Context and historical background

The Spanish Roma or gitanos are the largest disadvantaged ethnic minority in Spain2. They have been socially and economically excluded and marginalized in most Spanish regions since their arrival in the Iberian peninsula in the fifteenth century3. This situation has been improving greatly since the 1990s, but the gap between the average Spanish Roma and the average Spanish non-Roma is large: In terms of education, 8.7% of the Spanish Roma are illiterate, in contrast to 2.2% of the total Spanish population. The differences in poverty rates are also considerable: 77.1% of the Roma are below 60% of the relative poverty rate median in Spain –in contrast to 16.9% of the total pop- ulation and 29.6% of immigrants–, and 37.5% are below 30% of the relative poverty median– as compared to only 3.4% of the total population and 4.3% of immigrants. A 2_{It is estimated that there are between 570,000 and 1,100,000gitanosin Spain, and that 10% of them}

reside in the Region of Madrid (Laparra et al., 2007a).

3_{For an historical overview of the Roma in the Iberian peninsula, see Leblon (2001) and San Rom´an}

Table 3.1: Comparison of socio-economic indicators for the Spanish Roma

Population living in Spain Indicators Total Roma Immigrants

Education

Percentage illiterate 2.2 8.7 −

Poverty indicators

Percentage below 60% of the poverty rate median in Spain 16.9 77.1 29.6 Percentage below 30% of the poverty rate median in Spain 3.4 37.5 4.3

Labour

Percentage of workforce working as employees 83.6 37.6 −

Family size

Number of children per family 0.8 2.7 −

Notes:The statistics shown in the table are the best available approximation to the current situation of thegitanos(MHSPE, 2012). However, it must be noted that they have been obtained from different studies and do not correspond to the same or equivalent samples, and differ both in time range (between 2007 and 2011) and location of the sample (differ- ent cities). These studies also vary in their methods for data collection and analysis (details on the studies, data sources, sample and methodology, are provided in MHSPE (2012)).

key difference between Roma and non-Roma is labour market participation: The Roma work mainly in the informal economy, and only 37.6% of the total Roma workforce work as employees, a small number compared to the 83.6% of the total Spanish work- force that work as employees. The Roma marry much younger, usually to other Roma; they also have larger families on average: 2.7 children, in contrast to 0.8 children in an average Spanish family4_{, and one third of the total population of Roma in Spain are}

younger than 15 years old5_.

The Spanish Roma used to be nomads, but most had become sedentary by the 1970s. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the Roma emigrated to the cities, which of- fered jobs and better prospects for their marginal activities: scrap metal, performances, begging (San Rom´an, 1997). This is the period when they started creating settlements in the surrounding areas of the main cities. Each settlement was usually formed by one

4_{These statistics represent the average at a point in time.}

5_{The data described in this section is summarized in Table 3.1. The statistics presented are collected}

in Laparra et al. (2007a). It is important to note that the estimates presented in this table are not directly comparable, since they come from different studies, samples, locations, and years (between 2007 and 2011); still, they are the best approximation available to date to the situation of thegitanos in Spain (MHSPE, 2012).

or a very small number of clans. In 1971, almost all the Roma living in the outskirts of Madrid city were living in precarious conditions: Around 12,000 of them lived in slums (82.4%) and the rest lived in slum-like public buildings, with few exceptions6_{. The gov-}

ernment of Madrid began clearing operations of these settlements during the 1970s. Ac- cording to their records, they had largely succeeded by the mid-1980s7. However, new waves of Roma migrants arrived. These new Roma migrants were particularly marginal, poor, and socially excluded, and they settled nearby roads (Alonso, 2005)8; according to the 1986 census, they were in total 2,674 families settled in 61 settlements located in 18 districts in Madrid, mostly in the south. The average size of each of these settlements was 44 families (CPM, 1986; Nogu´es-S´aez, 2010). It was after this 1986 census that the authorities in the city of Madrid started a systematic process of resettlement of the fam- ilies in these settlements. A special organism was created for this purpose: Consortium for the Marginalised Population (CPM)9_{. The task of this organism was later continued}

by Institute for Rehousing and Social Integration (IRIS)10, created in 199811, and it can be argued that IRIS had almost completed resettling all Spanish Roma families living in slums by the beginning of 2012: At the time in which my data was collected, there only remained around 400 registered slum dwellings in the Region of Madrid, down from the 1,600 households living in slums registered in IRIS records in 199912_{–see Table 3.3}13_.

