with those for potage and telecommunications. Concentrated households in the course of the monitored month spent nearly 25 euro for telephone and postage services, while in the remaining two groups this was only about 6 euro. The expenditures for this service was in separated and segregated settlements nearly four times lower.

The last expenditure item was the repayment of loans and debts. As is presented in the previous sections, loan repayments made up in excluded Roma households the third largest item, immediately after food and housing costs. From Table 39 it can be seen that such repayments maintained the third positions in all three types of housing. Mutual comparisons of expended sums in the course of the month point to the largest volume of such financial resources occurring in households from concentrated and separated environments in comparison with segregated households. While the average amount of repaid loans for the whole of segregated households was 43.53 euro, in the other two groups this was more than 60 euro. A comparison of the average sum for households actually having such payments also showed an equal ratio: an average payment of 63.12 euro for the group of segregated households and more than 90 euro for the group of separated and concentrated households.

3.8. Summary of the expenditures situation
Analysis of expenditures of marginalised Roma households confirmed the predominance of a low level of expenditures in most of them. The amount of expenditures ascertained per one household member achieved approximately only about one-third of the average expenditures for the Slovak Republic (SO SR, 2010). The average for the Slovak Republic in calculation for one month and member represented a financial amount of 307.76 euro and for excluded households 104.34 euro. The average sum of expenditures per surveyed household achieved a level of 552.99 euro, with the most households falling into the zone of 400 to 500 euro with their monthly expenditures. A third of the surveyed households had total outcomes for the household less than 400 euro inclusive and only 28% of the surveyed households spent more than 600 euro in the course of the month. The most costly items were expenditures for food, followed well behind by housing, and third on the latter were loan and debt repayments. This order for

68

the three most costly expenditures was also preserved with all directions of comparisons – for all compared groups of excluded households. The fact that loan and debt repayments occupy the third run in terms of amount of resources expended indicates that a large portion of households from the surveyed excluded environments are in debt. More than half of total monthly expenditures in the surveyed excluded households went for covering basic needs, i.e., for eating and housing. After calculating of loan and debt repayments, on average one third of expenditures remained for other types of expenditures. A more detailed analysis by type of expenditures showed that excluded Roma households spent even this “leftover” third of expenditures mainly for securing additional basic needs, such as health, education, necessary clothing and shoes, travel and postage and personal care. The covering of so-called “extra” needs in the expenditure structure in the surveyed environments was found only at a truly minimal level. If expenditure for such extras necessities was paid, this was exclusively in households where one or more members worked. A predominate portion of households from marginalised Roma settlements had only minimally or no expenditures for such items as newspapers and books, goods and services for culture and recreation, accommodation services or dining or refreshment in a restaurant, and within the research probe no expenditures at all were found for an organised holiday or for antiques and artistic works. Part of the possible types of outcomes remain completely unknown in the environment of marginalised Roma settlements or are found only exceptionally; the absolute balance of finances which remains in the budget after payment for housing and securing food are focused on other basic needs. A mutual comparison among the groups of excluded households showed a below-average sum of total expenditures per household without a working

member, without dependent children and with a smaller number of household members. On the other hand, households with a working member and households with five and more members had expenditures above the sample-wide average. The monitoring of the volume of expenditures per one household member identified as being among the groups with expenditures smaller than 100 euro those households without a working member, households with young children, households with five or more members as well as households with school-attending and dependent children. Expenditures per one household came out for food and non-alcoholic beverages to be below average in multiple-member households, households without a working member and households with young, school-attending or dependent children. Expenditures for housing came out in the calculation per household to be fully the lowest with the group of households with 1-2 members and without experience with work activities. With calculations per household member the smallest expenditures for housing were for multiple-member households, households with a school-attending child and households without a working member. The share of expenditures for food – the highest expenditures within the scope of excluded Roma households – was found to be below average for households with a working member, with young children and with more than five members. The data indicate that the composition of a household significantly affects not only the amount of total expenditures or individual types of expenditures, but also to the total structure of the expenditures. In the position of strongest differentiating attributes were the presence of a working member in the household, the size of the household and the presence of a child of preschool or of school age. For more numerous households and those with dependent children a higher sum of expenditures per household was calculated, but after recalculating per one member, they had a smaller volume of expenditures.

69

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

4. INCOMES VERSUS EXPENDITURES
The ascertained53 low income level of Roma households from marginalised settlements creates a natural starting point situation for material deprivation and limitations in consumption, mainly in multiple-member households and households without a working member. The connection between income and deprivation was confirmed by several surveys of the life conditions of Roma households living in excluded environments, last also quantitative research from the end of the year 2010, which was a component of this project (UNDP, 2012, pgs. 173-216). As the report states with its analysis, a significant portion of Roma households from excluded environments is exposed to the risk of deprivation in the field of consumption and only a small portion of them were able to “satisfy” the standard common in society, and only a negligible portion from segregated and separated environments. Less than one-fifth of them were able to provide meat every other day, less than one-tenth new seasonal clothing and shoes, and only 3-4% of excluded Roma households were able to cover an unexpected expenditure in the sum of 300 euro, and a week-long holiday outside the home was almost completely unknown (UNDP, 2012, pgs. 187189). Similarly, excluded Roma households, according to the survey findings, experienced extreme deprivation significantly more often defined through such situations that they in reality did not have anything to give children to eat, had no way to cook or to warm up food, or they did not have heating in their homes. For all three indicators of extreme deprivation the research confirmed that their repeated occurrence in households was more frequent for excluded environments, and with all three indicators there was a very close link with the income level of households and with work activities of its members – repeatedly deprived households had significantly lower total and work incomes (UNDP, 2012, pg. 214). The following section presents how the recorded incomes and expenditures of the surveyed households from excluded settlements mutually relate in the course of one month (Tables 40 through 43).

4.1. Differences in incomes and expenditures – summary
Table 40 presents a mutual comparison of total incomes and expenditures, that is, the sums of financial resources which marginalised Roma households take in and expend in the course of a month. This is a rough comparison of overall incomes and overall expenditures per household and per member for the month, which is supplemented by available data from the whole of Slovakia (SO SR, 2010). From the first glance at the table it is obvious that the average sum of total monthly incomes and expenditures does not differ very much. Upon comparisons of the volume of received and expended finances for the monitored month per one household the average remainder was 44.61 euro,54 in calculations per one household member this was 8.41 euro. Such a remainder of incomes made up in the average for all surveyed Roma households 7.5% of total average incomes.

53 54

70

Not only in the scope of this empirical measuring but also many others from recent years (UNDP, 2006, 2012; World Bank, 2012; and a great many more). This involves the average for the entire surveyed sample; the monthly balance for individual households recorded a varied situation. Differences in monthly incomes and expenditures were relatively large and moved from negative to positive resulting balance. The highest recorded deficit among incomes and expenditures was 801.74 euro and the highest remainder +842 euro; 41% of the surveyed households found themselves in a negative balance, the remaining 59% had a positive balance of monthly financial resources. A negative monthly budget was also found in a great spectrum of financial amounts: from the mentioned -801.74 euro up through -0.25 euro. In relation to a positive result of the comparison of incomes and expenditures during the month, this also covered a wide range: from +0.75 euro up to +842 euro. Together 16% of the surveyed excluded households had a financial deficit greater than -100 euro; 13% between -100 to -50 euro; and 12% lower than -50 euro. Households with a positive monthly balance of incomes and expenditures were divided as follows: 23% had a remainder greater than 0 and smaller than 50 euro; 11% of households were in the zone from 50 to 100 euro; and 11% were in the 100 to 250 euro zone; the remaining 14% had +250 euro.

