a) Current situation of the vulnerable groups on the labour market
· General premises
Starting especially from the 80`s, Romania has entered into an impoverishment process of the population, accentuated in the transition period by two shocks: 19911993 and 19972000. The socioeconomic evolutions registered in the last years have led to the poverty level of 18.8% in 2004 30 , and the extreme poverty rate level up to 5.9% in 2004. The drastically reduction of the number of work places, the diminishing of the real level of salaries and the tax wedge in particular on the lowpaid have represented important causes of incomes’ depreciation. The increase of the life costs during 19972000 has not been accompanied by a proportional increase of the income, implicitly leading to severe poverty 31 .
In 2000, the living level estimated on the basis of the poverty threshold, represented 42.2% of the net average wage. Through its ascendant trend during the following years, the poverty threshold was 36.4% of the net average wage in 2003. Starting 2001, a population poverty decreasing process has begun, but only during 20022003 this process produced positive effects over the categories with high level of vulnerability (see Chart 14, Annex 1). · Factors influencing the risk of poverty Social position and career. The analysis of the poverty level on individuals reveals a poverty
risk reducing for the selfemployed persons in agriculture, this social category being at a critical level in terms of deep poverty which is linked with the share of population (10.1%). During 19952004 the most significant reducing in poverty risk was registered for employers and employees.
Education level. Participation of individuals to a high level of education (College or
University) almost wipes off the poverty risk. Each additional education level acquired reduces significantly the risk of poverty.
In terms of age groups, the poverty decrease in 2004 had an impact on all the age groups, mostly on the elders. If in 1995 the poverty risk was higher for the elders than for the young people and children, the most vulnerable groups in the latest years are by far, the young people and the children. Though, as a result of the important share of the elders among the population, a significant high number of this group is affected by the poverty. The elders’ poverty level close to those economically “active” (2564 years old) and the high poverty risk of the young people shows in Romania a proliferation of a poverty linked with the structural changes on the labour market (Chart 15, Annex 1).
Poor health status of population and illness has as result the decreasing of productivity,
reduction of the time at work, less income. For the people having long period of illness the probability to find a job is weak, the effect being an accelerated increase of the poverty risk.
30 Methodology to measure the poverty level was elaborated by the National Institute of Statistics, the World Bank and the AntiPoverty and Social Inclusion Promoting Commission on the basis of the level of population consumption costs; 31 The severe poverty represents the lack of the resources to satisfy the absolute minimal living needs of an individual: food,
Poverty distribution by residence areas. In 2004, the biggest part of the poverty reduction
was due to the decrease of this phenomenon’s incidence in the rural areas, the poverty rate being lower by 10.7 percentage points or a poverty reduction by 28.1% compared to the previous year (Chart 16 and 17, Annex 1). Amongst the reasons for this decrease stand the cumulative effects of some measures implemented in 2004, such as raising the pensions of people employed in agriculture and the agriculture subsidies changed into cash payments for the previous year. Nevertheless, the disparities between the two residence environments continue to exist and the rural area is considerably affected by poverty. The poorest people are from the rural areas (66.7% of the total poor) and the poverty risk is much higher within this residence environment; yet, in the urban areas the poverty is deeper (the consumption deficit is bigger). The reducing tendency of the polarisation between the urban and the rural areas is revealed also by the severe poverty rates evolution (see also Table 29, Annex 1).
Poverty distribution by regions. The disparities between the regions by poverty level have
been considerably flattened; the most vulnerable region, the NorthEast Region, is no longer detached from the other regions through poverty risk, like the previous period, due to the fact that this region was the most important beneficiary of the poverty reducing in 2003 and amongst the main beneficiaries of the poverty reducing in 2004 (Chart 18, Annex 1).