Data for the Roma in Madrid and, more specifically, for the Roma living in settlements, is very scarce (mostly collected for the purpose of creating censuses). IRIS collects some basic data when they start to work in a slum. In Table 3.2, I present

6_{These statistics were produced by Asociaci´on de Desarrollo Gitano (source: San Rom´an (1997)).} 7_{Some of these resettlements moved families to slum-like public buildings, but the city was “cleared”}

from slums.

8_{Nogu´es-S´aez (2010) provides a detailed description of the historical evolution of settlements and}

public housing policies in the Region of Madrid.

9_{Consorcio para la Poblaci´on Marginada.} 10_{Instituto de Realojamiento e Integraci´on Social.}

11_{For a detailed an historical overview of slums and resettlement policies in Madrid, see Alonso}

(2005); for a detailed discussion on the differences between IRIS program and its predecessor, see Nogu´es-S´aez (2010).

12_{These counts exclude the settlement Ca˜nada Real, which is increasingly growing but has a minority}

of Spanish Roma.

13_{A survey conducted by FSG (2007) in the Region of Madrid reports that the number ofgitanos}

living in slums decreased from 64% in 1991 to only 13% in 2007, and the majority of those families living in flats or houses reported to be benefiting from public housing. According to this survey, only 2.1% of thegitanosliving in flats or houses in 2007 had acquired their property from the free property market (purchase or rental).

Table 3.2: Evolution of literacy and poverty in the slums

Slums data from IRIS records (individuals ages 17 and above) 2003 2006 2008 2010 2011

Illiteracy rate

Illiterate 0.62 0.30 0.22 0.15 0.17

Monthly income declared

Below 601e 0.66 0.68 0.75 0.61 0.61 Below 1081e 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.89 0.90

Item response (0.34) (0.54) (0.72) (0.46) (0.38) Notes:Entries in the table correspond to the means of the relevant vari- ables and were calculated adding up the average values for the slums for which data was collected on the particular year; in 2003, informa- tion was collected for the slums: El Cristo, Pitis, Huertos, San Ferm´ın, Santa Catalina, Trigales, Barranquillas, and Salobral; in 2006, data was gathered from: Santa Catalina, Trigales, Barranquillas, Salobral, and Ventorro; in 2008, from Santa Catalina and Ventorro; in 2010 and 2011, from Santa Catalina, Ventorro, Gallinero, Antonio Cabez´on, Manuel Villarta, Bajo Gran V´ıa, Las Castellanas, and San Nicasio. The variable

Illiterateuses the sample of individuals age 17 and above.Monthly in- come declaredrefers to total family income and the item response rates are provided in parenthesis in the last row of the table.

statistics on illiteracy rates and declared monthly income that have been collected by IRIS staff in the slums. It is important to note that this data comes from different slums, depending on the year for which it is recorded, and that it includes all people living in the slum that provided IRIS with this information.The population for each year is not comparable. The majority of these people are Spanish Roma, but in the later years (2010 and 2011) there is an increasing percentage of people from other ethnicities or origin, especially immigrants. For example, one of the slums included in the data shown (corresponding to the years 2010 and 2011), Ventorro, has a population composition that is very different from that of the other slums and has better educated individuals14_{. Also}

the slum of Santa Catalina was considerably richer than the rest, on average.

The data shown in Table 3.2 suggests that illiteracy rates for Roma slum-dwellers have decreased considerably. This trend is also observed in the Roma population in general (MHSPE, 2012), so despite the limited reliability of the indicators presented in Table 3.2 (for the reasons stated above) it is plausible to assume that the trend in illiteracy rates is downwards also for the Spanish Roma living in slums. In Table 3.2, I 14_{The families living in this slum have not been rehoused by IRIS yet, and are not part of my sample.}

also show data for reported income. Most families declare earning a salary that is below minimum income.