A framework comparison with available data for the Slovak Republic indicates a smaller remainder of incomes on the side of Roma households than for the entire Slovak Republic in 2010 (the latest available data on incomes and expenditures for households in Slovakia extrapolated from annual sums to monthly sums). While for excluded Roma households the difference in incomes and expenditures in the course of the month made up 7.5% of total incomes, the average difference for the Slovak Republic was 11.8% of total incomes. The average for the Slovak Republic, therefore, recorded not only more expended financial resources but also a higher remainder from disposable income for a household in the calculation per one month. In parallel, the monitored structure of incomes with expenditures by type at the same time showed that excluded Roma households had an imbalance of social incomes in total incomes. In terms of finances the sum of social incomes going to an average household was 71.79 euro and the portion coming from other sources was 40.79 euro in the calculation per one member of an excluded Roma household (per

household 380.46 of social and 217.14 of other incomes). From a comparison with the structure of expenditures it followed that the total sum of social incomes in which not only benefits and allowances in material need were included, but all social incomes (state family benefits, pensions, health, etc.), were able to cover the two largest expenditures of the surveyed excluded households (food and housing costs), while only a minimum of these resources remained (just over 10 euro per one member) for other essential needs, such as education, health, transport to public services, necessary clothing and shoes, etc.). It is as if social incomes even in aggregate are not sufficient to cover the minimum consumer basket for excluded households and cannot do so even despite very low costs for housing and significantly smaller expenditures for food and nonalcoholic beverages, as an approximate comparison with the average for the Slovak Republic indicates. • The average difference which followed from a comparison of the calculated incomes and expenditures of Roma households from

Table 40 Total incomes and expenditures in comparisons (in euro and in %)
Sum per household (in euro) Incomes total in this: Expenditures total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Housing Loan repayments Other expenditures - in euro - in % Social incomes total Other incomes total 597.60 380.46 217.14 552.99 213.84 96.63 57.87 184.65 44.61 7.5 % Sum per 1 member % of total (in euro) income 112.75 71.79 40.97 104.34 40.35 18.23 10.92 34.78 8.41 100.0 63.7% 36.3% 100.0 38.8% 17.5% 10.5% 33.2% Calculation for Slovak Republic 2010 (euro/member) 348,95 111,33 237,62 307,76 68,10 62,86 176,8 41,19

in this:

Difference Share of difference from total incomes

11.80 %

Note: Data for the Slovak Republic calculated according to the publication Incomes, Expenditures and Consumption of Private Households in the Slovak Republic 2010 (SO SR 2011); data from 2011 had not yet been published at the time of processing the report. The statistic of family accounts uses the indicator sum in euro per person and year; for the needs of comparisons, these sums are divided by the number 12 months. The comparison is only orientational for approximating a framework of individual sums, and a direct comparison is not possible given the different types of surveys.

71

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

marginalised settlements for the monitored month was found in total expression to be relatively low. In a simplified way, the result of the comparison of incomes and expenditures could be expressed by phrase: “they spend what they have.” Since households had to borrow a certain sum in a relatively wide range during the month even for the provision of basic needs (basic needs being those for which excluded Roma households expended the majority of their available financial resources), the result of a comparison of incomes and expenditures signals a deficit on the side of incomes in relation to the requirement to cover the basic needs of members of excluded households. The covering of the basic needs of members of excluded households assumes a higher volume of financial resources than the disposable sum of incomes found. • Social benefits intended to cover financial deficiencies in relation to basic needs do not satisfy their purpose with their amounts, at least in the case of marginalised Roma households. It is as if the “minimal consumer basket” for this group of exceptionally disadvantaged households, which should be a starting point for setting the amount of benefits in material need, or social aid at all, forgot to include some expenditure commodities. To format the setting of social help without a starting point of analysis of the living conditions and needs of households at all and without consideration for the specifics of extremely excluded households cannot lead to a just model.

the month is not included in the total sum of incomes, the remainder per household is only 10.32 euro (not quite 2 euro in the calculation per one member). On the other hand – if households were not in debt and did not have to make loan repayments, the remainder from incomes would be on average 60 euro higher, or marginalised Roma households could then increase their other types of expenditures by this amount. A comparison of the determined incomes and expenditures for individual groups of households (Tables 41 and 42) showed that in the surveyed environments there exist households which get into a negative balance. The largest average deficit in the calculation per household was found for the group of households with a young child or children (-9.46 euro per household), followed by households without school-attending children (-4.81 per household), and finally in households with five and more members (1.98 euro per household). In contrast, the best from a comparison of incomes and expenditures came out to be small households with 1-2 members (+57 euro per household), those without young children (+32 euro) and households with a working member (+23 euro). According to empirical data the economic situation seems more favourable (or social compensation for insufficient income functions better) with households where members are involved in the labour market and in households with a minimal number of members, or those who are without young children. Where social support fails in the sense of insufficient incomes for covering necessary expenditures, is primarily in households with young children and multiple-member households. The principles of a unified amount of the basic benefit in material need for a household up to four, inclusively, and with more than four children without regard to their actual number is insufficient for these households. The monitored incomes and expenditures in the calculation per household member for the compared groups of different definitions only confirmed the above-mentioned findings. That is, the most positive, or most profitable financial situation is for households with one to two members, without children and with a working

4.2. Differences in incomes and expenditures by household structure
From a comparison of total incomes and expenditures of excluded Roma households which were recorded during one month it followed that on average they are more or less balanced. As Table 41 shows, the remainder from the total sum of incomes after subtracting out total expenditures came out to be 44.61 euro per household. If the sum borrowed during

72

Table 41 Differences in incomes and expenditures per household by selected characteristics (in euro and in %)
Total incomes: Sum without loans 563.31 491.69 817.23 453.08 505.32 604.83 604.48 525.31 501.01 591.30 451.51 580.02 Total expenditures: Loan repayments 57.58 54.05 71.47 47.33 40.54 67.08 48.53 66.50 58.65 57.52 46.23 59.61 Difference of incomes/expenditures from total sum of incomes 44.61 30.71 93.90 86.23 43.76 39.04 74.25 17.26 14.77 58.02 55.01 43.06 from sum without loans 10.32 6.81 22.76 56.79 23.05 -1.98 31.75 -9.46 -4.81 17.12 21.93 8.59

Total sum Total Number working: 0 members 1+ members Number of household members: 1-2 members 3-4 members 5+ members Young children: 0 children 1+ children School-attending children: 0 children 1+ children Dependent children: 0 children 1+ children 484.59 614.49 520.59 632.20 646.98 552.02 482.52 526.03 645.85 597.60 515.59 888.37

Total sum 552.99 484.88 794.47 396.29 482.27 606.81 572.73 534.77 505.82 574.18 429.58 571.43

member; and the most deficit-forming for a budget is with households with young children and with five and more members. According to spatial exclusion households from segregated settlements had on average the worst balance. The financial difference in their case came out to be only 4.15 euro per household; the average for the group separated was 39.72 euro and for households living concentrated 85.48 euro. The increased input of work incomes to concentrated households is expressed not only in the expenditure structure, but it also positively influences the final result of household management. • For all of the monitored groups of Roma households from marginalised settlements it applies that if in the course of the month they did

not borrow a certain sum, their financial balance would be worse still. Since the analysis moves on the level of averages, it can be deduced that in each compared subsample there exists a significant portion of households whose income does not suffice for the monthly “necessary” expenditures55 and they must resort to borrowing. On the other hand, the financial situation of the surveyed households would be in the course of the month more favourable if they were indebted to a smaller measure. Loan repayments in the course of the month were namely in a notable portion of households higher than the recorded differences between incomes and expenditures. If the surveyed households did not have to repay loans, their budget balance would be more positive or their level of expenditure would be higher.