The attenuation of disparities is also noticeable between the group of the poorest four regions (NorthEast, SouthEast, South and SouthWest) and the less poor regions. The only region recording a distinct situation remains Bucharest Region, through the extremely low poverty risk (Table 30, Annex 1). · Children in child protection institutions In practice, the results of the Government Strategy for the Protection of Child in Difficulty are as follows: − number of institutionalised children dropped from 57,181 in December 2001 to 27,188 in June 2006; − number of alternative child protection services raised from 131 to 589, during 2001 2004; − number of foster parents increased from 30,572 in December 2000 to 49,180 in June 2005; − number of professional maternal assistance increased from 3,228 in December 2000 to 14,289 in March 2006;
− number of children in substitute families (professional maternal assistants, relatives including up to 4 th grade) increased from 15,532 in 2000 to 23,847 in December 2006.
Moreover, 330 houses and 403 apartments have been opened where children benefit from a family type form of protection. The number of large institutions with more than 100 children, which was 205 at the beginning of 2001, decreased to 40 at the end of March 2006.
In its efforts to improve the quality of public care for children, the EU has financially supported Romania with around 160 million Euro over the last 15 years (between 1999 and 2003 the amount was 59.5 million Euro). As a result, the majority of the large residential establishments have been closed down and replaced with a selection of child protection alternatives ranging from smaller homes to foster care. Since 2001, an extensive (EU financed) public awareness campaign has taken place in order to inform the public at large and those responsible for child protection in particular of the alternatives to institutionalisation and the right of children to appropriate care.
· Social inclusion of the street children Out of the existing data with respect to the street children, at the NAPCR level in September 2004, the following statistics are available: − number of children living in the street together with their family: 225; − number of children living in the street without their family: 606; − number of children spending their life in the street without living in the street: 1720; − number of the street social assistants: 95; − number of services offered to the street children: 106. · Families with more than two children and single parent families These families represent another category of people confronted with a very high poverty risk. In 2003, poverty level has started to decrease visibly among families with more than 3 children (a 6.1 percentage points drop in poverty risk vs. 2002) (Table 31, Annex 1).
· Young over 18 leaving the State Child Protection System
At the national level, social and professional integration of young people who leave the child protection system is a very important undertaking. For a very long time there was no solution for these teenagers, who had to leave the institutions without having the perspective of a home, a place to work and without the adequate skills needed to obtain and to integrate themselves within society.
Of the total number of 32,456 protected children within the public and private childcare institutions, at the end of March 2005, 12,148 persons were aged between 14 and 17 years old, and 6,329 were over 18 years old.
In order to prepare teenagers and young people for life, within the Child Protection Directorates’ structure, specific services 32 were developed. At present, at the national level, there are 50 specific services, and some projects regarding the development of these services are carried out. The 50 services mentioned above are addressed to the teenagers and young people from the State Child Protection Service, and operate in 22 counties. These are Counselling Services, specially designed to develop the teenagers’ necessary skills for an independent life. These Centres’ specialists cooperate with the personnel from the Placement Centres, monitoring the activity from this point of view. In April 2004 the minimum compulsory standard requests for the developing of the teenagers’ necessary skills for an independent life were established for the Counselling Services. During 2005 training sessions have been organised for the personnel working in these services.
· Roma population
Roma community is the second largest ethnic minority after Hungarians. The 2002 Census recorded 535,140 Roma, respectively persons that voluntarily assumed the Roma identity. Data from 2002 Census also show that 60.1% live in rural areas. Independent estimates made by Romanian and foreign sociologists as well as by Roma representatives indicate a Roma population of 12.5 million persons. The 2004 Progress report prepared by the European Commission estimates the Roma population between 1.82.5 million persons.
According to social studies conducted, Roma has the weakest self conscience and awareness as compared to all other large ethnic minorities in Romania. According to the Ethnic Relations Barometer, published in 2002, about 33% of the Roma population identify themselves as Romanian, 37% as Roma, while the remaining population assumed with the local/regional identity.
Significant changes for Roma population, as well as the existing gap between realities and official statistics are explained by the fact that many Roma prefer to voluntarily assume the Romanian identity for enjoying a better social statute and for distinguishing of the less educated Roma mass population.