55

It is possible to talk about the “necessity of expenditures” in the basic structure of expenditures mentioned in Chapter 3, which confirmed that the majority of expenditures was spent covering basic needs.

73

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 42 Differences in incomes and expenditures per one household member by selected characteristics (in euro and in %)
Total incomes: Sum without loans 106.28 94.63 90.24 186.14 255.45 143.00 99.24 142.45 92.00 171.24 239.86 137.37 92.94 133.09 87.55 146.71 141.19 103.86 203.22 107.13 97.14 189.35 101.12 Total expenditures: Total sum 104.34 88.99 166.46 209.80 131.10 93.24 126.11 89.13 142.55 94.33 180.14 99.63 Loan repayments 10.92 9.92 14.98 25.06 11.02 10.31 10.69 11.08 16.53 9.45 19.39 10.39 Difference of incomes/expenditures from total sum of incomes 8.41 5.64 19.68 46.65 11.90 6.00 16.34 2.87 4.16 9.53 23.08 7.50 from sum without loans 1.94 1.25 4.78 30.86 6.27 -0.30 6.98 -1.58 -1.36 2.81 9.21 1.49

Total sum Total Number working: 0 members 1+ members Number of household members: 1-2 members 3-4 members 5+ members Young children: 0 children 1+ children School-attending children: 0 children 1+ children Dependent children: 0 children 1+ children 112.75

• The borrowing of financial resources in the course of a month is a tool or method, which helps marginalised Roma households in a significant range to maintain a better balance of incomes and expenditures. However, there are households among them where despite loans they still cannot manage, and their budget moves in negative values – on average per household and per one member. A strategy based on operative loans is in the surveyed environment widespread, but is not always possible to financially balance a deficit budget. • But it is again necessary here to mention that the income and expenditure level ascertained for the surveyed households was uncommonly low. It is characterised by small incomes, few expenditures and subsequently a minimal financial difference between them.

4.3. Drawing of incomes in the course of a month
The recording of incomes and expenditures by days in the month enabled the tracking of the ways incomes flow into households, the methods of their expenditure, as well as the time period for obtaining incomes and expending financial resources in relation to one another. The inflow and outflow of finances to households can also correspond to the stressfulness or freedom of household budgets. The individual methods of the flow of finances were rather varied and dependent on the type of incomes the households had. In principle two basic models of the arrival of incomes into the household were generated: 1. households got incomes in one or two larger sums; 2. aside from one or two larger sums, smaller portions of partial incomes came in gradually during the course of

74

the month. The average number of incomes into a household for the monitored month was 4.3 incomes, the smallest being 1 income and the highest number being 21 incomes. In all, 24% of households had only one income, but most often there were two incomes (28%), while 10% of the surveyed sample of households had three and four incomes, 16% had between 5-10 incomes and 12% of households had 11 or more incomes in the course of the month. The maximum amount of one income (a household received at one time) was from 100 euro to 1,850 euro. The average sum of the lowest one-time income for the entire sample of surveyed households was 419.42 euro. Together 50% of the surveyed sample households had a maximum one-time income up to 360 euro, and for a quarter of households this was less than 250 euro. In relation to expended financial resources, these most often occurred in two ways: 1. the continuous expending of financial resources during the entire month without larger fluctuations; 2. an accumulation of expenditures to two to three deadlines, usually immediately after obtaining a larger sum of incomes. In comparison with incomes the average number of expenditures was much higher, their frequency achieving 23.1 payments per month. The smallest ascertained number was 3 expenditures per month and the highest 31 and 30 expenditures for the month. Daily expenditures were the most commonly recorded – listed in 28% of the surveyed households; 23% of households had some amount of expenditure for 25 to 29 days; 20% of the sample had between 20 and 24 expenditure days; the remaining 29% of households had fewer than 20 days with expenditures (from this 6% to less than 10 expenditure days). The amount of maximum daily expenditure (the sum which the household spent for one day) was greatly varied: the lowest maximum daily expenditure was 29.60 euro and the highest was 950.50 euro. Half of households had a maximum daily expenditure of less than 200 euro and one-quarter less than 140 euro.

For zooming in on the method of continuous handling of arriving incomes, the result of which is an available sum of financial resources during the days of the month, we created two new indicators. The first one gives the number of days beneath the different percentage shares of total monthly incomes for the household, i.e. how many days from the total of thirty days are households under the threshold of 90% down to 10% of monthly income. The second indicator tells the number of days when the household for the first time fell below a certain percentage share of incomes, i.e. for how many days for the first time does a household fall beneath the threshold of 90% down to 0 of its monthly income. Both indicators began with the highest income in the month and subsequently were calculated for each day of arriving income and outgoing expenditures were subtracted. • Number of days beneath the determined shares of cumulated monthly income The total overall income of the surveyed excluded Roma households for the month represented on average 597.60 euro per household. The running arrival and expending of financial resources means that households never really have 100% of its total monthly income available;56 they survive the majority of days in the month with an income beneath the threshold of 90% of cumulated monthly income. On average 26 days are with less than half of the total monthly income, and ultimately up to 16 days a month they have less than 10% of total cumulated income for the month available. The result of household management and actual available resources differed for the individual types of households. The impact of the presence of a working member was repeatedly confirmed here, but up to two and more working members – households with one working member in terms of the period with a certain volume of cumulated income were more similar to

56

This would be the case if a household were to get its entire monthly income in one day and not spend any money on that day (1 day with 100% of monthly income), or for 2 to x days would be without expenditures (2 to x days with 100% of monthly income). Despite the fact that a quarter of households had only one income in the course of the month, the situation on the day with 100% did not occur, because all carried out their larger expenditures on that same day.

75

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

those without a working member (Graph 17). Households with two and more working members recorded a larger number of days with the higher available sums. They never really had the entire monthly income available; however, they had 20 days under the level of 50% of their monthly income (10 days they had more than half of their own monthly income available), while households without a working member had up to 26 such days (that is,

they had only 4 days with half or more of their own monthly income available). The number of days with a fifth of their monthly income was 9 for households without a working member and for households with one working member this was one time a long period – up to 17 days; they had less than 10% of income for 8 days out of the entire month, households without a working member and with one working member had up to 13 and 14 days.57

Graph 17 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by number of working members (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Number of working household members —0 —1 — 2+

% of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 18 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by number of household members (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Number of household members — 1-2 — 3-4 — 5-6 — 7+

% of the remainder of cumulated income

57

76

We note that without regard to how much the financial resources were in the given percentage of monthly income: households with two and more working members had a great deal higher monthly income (more than 1,200 euro versus 740 euro for households with one working member and 516 euro for households without a working member).

Graph 19 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by number of young children (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Number of young children in the household —0 —1 — 2+

% of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 20 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by number of school-attending children (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Number of schoolattending children in the household —0 —1 — 2+ % of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 21 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by number of dependent children (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Number of dependent children in the household —0 —1 —2 —3 — 4+ % of the remainder of cumulated income

77

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Graph 22 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by amount of income per household (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Household income — 400 — 400–600 — 600+

% of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 23 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by amount of income per member (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Income per capita — 100 — 100–200 — 200+

% of the remainder of cumulated income

• For how many days is household for the first time beneath the determined shares of monthly income The second indicator corresponds to at what period households fall beneath a certain threshold of total monthly income. They fall under 90% of monthly

income immediately the first or second day after receiving their highest income. They fall under 70% for 4 days and under half of total income for 5 days. To get beneath 20% of the remainder of their own cumulative monthly income took them 14 days and their declared monthly income was exhausted in 21 days.

78

Graph 24 Number of days beneath the remainder of cumulated household income by amount of difference between incomes and expenditures (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 %

Number of days under

Balance of household (difference between incomeexpenditures) —0 — 0 –100 — 100+

% of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 25 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by number of working members (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Number of working household members —0 —1 — 2+

First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

4.4. Summary for a comparison of incomes and expenditures
Empirical data confirmed in average rendering the stressful to deficit financial budget for marginalised Roma households. The too little incomes in these households leads to a low level of expenditures and does so even with expenditures covering the most basic needs such as food and housing. A large portion of households have problems paying for the basic needs of its members, and some of them are unable to

do so despite the possibilities for borrowing. The worst balance was recorded by households with at least one young child and multiple-member households. With these households compensation from the system of social aid for the insufficient income was not enough – they were still unable to make up for their lag in income. The need to manage financial resources during the month also brings strain to the budget. In reality, they never actually have 100% of their own income available.

79

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Graph 26 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by number of household members (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Number of household members — 1-2 — 3-4 — 5-6 — 7+ First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 27 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by number of young children (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Number of young children in the household —0 —1 — 2+

First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 28 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by number of schoolattending children (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Number of schoolattending children in the household —0 —1 — 2+ First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

80

Graph 29 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by number of dependent children (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Number of dependent children in the household —0 —1 —2 —3 — 4+ First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 30 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by amount of income per household (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Household income — 400 — 400–600 — 600+

First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

Graph 31 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by amount of income per member (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Income per capita — 100 — 100–200 — 200+

First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

81

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Graph 32 Number of days to falling under a certain level of cumulated household income by amount of difference between incomes and expenditures (in days)
30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0%

Number of days

Household balance (difference between incomeexpenditures) —0 — 0–100 — 100+ First time falling beneath % of the remainder of cumulated income

82

5. CONSUMPTION OF SELECTED FOODS BY T YPE OF HOUSEHOLDS
Just as Chapter 3 describes the expenditures for food in financial terms, the following section describes the consumption of selected types of good by amounts per household and per member. The methodology of the survey was the same as in the case of incomes and expenditures – each day the amount of purchased goods was recorded (in kilograms, litres or units). The logbook contained 19 selected types of basic foods; for some of them the total amount of the given food was recorded and at the same time the amount of its healthier or higher quality alternative. The primary goal was to indicate the method of eating of households living in marginalised Roma settlements and to identify differences between the different groups of these households. consumption of potatoes (6 kg to 2.24 kg per member). In contrast, the general population consumed more vegetables and fruits (per one member of a marginalised household 0.18 kg and 1.18 kg versus 3.38 kg and 3.33 kg per member on average for the Slovak Republic) and moderately more bread (4.68 kg to 4.39 kg) and milk (2.18 l to 2.10 l) per member. With the majority of the remaining food articles which could be compared by amount, consumption in terms of amount per member was more or less the same. The higher consumption of flour, pasta and foods on the side of the surveyed households indicates that insufficient financial resources for the purchase of prepared articles are replaced by homemade food items. The representation of healthier types of food in overall consumption of the given food items were recorded in only minimal values. Many of the healthier alternatives did not occur at all, for example, brown sugar or olive oil. Brown rice and real butter also recorded only a tiny share. From the total purchased amount of rice per household of 4.87 kg on average brown rice made up only 0.22 kg. Similarly, from the total amounts of butter and spreads which households bought for the month (2.86 kg), real butter made up only 0.36 kg. The result of a comparison of healthier foods with total purchased amounts was slightly better for milk and bread, but the more quality types were still greatly disproportionate. From the total of 11.12 litres of milk, full-fat milk made up only 1.25 litres; in the total amount of 23.25 kg of bread per household, dark bread had a share of 2.75 kg. The result with meat and meat products was likewise not very favourable. The amount of meat purchased in the course of the monitored month was 22.06 kilograms, though fish only made up 0.75 kg of this and quality meat just 2.52 kg.58 Poultry had a higher

5.1 Total consumption
The average household from the surveyed environment consumed monthly more than 23 kg of bread; in calculations per one household member this was 4.39 kg. The amount of meat in total exceeded 22 kg per household and month; per one person this represented 4.16 kg. Potatoes were among the very common food commodities: on average households bought 31.78 kg of potatoes (6 kg per person) per month. Similarly, flour and pasta were also included in the most commonly purchased items in terms of volume during the month, with flour at 31.78 kg per household and 3.36 kg per member and pasta at nearly 7 kg per household and 1.32 kg per member. A comparison with average consumption of selected foods for the Slovak Republic showed greater differences with three types of foods. For marginalised Roma households the consumption of flour and pasta came out significantly higher (3.36 kg of flour to 1.71 kg per one member; 1.32 kg of pasta to 0.51 kg per one member), as did

58

Quality meat was defined as meat from the thigh or roast, beef (for more details of the definition of individual types of foods, see the log sheet in the appendix).

83

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Table 43 Overview of total monthly consumption of selected foods in MRC households by type and in different forms – comparison with all households in the Slovak Republic (in kg, l and units)
Amount per household (in kg, l, unit) 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg 23.25 2.75 4.87 0.22 11.12 1.25 22.06 2.52 0.75 9.22 7.06 0.01 1.54 7.17 0.03 2.86 0.36 1.85 0.76 57.86 15.14 1.04 4.25 6.23 31.78 1.51 2.28 17.81 6.99 Amount per 1 member (in kg, l, unit) 4.39 0.52 0.92 0.04 2.10 0.24 4.16 0.48 0.14 1.74 1.33 0.00 0.29 1.35 0.01 0.54 0.07 0.35 0.14 10.92 2.86 0.20 0.80 1.18 6.00 0.29 0.43 3.36 1.32 Calculation for Slovak Republic (amount/member) 4.68 0.60 2.18 0.63 4.65 0.48 1.62

0.07 0.86 0.04 0.52 0.17

11.15

3.38 3.33 2.24

1.71 0.51

representation in the total amount of meat purchased – 9.22 kg per month.59 The remaining 9.57 kg of total purchased meat was made up of poor quality meat.

5.2. Differences in incomes and expenditures by household structure
The work activity of some members of a household which recorded more incomes in the household and better conditions for expenditures also changed the consumption of foods.

84

59

Here it needs to be noted that researchers often listed in the forms that this predominately included chicken carcasses or chicken giblets; similarly as with meat, they on the whole thought it necessary to add that the mentioned amount of meat includeds smoked meats or other bones.