Roma population lives in extreme poverty. The poverty risk in Roma community is 3 times higher as compared to average risk at national level in 2003. A World Bank Report states that in 2000, about 68.8% of the Roma population lived with less than 4.3 USD per day. A significant part of Roma communities cumulates a large spectrum of social disabilities: low education attainment or no education, low or no qualification, history of non participation in formal education, high number of children, poor living conditions, low experience on the labour market etc.
The recorded poverty level for the Roma population in 2004 is still above the level recorded in 1995 and at a very big distance from all the other ethnic categories, 3 of 4 persons being poor. In 2004 about 74.3% of the Roma population faced a high level of a poverty risk, social exclusion and marginalization, as a result of a chronic developing disparity, sustained by the maintaining of a discriminatory attitude. The evolution of the percentage of Roma population facing the poverty risk recorded a general decreasing tendency during 20012004 (Chart 19, Annex 1). o Roma employment
The weak participation level on the labour market represents the keyproblem of the Roma population. According to the official data from the “Housing and Population Census 2002” only 122,573 persons representing 22.9% of the declared 535,140 Roma people are part of the active population. Out of these, only 71.5% represent employed people, the rest of almost 28.5% being unemployed, seeking for a job. About 41% of employed were working in agriculture (of which one third are women) and 31% are unskilled workers.
Within the Roma population, major vocational training deficiencies are recorded. More than 70% of the Roma population has no qualification or they develop activities which do not require a formal vocational training.
The high share of daily workers in the total Roma population (41.7%) indicates the fact that they are in a difficult situation with respect to employment and implicitly, to ensuring the minimum income for their basic needs 33 .
There are lots of persons with no experience of a legally admitted economic activity, or had long periods of unemployment (more than 50% of Roma have been unemployed for over 27 months 34 while the employed people proportion is very low (only 13% of the medium income of the Roma families, compared to the beginning of the transition period). The main income sources are those by chance, mostly from the informal economy, which cannot ensure but a precarious survival: occasional activities, daily workers, etc. An important part of Roma families’ income is from social benefits. According to recent surveys, the real unemployment
33 Research Institute for Quality of Life, „Indicators on the Roma Communities in Romania”, Bucharest, 2002, p.12; 34 Census, 2002;
rate for the Roma communities is only 24%, as very many Roma people develop activities in the undeclared economy. According to the same survey, 16% of the Roma persons live exclusively out of the State social benefits 35 .
Regarding the Roma women employment, there are some disparities compared to the Roma men situation. Thus, of the total number of the employed Roma population, women represent less than one third 36 . Also, the weight of the housekeepers within the Roma women is 4 times higher than the national average 37 (Table 32, Annex 1).
o Roma children education
The poor living conditions and low incomes of Roma population produced effects in terms of participation to education and educational attainment of this community. Thus, school drop out and non participation in education is more frequent in case of Roma population as compared to the national average. In case of Roma community, about 12% of children within 716 years old age group are leaving school before graduating compulsory education, while about 18% are not enrolled in any form of education.
As a whole, about 80% of the children not enrolled in any form of education (within the 716 year age group) are members of the Roma community 38 . Out of the total Roma population aged 716 years, 18 % have never been enrolled in school and 12% have dropped out school before finishing compulsory education. More than one third of the Roma (38.6%) are affected by functional illiteracy 39 . Apart from the material causes (of economic or logistical substance), the educational level of the parents and elder Roma heavily influences participation in education of current Roma youngsters. Also, the non participation in pre school education and deficiencies in communicating in Romanian of many Roma children affect their performances in education. Some discriminatory practices of teaching personnel in relation with Roma population, among which Roma segregation in separate classes, produce the same effect in terms of participation to education and integration of Roma children 40 .
During the 2002/2003 school year, Roma pupils represented about 4.23% out of the total pupils enrolled in national education and training system. The analysis of the data available per education levels indicates the following: lower participation in preschool education as compared to participation in primary education, declining trends in terms of participation in education from gymnasium to the upper secondary education, level in which participation rate of Roma population is about 1.04% (internal reports, MoERY).