Table 44 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households by representation of working members (in kg and in units)
Amount per household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total(100) 23.25 2.75 4.87 0.22 11.12 1.25 22.06 2.52 0.75 9.22 7.06 0.01 1.54 7.17 0.03 2.86 0.36 1.85 0.76 57.86 15.14 1.04 4.25 6.23 31.78 1.51 2.28 17.81 6.99 - from this by working member 0 working (78) 1+ working (22) 22.79 24.90 2.21 4.66 4.80 5.14 0.15 0.45 10.37 13.77 1.11 1.77 19.46 31.26 1.48 6.20 0.68 1.01 8.63 11.31 6.52 8.98 0.01 0.00 1.64 1.17 6.70 8.84 0.04 0.00 2.85 2.90 0.27 0.68 1.85 1.86 0.66 1.14 54.10 71.18 12.03 26.18 0.83 1.77 3.32 7.56 5.34 9.41 30.44 36.55 1.44 1.76 2.26 2.36 16.84 21.25 6.75 7.81

Table 45 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households in calculation per one member by representation of working members (in kg and in units)
Amount per 1 member of a household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a.Sugar brown – in kg Total (530) 4.39 0.52 0.92 0.04 2.10 0.24 4.16 0.48 0.14 1.74 1.33 0.00 - from this by working member 0 working(425) 1+ working (105) 4.18 5.22 0.41 0.98 0.88 1.08 0.03 0.10 1.90 2.89 0.20 0.37 3.57 6.55 0.27 1.30 0.13 0.21 1.58 2.37 1.20 1.88 0.00 0.00

85

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg

0.29 1.35 0.01 0.54 0.07 0.35 0.14 10.92 2.86 0.20 0.80 1.18 6.00 0.29 0.43 3.36 1.32

0.30 1.23 0.01 0.52 0.05 0.34 0.12 9.93 2.21 0.15 0.61 0.98 5.59 0.27 0.42 3.09 1.24

0.24 1.85 0.00 0.61 0.14 0.39 0.24 14.91 5.49 0.37 1.58 1.97 7.66 0.37 0.50 4.45 1.64

Table 46 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC by number of household members (in kg and in units)
Amount per household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a.Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total (100) 23.25 2.75 4.87 0.22 11.12 1.25 22.06 2.52 0.75 9.22 7.06 0.01 1.54 7.17 0.03 2.86 0.36 1.85 0.76 57.86 15.14 1.04 4.25 6.23 31.78 1.51 2.28 17.81 6.99 - from this by number of members 1-2(9) 3-4(28) 11.00 19.38 0.00 0.86 3.67 4.03 0.00 0.11 7.33 13.70 0.00 2.39 14.17 19.16 0.67 1.56 0.64 0.85 4.96 8.61 5.33 6.07 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.35 5.22 5.27 0.00 0.04 1.67 1.97 0.39 0.27 1.56 1.43 0.42 0.75 28.33 56.00 1.44 14.82 0.00 0.86 1.22 5.09 2.57 5.36 18.67 27.13 1.18 1.10 3.78 1.09 14.00 13.27 6.49 5.77 5+ members(63) 26.73 3.98 5.42 0.29 10.51 0.93 24.47 3.21 0.73 10.10 7.75 0.02 1.75 8.30 0.03 3.43 0.40 2.08 0.82 62.90 17.24 1.27 4.31 7.14 35.72 1.75 2.60 20.37 7.60

86

Table 47 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households in calculation per one member by number of household members (in kg and in units)
Amount per 1 member of a household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total (530) 4.39 0.52 0.92 0.04 2.10 0.24 4.16 0.48 0.14 1.74 1.33 0.00 0.29 1.35 0.01 0.54 0.07 0.35 0.14 10.92 2.86 0.20 0.80 1.18 6.00 0.29 0.43 3.36 1.32 - from this by number of members 1-2 (17) 3-4 (103) 5.82 5.27 0.00 0.23 1.94 1.10 0.00 0.03 3.88 3.72 0.00 0.65 7.50 5.21 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.23 2.63 2.34 2.82 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.37 2.76 1.43 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.53 0.21 0.07 0.82 0.39 0.22 0.20 15.00 15.22 0.76 4.03 0.00 0.23 0.65 1.38 1.36 1.46 9.88 7.38 0.63 0.30 2.00 0.30 7.41 3.61 3.44 1.57 5+ members (410) 4.11 0.61 0.83 0.05 1.61 0.14 3.76 0.49 0.11 1.55 1.19 0.00 0.27 1.27 0.00 0.53 0.06 0.32 0.13 9.67 2.65 0.20 0.66 1.10 5.49 0.27 0.40 3.13 1.17

Table 48 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households by young children (in kg and in units)
Amount per household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a.Sugar brown – in kg Total (100) 23.25 2.75 4.87 0.22 11.12 1.25 22.06 2.52 0.75 9.22 7.06 0.01 - from this by young children 0 children (48) 1+ children (52) 23.83 22.72 3.36 2.18 4.82 4.92 0.29 0.14 11.33 10.92 1.65 0.89 24.96 19.38 3.20 1.89 1.08 0.46 9.87 8.62 7.50 6.65 0.00 0.02

87

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg

1.54 7.17 0.03 2.86 0.36 1.85 0.76 57.86 15.14 1.04 4.25 6.23 31.78 1.51 2.28 17.81 6.99

1.80 7.46 0.00 3.33 0.41 2.02 0.91 66.67 14.54 0.06 5.10 7.94 40.47 1.65 2.29 18.50 6.57

1.30 6.91 0.06 2.43 0.32 1.69 0.63 49.73 15.69 1.94 3.46 4.65 23.77 1.39 2.28 17.17 7.37

Table 49 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households in calculation per one member by young children (in kg and in units)
Amount per 1 member of a household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total (530) 4.39 0.52 0.92 0.04 2.10 0.24 4.16 0.48 0.14 1.74 1.33 0.00 0.29 1.35 0.01 0.54 0.07 0.35 0.14 10.92 2.86 0.20 0.80 1.18 6.00 0.29 0.43 3.36 1.32 - from this by young children 0 children (218) 1+ children (312) 5.25 3.79 0.74 0.36 1.06 0.82 0.06 0.02 2.49 1.82 0.36 0.15 5.49 3.23 0.71 0.31 0.24 0.08 2.17 1.44 1.65 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.22 1.64 1.15 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.41 0.09 0.05 0.44 0.28 0.20 0.10 14.68 8.29 3.20 2.62 0.01 0.32 1.12 0.58 1.75 0.77 8.91 3.96 0.36 0.23 0.50 0.38 4.07 2.86 1.45 1.23

88

Table 50 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households by school-attending children (in kg and in units)
Amount per household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total (100) 23.25 2.75 4.87 0.22 11.12 1.25 22.06 2.52 0.75 9.22 7.06 0.01 1.54 7.17 0.03 2.86 0.36 1.85 0.76 57.86 15.14 1.04 4.25 6.23 31.78 1.51 2.28 17.81 6.99 - from this by school-attending children 0 children(31) 1+ children(69) 15.60 26.69 0.37 3.82 4.11 5.21 0.10 0.27 11.32 11.02 0.94 1.40 17.25 24.21 0.92 3.24 0.58 0.83 8.14 9.71 6.31 7.40 0.00 0.01 0.91 1.82 5.95 7.72 0.03 0.03 1.71 3.38 0.32 0.38 1.48 2.01 0.69 0.80 46.84 62.81 12.13 16.49 2.42 0.42 3.89 4.41 4.43 7.04 23.47 35.52 1.06 1.72 2.47 2.20 16.32 18.48 8.98 6.09

Table 51 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households in calculation per one member by school-attending children (in kg and in units)
Amount per 1 member of a household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg Total (530) 4.39 0.52 0.92 0.04 2.10 0.24 4.16 0.48 0.14 1.74 1.33 0.00 - from this by school-attending children 0 children(110) 1+ children(420) 4.40 4.38 0.10 0.63 1.16 0.86 0.03 0.04 3.19 1.81 0.26 0.23 4.86 3.98 0.26 0.53 0.16 0.14 2.29 1.59 1.78 1.22 0.00 0.00

89

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg

0.29 1.35 0.01 0.54 0.07 0.35 0.14 10.92 2.86 0.20 0.80 1.18 6.00 0.29 0.43 3.36 1.32

0.26 1.68 0.01 0.48 0.09 0.42 0.19 13.20 3.42 0.68 1.10 1.25 6.62 0.30 0.70 4.60 2.53

0.30 1.27 0.00 0.56 0.06 0.33 0.13 10.32 2.71 0.07 0.73 1.16 5.83 0.28 0.36 3.04 1.00

Table 52 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households by dependent children (in kg and in units)
Amount per household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total (100) 23.25 2.75 4.87 0.22 11.12 1.25 22.06 2.52 0.75 9.22 7.06 0.01 1.54 7.17 0.03 2.86 0.36 1.85 0.76 57.86 15.14 1.04 4.25 6.23 31.78 1.51 2.28 17.81 6.99 - from this by dependent children 0 children(13) 1+ children(87) 12.34 24.88 0.00 3.16 3.77 5.04 0.23 0.21 7.00 11.73 0.15 1.42 19.74 22.40 0.54 2.81 0.67 0.77 7.07 9.54 6.00 7.22 0.00 0.01 0.46 1.70 6.89 7.21 0.00 0.03 1.47 3.07 0.59 0.33 1.69 1.87 0.51 0.80 41.38 60.32 4.15 16.78 0.00 1.20 4.00 4.29 5.84 6.29 33.46 31.53 1.09 1.58 3.08 2.17 16.77 17.97 8.53 6.75

90

Table 53 Overview of consumption of selected foods in MRC households in calculation per one member by total dependent children (in kg and in units)
Amount per 1 member of a household and month 1. Bread total – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Rice total – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Milk total – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 4. Meat total – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Sugar total – in kg 5a. Sugar brown – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Oil total – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Butter and spreads total – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curds – in units 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in units 11. Yoghurts – in units 12. Baby food – in units 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pasta – in kg Total (530) 4.39 0.52 0.92 0.04 2.10 0.24 4.16 0.48 0.14 1.74 1.33 0.00 0.29 1.35 0.01 0.54 0.07 0.35 0.14 10.92 2.86 0.20 0.80 1.18 6.00 0.29 0.43 3.36 1.32 - from this by dependent children 0 children(31) 1+ children(499) 5.17 4.34 0.00 0.55 1.58 0.88 0.10 0.04 2.94 2.05 0.06 0.25 8.28 3.91 0.23 0.49 0.28 0.13 2.97 1.66 2.52 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.30 2.89 1.26 0.00 0.01 0.62 0.54 0.25 0.06 0.71 0.33 0.21 0.14 17.35 10.52 1.74 2.93 0.00 0.21 1.68 0.75 2.45 1.10 14.03 5.50 0.46 0.28 1.29 0.38 7.03 3.13 3.58 1.18

91

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

6. SUMMARY OF BASIC FINDINGS
The determined sum of net incomes of Roma households from marginalised settlements counted for one month came out low when calculated per household as well as per household member. Framework Slovakia-wide averages for individual incomes or wage thresholds valid around the period when the empirical research was conducted indicate that incomes in excluded settlements move below the average sums and in the majority of cases below the standard poverty-risk line. Although in some groups of households the volume of financial resources on the side of income is increasing, for example with multiple-member households or households with school-attending or dependent children together, after calculating per one household member they actually had fewer financial resources. One exception was households with a working member or members, where income came out higher both in overall form per households as well as calculated per household member. Work incomes are improving the overall income of households in a significant way; on the other hand, they occurred in the surveyed environments more as a rarity (low employment) and work earnings coming to this environment are at a low level (on average low work incomes from employment are deeply beneath the average employee wage for the Slovak Republic). Despite the small distribution of work incomes in the surveyed environment (largely irregular) and the on average low work earnings, work incomes in an evident way lead to an improving of the living situation of the surveyed excluded households. At the same time, however, this points to the very low living standard of households without a working member. Their family budget is one work income lower, in the majority of cases involuntarily, as shown in the scope of situational accounts, where the possibilities of being employed are categorised among the most frequent desires for a family and more work opportunities among the most common wishes. Social benefits are decidedly unable to balance out and top up this deficit. The result is that members of Roma households without work incomes have significantly fewer financial resources for their own consumption. The constraints in consumption ascertained with some households were huge. They had to give up the majority of so-called higher needs completely, and many standard needs were limited to a minimal measure and for the most basic needs only a limited sum of financial resources remained – at least according to the volume of expenditures. The share of expenditures for basic needs like food and housing were recorded highest in overall expenditures with households having the lowest incomes. This means that excluded Roma households with the lowest incomes from available sums of financial resources used on average the largest portion of their total spending on food and housing (most of the money they spent during the month was consumed by food and housing costs). At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that even in households with a better income position it is not possible to speak about a “good” situation; their position still came out on a low level in framework comparisons with the Slovak-wide averages. In the overall weak economic environments of marginalised Roma settlements, households with poor economic status are still more undersized in consumption. The range of individual sums paid in the course of the month was relatively narrow, and if the extreme values of expenditures caused by an exceptional situation are left out of consideration, there were no principle differences between the average sums spent for individual types of expenditures. Empirical data thus indicate that a large group of surveyed households go “all out”: they forgot about abovestandard expenditures, limited their standard expenditures and try to cover the most fundamental items as best they can.

92

Comparing the level of incomes and expenditures showed that the budgets are nearly equal and if some households in the course of the month did not borrow money, they would be unable to cover the needs of household members. Without loans, budgets would end up in negative numbers, and this is more often related to households without a working member and with a young child or children. They cover the deficit in incomes with great probability using a dining strategy focused on less quality and less healthy foods

and the replacing of basic foodstuffs with “from scratch” types of foods. The monitoring of selected foods indicated a very low consumption of fruits and vegetables (with the exception of potatoes) and above-standard consumption of flour and pasta. With alternative types of foods the healthier variants were found only in minimal amounts; cheaper and lower quality alternatives predominated.

93

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

A P P E N D I X 1 : T Y P E S A N D A M O U N T O F S O C IA L B E N E F I T S
1.1.2004 Zákon č. 599/2004 Z.z. 1.9.2004 Nar. vlády č. 486/2004 Z.z. 1.9.2005 Nar. vlády č.382/2005 Z.z. zákon č.305/2005 Z.z. 1560 2500 2710 3700 3710 4950 1.11.2005 Zákon č. 471/2005 Z.z. 1.1.2006 Zákon č. 573/2005 Z.z 1.9.2006 Nar. vlády č. 486/2006 Z.z. 1.9.2007 Nar. vlády č. 377/2007 Z.z. 1.9.2008 Nar. vlády č. 336/2008 Z.z. 1.1.2009 Zákon č. 562/2008 Z.z. 1.9.2009 Nar. Vlády č. 324/2009 Z.z.