In 2003/2004, about 20,528 of Roma pupils expressed their options for an additional curriculum for Romani language, literature, traditions, history. Projects aiming at reducing the drop out and stimulating participation in education of Roma population were developed by the MoERY. The teaching of Romani language intensified. There are estimates showing that, in the school year 2004/2005, about 18,000 pupils are studying Romani language, representing about 10% of Roma pupils in education (according to official records). Unlike Hungarian minority which expressed their options for separate schools for their members, the Roma community refused this form of the organisation of education.
35 See Dena Ringold, Mitchell A. Orenstein, Erika Wilkens “Roma in an expanding EuropeBreaking the poverty cycle” Conference Edition, Washington, 2003, p. 73;
36 Idem 31;
37 Research Institute for Quality of Life, „Indicators on the Roma Communities in Romania”, Bucharest, 2002;
38 MER, Institute for Education Sciences, Research Institute for Quality of Life, UNICEF, "Participation to education of Roma children", Bucharest, 2002, p.47;
39 ”Roma people in Romania” 2002, CASPIS;
40 Ministry of Education and Research addressed this issue through Minister Notification no. 29323/20.04.2004, regarding the interdiction of the Roma children segregation;
The sensitive issue is that, generally, the Roma population lives at outskirts, ill famed neighbourhoods and the schools located in these areas, in which Roma children are learning, provide poor learning conditions. In these schools of which population is mainly Roma, the repeating rate is about 11.3%, above the national average indicator.
· Disabled people
Before 1989, there was little mainstreaming on the people with disabilities in Romania. Available information was limited to acknowledging the existence of people whose social inclusion was very difficult due to their physical, mental or associated disabilities. The state simply chose to institutionalise the persons with disabilities in “special centres” and did not care to involve or assist the family or the community concerned in dealing with the matter.
Share of persons with disabilities of the total population has maintained around 1.8%1.9% between 1999 and 2005 (Table 33, Annex 1). A review of the data for 1999–2005 reveals an increase in the number of persons with disabilities to a peak of 23,572 in 2001 vs. 2000, followed by a constant decline during 2001 – 2003 (Table 34, Annex 1). The last years of the reference period registered an increasing number of persons with disabilities.
In 2000, the tendency to apply a much too broad definition of what disability and disability levels were led to a situation where any older person suffering from agerelated illness could easily be classified as disabled. As a result, figures reporting the estimated number of the disabled persons in Romania started to soar uncontrollably. That called for a tightening in the legislation on this matter and for a more precise definition of the term “disability”. Two legal acts have been adopted. The result was that in 2003, figures went down to more realistic values. Statistics for 2003 show a decrease and for 2004 a slight increase in the number of persons with physical, somatic, hearing and visual disabilities, except for the number of people with mental and neurological disabilities which is constantly raising (World Health Organisation estimates for 2020 show that bipolar psychosis will become the third cause of mortality in the world).
In 2004, 19,949 disabled persons were living in residential institutions. The staff working in these institutions was 13,031 employees (as compared to 16,071 needed) which illustrate 19% understaffing per beneficiary. The proportion of employed staff per beneficiary is not enough (0.65%) to ensure quality services for the assisted persons with disabilities. The number of staff involved in assistance of the disabled people is insufficient (due to lack of funds), both in terms of support and rehabilitation personnel.
There is a serious shortage of social workers, psychologists, counsellors, ergotherapists, advisors etc. Medical and administrative staff is prevailing, which demonstrates a greater concern for the medical assistance of the patient and little or no care for his/her social inclusion. Lack of funds is yet another cause of the limited capacity to supply the amount of staffing according to the standards.
The decrease in the number of disabled people living in residential centres and the increase in the state support allocated to families to encourage them to keep the disabled person in their own care is still limited by the underdevelopment of the community services in terms of