Benefits and contributions in material need

Single person Single person with 1-4 children Couple without children Couple with 1-4 children Individual with more than 4 children Couple with more than 4 children Increase of BMN or pregnant women Health-care allowance Housing allowance for a single person Housing allowance for more persons Activation allowance Protective allowance Benefit for children, taking care of child up to 1 year of age Benefit for child attending school

1450 2160 2530 3210 3160 4210 350 50 780 1330 1000 1000

1530 2450 2660 3630 3640 4850

1640 2630 2850 3890 3900 5210

1680 2800 2910 4000 4100 5360 370

1760 3300 3060 4520 4800 6060 390

58,43€ 109,54€ 101,58€ 150,04€ 159,34€ 201,16€ 12,95€ 2€

60,50€ 115,10€ 105,20€ 157,60€ 168,20€ 212,30€ 13,50€

60 980 1670 15.4.2004 15.4.2004 1130 1920 1500 1500 1360 2150 1700 1700 1460 2300 1490 2350 1900 1900 1570 2510

52,12€ 83,32€

55,80€ 89,20€ 63,07€ 63,07€

350

370

390

12,95€

13,50€

16,60€

17,20€

94

APPENDIX 2: ROMA SETTLEMENTS – LIST (NAME OF VILLAGE OR TOWN – DISTRICT)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Zvolen – Zvolen Detva I (rodinné domy) – Detva Detva II (bytovky) – Detva Vrbnica I – Michalovce Michalovce: Mlyn(ská) I (bytovky) – Michalovce Hnojné – Michalovce Závadka I – Gelnica Roškovce – Levoča Sveržov – Bardejov Petrovany – Prešov Rudňany I – Spišská N. V. Markušovce I – Spišská N. V. Jarovnice – Sabinov Medzany – Prešov Turňa nad Bodvou – Košice okolie Hrušov – Veľký Krtíš Moldava nad Bodvou I – Košice okolie Moldava nad Bodvou II – Košice okolie Šaca – Košice 2 Trnava I – Trnava Trnava II – Trnava Banská Štiavnica – B. Štiavnica Kokava nad Rimavicou – Poltár Zlatno – Poltár Klenovec – Rimavská Sobota Hnúšťa – Rimavská Sobota Čeľovce – Trebišov Slovenské Nové Mesto – Trebišov Čerhov – Trebišov Michaľany – Trebišov Bíňa – Nitra Čata – Levice Rimavská Sobota – R. Sobota Bystrany – Spišská N. V. Spišské Podhradie: Rybníček – Levoča Žehra – Spišská N. V. Pôtor – Veľký Krtíš Dačov Lom – Veľký Krtíš Bušince – Veľký Krtíš Modrý Kameň – Veľký Krtíš Sklabiná – Veľký Krtíš Veľký Krtíš – V. Krtíš Ostrovany – Sabinov Richnava – Gelnica Veľký Blh – Rimavská Sobota

95

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

96

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96.

Ražňany – Sabinov Sabinov I – Sabinov Kecerovce I – Košice okolie Šarišské Michaľany – Sabinov Kružľov: Gerlachov – Bardejov Lukov I – Bardejov Lenartov I – Bardejov Gerlachov – Bardejov Rožkovany – Sabinov Družstevná pri Hornáde – Košice okolie Milpoš – Sabinov Hraň – Trebišov Hrčeľ I – Trebišov Kuzmice – Trebišov Vojčice – Trebišov Prešov: Solivar (Pod Hrádkom) – Prešov Prešov: Stará tehelňa – Prešov Prešov: Tarasa Ševčenka – Prešov Stará Ľubovňa I – S. Ľubovňa Stará Ľubovňa: Podsadek – S. Ľubovňa Gelnica – Gelnica Vyšné: Slovinky – Spišská N. V. Veľký Šariš – Prešov Ruská Nová Ves – Prešov Fiľakovo: mesto – Lučenec Nitra nad Ipľom – Lučenec Fiľakovské Kováče – Lučenec Rimavská Baňa – R. Sobota Rimavská Píla – R. Sobota Čelovce I: osada – Veľký Krtíš Cerovo – Krupina Krupina – Krupina Čelovce II: obec – Veľký Krtíš Lúčky - Michalovce Iňačovce – Michalovce Slavkovce – Michalovce Malčice – Michalovce Žbince – Michalovce Michalovce – Michalovce Sobrance – Sobrance Rankovce – Košice okolie Jasov – Košice okolie Torysa I – Sabinov Drienovec – Košice okolie Lastovce – Trebišov Nižný Žipov – Trebišov Trebišov – Trebišov Kamenín – N. Zámky Pohronský Ruskov – Levice Bátka – R. Sobota Včelince – R. Sobota

APPENDIX 3: LOGBOOKS
LOGBOOK 1 – INCOMES
INCOMES in euro a. Pension payments b. Family benefits and allowances c. One-time family allowances d. Health benefits e. Health-disability benefits f. Benefits and allowances in material need g. Social incomes tot al h. Unemployment benefit i. Work income from permanent employment j. Irregular work incomes k. Incomes from property l. Child support payments m. Financial gift n. Material gift o. Incomes from home production p. Other incomes r. Loan 1. 2. 3. ... 31.

Explanations for form 1:
Pensions: old-age, early retirement, retirement, widow’s, widower’s, orphan’s, invalid’s Family benef its and allowances: child bonus, child allowance bonus, parental allowance, allowance for care of a child, allowances for alternative care, alternative allowance, One-time f amily allowances: funeral allowance, allowance for having triplets, allowance for birth of a child, bonus to the allowance on the birth of a child, one-time allowance for support of alternative care, one-time allowance for compensation Health benef its: maternity, compensating benefit in maternity, sickness payment, care for treatment of a family member Health-disabilit y benef its: allowances for increased expenditures, for compensation, allowance for care-provision Benef its and allowances in MN: benefit in material need, healthcare allowance, housing allowance, benefit to parents of a child up to 1 year old, benefit for a school-attending child, activation allowance, safety allowance,

Social incomes tot al: - enter if they are unable to differentiate individual types of benefits and allowances Unemployment benef it: Work income from permanent employment: total sum for all working members of a households – employed or self-employed Irregular work incomes: separation payment, brigade work, agreements, occasional work and the like. Income from proper t y: household incomes from the sale of movable and immovable property, from interest and the like. Child suppor t payments: child support from the second parent, if he/she does not live at household Financial gif t: a financial sum which the household obtained from other persons (an employer, a relative living in another household, an NGO...)
Material gif t: monetary estimate of goods and services which the household obtained from other persons (employer, a relative living in another household, an NGO...) Incomes from home production: monetary estimate of goods which the household cultivated or made at home itself Other incomes: all other incomes of the household not otherwise categorised Loan: selected loans from institutions and private persons

97

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

1.2. Household indebtedness and debts owed to them: a. Total sum of indebtedness (the household owes): ................................................................................................................. b. Total sum of debts owed to them (owed to the household): ............................................................................................... 1.3. If they owe: Whether they have a instalment calendar worked up: 1 = yes; 2 = no

1.4. Does the household have a special recipient for part of its social incomes: 1 = yes; 2 = no

LOGBOOK 2 – EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES in euro 1. Food 2. Non-alcoholic beverages 3. Alcoholic beverages 4. Food and beverages - at a factory or school dining room 5. Food and beverages – at restaurants 6. Tobacco and tobacco products 7. Clothing 8. Shoes 9. Rent for housing 10. Energy – electricity, gas, solid fuel, heating 11. Water – rate and measured 12. Other services for housing 13. Material and services for repair of the dwelling 14. Household appliances and equipment 15. Antiques and artistic works 16. Vehicles – purchase and operation 17. Travel tickets – transport services 18. Post and telecommunications 19. Personal care items, drug store items 20. Personal care services 21. Jewellery and personal items 22. Newspapers and books 23. Office supplies 24. Education, school 25. Goods and services for culture and recreation 26. Organised holidays 27. Accommodation services 28. Health 29. Other goods and services 30. Other expenditures 31. Payments of loans and debts 1. 2. 3. ... 31

Description of items for LOGBOOK 2 - EXPENDITURES
1. Food: - the purchase of food products for household consumption in a shop, from private persons, at a market and the like. (all types of food aside from beverages)

98

2. Non-alcoholic beverages: the purchase of beverages without alcohol – mineral waters, lemonades, juices, syrups, but also coffee, tea, cocoa,... 3. Alcoholic beverages: the purchase of distillates (hard liquor of different types), liqueurs, wines, beers...

4. Food and beverages - at a factor y or school dining room: foods and drinks consumed in factory and school dining rooms or at nursery schools, in dormitories (also on dining vouchers) 5. Food and beverages – at rest aurants: foods and beverages consumed in restaurants, buffets, sweetshops, coffeehouses, pubs... 6. Tobacco and tobacco products: cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, cigarette papers... 7. Clothing: textiles for clothing, ready-made clothing (underwear, socks, hose, pants, skirts, blouses, formal wear, coats, t-shirts, swim trunks...), clothing accessories and haberdashery (gloves, scarves, shawls, hats, handkerchiefs,...), and cleaning and tailor services 8. Shoes: shoes and shoe products, tennis shoes for common wear (aside from specialised sports shoes), and repair and maintenance of shoes 9. Rent for housing: rent for a flat, other rents for another flat or house, fund for repairs and operations 10. Energy – electricit y, gas, solid fuel, heating 11. Water – rate and measured 12. Other ser vices for housing: administration of a house, caretakers work, cleaning of a chimney, gutters, maintenance of lifts, common antennae, snow removal, tidying up... 13. Material and ser vices for repair of the dwelling: paints, lacquers, painting needs, plaster, cement, sand, tiles, cladding, floors, faucets, tubs, WC, sinks, doors, and services (painting, plumbing, masonry and the like) 14. Household appliances and furnishings: furniture, carpets, curtains, towels, bed linens, refrigerator, washing machine, microwaves, irons, household tools, drills, cleaning and laundry products, ladder, needles, shoehorns, plastic bags and sacks, folios, work gloves,... 15. Antiques and ar tistic works: statues, pictures... 16. Vehicles – purchase and operation: purchase of a car, motorcycle, bicycle, fuels, replacement parts, repairs, parking, garage, driver’s license, motorway and emission stickers... 17. Travel tickets – transpor t ser vices: railway tickets, bus tickets, taxis, tram tickets, airline tickets, and haulage for the households,... 18. Post and telecommunications: stamps, postcards, letters, packages, purchase of telephones, mobile phones, repairs of telephones, faxes, fees for telephone and fax services, SIM cards, Internet connections... 19. Personal care items, drug store items: creams, razors, safety razors, toothbrushes and toothpaste, soap, toilet paper, tissues, disposable diapers, tampons, shower gels, sprays, hairdryers... 20. Personal care ser vices: hair-dressers, cosmetics, manicures, pedicures, sauna, massage,... 21. Jeweller y and personal items: gold, silver, platinum jewellery, gemstones, tie pins, walking stick, watches, a suitcase, a belt, an umbrella, handbags, wallets, prams, car seats, swings, sun glasses, costume jewellery, key chains, and repair of these things... 22. Newspapers and books 23. Of f ice supplies: drawing instruments, pens, school notebooks, calendars, toner refills, printer materials... 24. Education, school: payments for educational services in nursery schools, schools and non-school facilities, fees for entrance exams, language and other courses... 25. Goods and ser vices for culture and recreation: radio, cassette player, TV, camera, microscope, PC, calculator, CDs and DVDs, rolls of film, photographs, disks, toys, sports equipment, including special shoes (skiing, skating, running, football...), tickets to cultural and sporting facilities, fees for radio and TV, cable TV, satellite TV, repair of these equipment, and betting (sports betting, Keno...),... 26. Organised holidays: transport, accommodation, dining, tours – domestic and foreign, journeys, school in nature... 27. Accommodation ser vices 28. Health: medicines, glasses, orthopaedic and other aids, payments at doctors, injections, fillings, dentures, hospital stays, healers... 29. Other goods and ser vices: social services (youth dormitories, pensioner homes, orphanages), insurance of persons, a flat or car, banking services, fees – for a passport, statement from the criminal registry, for a dog, adverts, funerals.. 30. Other e xpenditures: taxes, inheritance, transfer of real estate, membership fees, gifts, fines, support for children... 31. Payments of loans and debts

LOGBOOK 3 – consumer basket (selected foods)
FOODS in kg, pieces, l 1. Total bread – in kg 1a. Dark bread – in kg 2. Total rice – in kg 2a. Brown rice – in kg 3. Total mill – in litres 3a. Whole milk – in litres 1. 2. 3. ... 31.

99

INCOMES, EXPENDITURES AND CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN MARGINALIZED ROMA SETTLEMENTS

4. Total meat – in kg 4a. Quality meat – in kg 4b. Fish – in kg 4c. Poultry – in kg 5. Total sugar – in kg 5a.Brown sugar – in kg 6. Fat – in kg 6a. Total oil – in litres 6b. Olive oil – in litres 7. Total butter and spreads – in kg 7a. Real butter – in kg 8. Curd cheese – in pieces 9. Cheeses – in kg (estimate) 10. Eggs – in pieces 11. Yoghurts – in pieces 12. Baby food – in pieces 13. Fruits – in kg 14. Vegetables – in kg 15. Potatoes – in kg 16. Coffee – in kg 17. Juices – in litres 18. Flour – in kg 19. Pastas – in kg Whether the household received food aid from the government: 1 = yes – when...................... .; 2 = no

Explanations for LOGBOOK 3:
With the first 8 foods in the logbook the principle of listing the total amount of the given commodity is observed and subsequently its healthier variant is recorded. So, for example: Total bread: all types of bread are listed Dark bread: the amount of healthier dark break is listed Total meat : all meats and meat products are listed, including frankfurters, salami, bacon, flanks and conserved products Qualit y meat: beef, pork thigh or roasts or tenderloin, wild game and the like..

100

R E F E R E N C IE S
EU SILC, 2011: Zisťovania o príjmoch a životných podmienkach za rok 2010. Bratislava: ŠÚ SR. Dostupné na: http://portal.statistics.sk/ showdoc.do?docid=24731 GERBERY, D. – BODNÁROVÁ, B. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R., 2010: Prieskum názorov expertov na životné minimum. Bratislava: IVPR Príjmy, výdavky a spotreba súkromných domácností SR 2010. Bratislava: ŠÚ SR. Dostupné na: http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=37976 ŠKOBLA, D. – LEONČIKAS, T. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, M., 2008: Etnicita ako štatistický ukazovateľ pri monitorovaní životných podmienok a diskriminácie. Bratislava: UNDP/FES. UNDP, 2006: Správa o životných podmienkach rómskych domácností na Slovensku. (J. Filadelfiová – D. Gerbery – D. Škobla) Bratislava: UNDP/FES. UNDP, 2012: Správa o životných podmienkach rómskych domácností na Slovensku 2010. Bratislava: UNDP. UNDP, 2013: Situačná analýza vybraných aspektov životnej úrovne domácností vylúčených rómskych osídlení. Bratislava: UNDP VAŇO, B., 2001: Demografická charakteristika rómskej populácie v SR. Bratislava: INFOSTAT VAŇO, B., 2002: Prognóza vývoja rómskeho obyvateľstva v SR do roku 2025. Bratislava: INFOSTAT. Výberové zisťovanie o štruktúre miezd v SR za rok 2011. Bratislava: ŠÚ SR. Dostupné na: http://portal. statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50695 THE WORLD BANK, 2012: Protecting the Poor and Promoting Employability. An assessment of the social assistance system in the Slovak Republic. Bratislava: The World Bank.

101

UNDP, Europe and the CIS Bratislava Regional Centre Grosslingova 35 811 09 Bratislava Slovak Republic Tel.: (421-2)59337-111 Fax.: (421-2)59337-450 http://europeandcis.undp.org

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful