Qualitative

Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor
Areas and Disadvantaged Communities
June 2013

Project coordinator:
Rob Swinkels



Research team:
Manuela Sofia Stnculescu
(coord.)
Simona Anton
Bogdan Corad
Ctlina Iamandi-Cioinaru
Oana Irina Fechete
Mihai Magheru
Georgiana Neculau
Mara Laura Stnculescu
Andreea Trocea
Rzvan Voinescu
Bucharest



2





List of acronyms
The acronyms of the public institutions are in the Romanian language

CBS Community-Based Services
DGASPC General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection
INS - National Institute for Statistics
MMFPS - Ministry of Labor, Family and Social Protection
MDRAP - Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration
MS - Ministry of Health
MER -Ministry of Education and Research
NGO Non-governmental organization
SPAS Public Social Assistance Service (within mayoralty)














The findings and interpretation expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not
necessarily represent the views of the World Bank.
3

Content
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
2 Study methodology .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Objectives and approach ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Geographical coverage and the selection of cities ................................................................ 6
2.3 Data and method ................................................................................................................... 7
3 Main findings ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Types of zones and main problems ....................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Economically disadvantaged cities .................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Areas with poor access to infrastructure .......................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Marginalized areas .......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Types of community interventions ...................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Relation between the local authorities and poor communities ..................................... 21
3.2.2 Good practices ................................................................................................................ 23
4 Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.1 Urban development with the people and not for the people ........................................ 27
5 Annex 1: Research Instruments ........................................................................................... 28
5.1 Focus group discussion guide .............................................................................................. 28
5.2 Interview guide .................................................................................................................... 33
6 Annex 2: City reports .......................................................................................................... 35
6.1 Field Report: Baia Mare ...................................................................................................... 35
6.2 Field Report: Trgu Mure .................................................................................................. 54
6.3 Field Report: Strehaia ......................................................................................................... 69
6.4 Field Report: Brila ............................................................................................................. 77
6.5 Field Report: Dorohoi ......................................................................................................... 93
6.6 Field Report: Clan............................................................................................................ 108
6.7 Field Report: Oltenia ....................................................................................................... 120
6.8 Field Report: Slobozia ....................................................................................................... 130
6.9 Field Report: Alba Iulia...................................................................................................... 143
6.10 Field Report: Bucharest Sector 5 ...................................................................................... 154




4
1 Introduction
The Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP) has requested
the World Bank for assistance with the elaboration of integration strategies for poor and
marginalized urban communities. This assignment includes: (1) proposing a methodology for
defining different types of urban disadvantaged communities based on a selection of key indicators,
(2) producing detailed maps that depict the spatial distribution of the key indicators and these types
of communities, and (3) the elaboration of strategies for integrating these communities.
This report relates to the third component of the assignment which includes a qualitative study
aimed to identify factors of success for urban integration strategies in the Romanian context, to
contribute to the planning and design of improved policies for inclusion of urban disadvantaged
communities.
In this regard, ten localities were selected in close cooperation with the MDRAP representatives,
namely Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Brila, Clan, Dorohoi, Slobozia, Strehaia, Trgu Mure as well as
Sector 2 and Sector 5 from the capital Bucharest. The selected cities cover a diversity of urban
settings in which are found all three theoretically identified types of marginalized urban areas.
With respect to the theoretical typology of the urban disadvantaged communities we draw on the
First Preliminary Report of the project (April 28, 2013). Thus, the study focuses on the following
three main types of urban disadvantaged communities (areas or zones):
(1) Areas with poor access to infrastructure
This category refers to particularly old neighborhoods of houses or groupings of apartment buildings
(mainly built in the 60s-70s), which are in rather poor state, poorly endowed with utilities, and
without modern roads. This type of urban communities may comprise an entire administrative
locality e.g. small towns that are urban in administrative sense but with livelihoods resembling rural
areas. They may also comprise parts of a middle or large city e.g. a peripheral neighborhood or poor
intra-city neighborhood.
(2) Economically disadvantaged areas
This category refers to particularly (small) mono-industrial or agricultural towns, formerly dependent
on a large state enterprise or an agricultural cooperative. The majority of these settlements are
(rural) communes that only administratively were declared towns, most often being poorly endowed
with urban utilities. The own revenues to the local budget are very low, they being dependent on the
redistribution mechanism from the central budget. Employment opportunities are generally very
limited in these towns, although, mostly due to international migration, their official registered
unemployment rates may not reflect well this lack of opportunity.
(3) Marginalized areas
Small areas within or beyond the cities formal residential boundaries that are marginalized in a
number of ways poor or no access to infrastructure, high degrees of unemployment among
residents, few or no education and health centre, in some cases hazardous environmental
conditions. In many cases, these communities may also concentrate Roma population.
Some of these zones, as defined in a 2001 study,
1
include communities of improvised shelters, often
near a garbage dump site with residents living from refunded scrap metal or other goods found in
the garbage, social housing buildings in the historical town centre, former hostels for single workers

1
Stnculescu and Berevoescu (coord.) (2004) Srac lipit, caut alt via! Fenomenul srciei extreme i al zonelor srace n
Romnia 2001, Ed. Nemira, Bucharest.
5
where some residents have remained after closure of enterprises with uncertain ownership status or
other buildings in former industrial areas at the city periphery.
These three main types of urban disadvantaged communities (areas or zones) are expected to
prevail in Romania's urban environment and have been determined based on three primary level
criteria - human capital (education, health and household structure), employment and housing, and
on one secondary level criterion - ethnicity (especially Roma). Thus:
(1) Areas with poor access to infrastructure refer to urban areas disadvantaged only regarding the
housing criterion and not on the employment criterion; with respect to human capital and ethnicity,
the situation varies from an area to another.
(2) Economically disadvantaged areas represent by definition urban areas disadvantaged only
regarding the employment criterion and not on the human capital criterion; with respect to housing
and ethnicity, the situation varies from an area to another.
(3) Marginalized areas are urban areas that cumulate disadvantages on human capital, employment
and housing; with respect to ethnicity, the situation varies from an area to another.
In terms of level of measurement, the areas with poor access to infrastructure and the marginalized
areas are expected to be identified at the intra-city level, whereas economically disadvantaged areas
(as defined above) relate most probably to whole localities, mainly small (former) mono-industrial or
agricultural cities, in which the local economy collapsed.
2 Study methodology
2.1 Objectives and approach
The qualitative study presented in this report has two main objectives:
- Validate the maps resulted from the analysis of the 2011 Census data, through a qualitative
assessment.
- Identify factors of success of urban integration strategies in the context of Romania, to contribute
to the planning and design of improved policies for urban inclusion.
The first objective of the study could not be achieved. Due to the lack of data availability, the city
maps based on 2011 Census data could not be produced. Census data will be available only after the
official launching, which is planned for 4th July 2013. Also, shape files including census tracks were
not made available by the local authorities from Brila, Bucharest Sector 2 and Sector 5 as well as
Oltenia (where the research instruments were piloted).
Therefore, the study approach was altered. Instead of validating the city maps, we turned to an
exploratory approach. Through qualitative research methods, we identified, together with the local
stakeholders, which are the disadvantaged areas within their city according to their views and
knowledge. The research team, however, informed the local stakeholders about the theoretical
types of disadvantaged areas. In other words, we have gathered data regarding the areas which are
perceived and considered disadvantaged by the local people, which in many cases are not based on
solid evidence but on perceptions, values, local legends and so. Nevertheless, nearly all identified
disadvantaged areas were visited and documented based on interviews with residents (including
informal leaders), with institutional representatives working in these communities as well as based
on direct observation and photography.
The assessment has included in-depth interviews with representatives of local authorities and civil
society and focus group discussions with residents from the ten selected cities, either living in urban
6
disadvantaged areas or neighbors. In addition, the research team carried out field visits, direct
observation and photographical documentation in the poor areas.
2.2 Geographical coverage and the selection of cities
The study covers eight cities and two sectors of Bucharest, which were selected together with the
MDRAP representatives, plus Oltenia city, where the field instruments were piloted. These cities
were selected in order to cover a range of urban settings from all development regions of the
country. Criteria of selection included: (1) size of population;
2
(2) level of social development;
3
(3)
profile of the local economy;
4
(4) the existence of vulnerable housing;
5
(5) a positive attitude of the
mayoralty towards vulnerable people;
6
(6) previous experiences at the city level in implementation
of projects/ actions for the integration of marginalized areas.
Table 1. Selected cities for the qualitative assessment
Development
Region
County Locality Name
Size of
population
Social
development
level
Local economy
profile
Previous
experience
South Muntenia Clrai Oltenia small poor Former industrial No
Northeast Botoani Dorohoi small poor Former industrial Yes
Southeast Brila Brila medium medium Yes
South Muntenia Ialomia Slobozia medium medium Yes
Southwest Oltenia Mehedini Strehaia small poor
(mono) industrial
in decline
No
West Hunedoara Clan small poor
(mono) industrial
in decline
No
Northwest Maramure Baia Mare medium developed Yes
Centre Alba Alba Iulia medium medium Yes
Centre Mure Trgu Mure medium developed Yes
Bucharest-Ilfov Bucharest Bucharest Sector 2
Don't
know
Bucharest-Ilfov Bucharest Bucharest Sector 5 Yes

2
Three types were considered: small towns - bellow 35,000 inhabitants; medium-size cities - between 35,000 and 249,999
inhabitants; large cities - 250,000 inhabitants and over. INS data on stable population from 2010.
3
Estimated based on the Local Social Development Index - IDSL (Sandu, 2011). IDSL is computed for all rural and urban
localities in Romania, as factor score of seven variables: (1) community education stock (data Census, 2002); (2) average
age of population 15+ years (data 2008); (3) life expectancy at birth (mean 2006-2008); (4) automobiles per 1,000
inhabitants (data 2007); (5) average surface per dwelling (data 2008); (6) consumption of gas per inhabitant in mc (data
2008); (7) residency and size of population (in 2008). IDSL estimate the community capital with its human (indicator 1),
vital (indicators 2, 3 and 7) and material (indicators 4, 5 and 6) components. Data from the National Institute for Statistics.
Data and methodology available at http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/
4
Determined based on a small urban knowledge-typology developed within a previous World Bank study (Stnculescu,
2005, K-Typologies of the rural and small urban communities in Romania, World Bank Report).
5
Vulnerable housing determined based on the following two items, declared by local authorities, as at 31st July 2009: (a)
within city there are households living in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing; (b) within city there are areas with
more than 10 poor Roma households, living in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing. Data from a research financed
by the Soros Foundation Romania - Local Authorities Access to European Funds (2009), survey of local Romanian
municipalities, with a response rate of almost 94%, implemented by a consortium formed by the Romanian Centre for
Economic Modeling (CERME), Research Institute for the Quality of Life (ICCV) and the National Centre for Training in
Statistics (CNPS-INS).
6
Mayoraltys attitude towards vulnerable people was estimated based on the following two items, declared by local
authorities, as at 31st July 2009: (a) the municipality have either a local development strategy, which include measures for
the inclusion of vulnerable groups, or implement a set of actions in order to assist the disadvantaged groups; (b) the
municipality offer voluntary services, facilities, assistance to disadvantaged groups, other than the national social
programs. Data from a research financed by the Soros Foundation Romania - Local Authorities Access to European Funds
(2009), see more information in the previous footnote.
7

2.3 Data and method
Data were collected during the period 25 May - 21 June 2013 by a team of individual consultants,
coordinated by Manuela Sofia Stnculescu. The fieldwork was based on an interview guide and a
focus group guide, which are shown in Annex 1. Interviews with institutional representatives and
focus group discussions were recorded.
7
Discussions during visits in poor zones were not recorded,
but the collected information is included in the present analysis.
The research team
8
realized a 10-minute movie covering all poor zones identified in Oltenia. In
addition, more than 700 photos were done in the visited disadvantaged communities.
9

Overall, 31 in-depth interviews were conducted with: local decision makers (mayor, vice mayor),
representatives of urbanism department of the municipality (urban planner, architect),
representatives of the Public Social Assistance Services of the municipalities (director, inspector,
Roma mediator), and representatives of the NGOs or civil society locally active in urban
marginalization. In the short period available for data collection, only two interviews could be
organized in Bucharest, both on Sector 5. In spite of our efforts, local authorities from Bucharest
Sector 2 could not be contacted.
A total of 20 focus group discussions were organized in all cities, with the exception of Bucharest
Sector 2. The participants at focus groups were either residents of marginalized urban areas or their
neighbors. On the whole, 137 persons participated in focus group discussions.
10
The participants
distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 3 38 2 7 38 0
Hungarian 0 2 0 0 2 0
Roma 3 13 0 8 21 0
Note: Persons aged 65 years or more are very few because in the studied areas they are definitely under-represented.
The participants are representative for a large variety of social situations. Regarding the human
capital criterion (out of the 137 participants):
- 20% of participants come from small-size households (1-2 persons), 40% belong to typical nuclear
families with 3-4 members, while the other 40% live in larger families with 5-12 members.
- 31% are childless households, 20% have one child, 27% have two children, while 22% have 3 to 6
children
- 37% have within the household one to three members with a disability or a severe chronic disease
- as much as 22% have no formal school, 18% have completed only primary education (1-4 classes),
29% have graduated gymnasium. Thus, more than two thirds (68%) have completed 8 classes at
most, which on the one hand, reflect the extreme deficit of formal education in these urban
disadvantaged areas and on the other hand, represent a serious barrier for employment or for being
admitted in life-long learning courses for the participants to our study. Only 19% have some
vocational training, 8% high school, and 5% are University graduates.

7
Verbatim transcripts in the Romanian language are available at request (a document of more than 660 pages).
8
In collaboration with Drago Sabadac cinematographer.
9
Photos were done only with the consent of the participants to the study.
10
From 137 households that include 602 persons (children and adults).
8
Informal (casual )
workers
8%
Jobl ess acti vel y
l ooki ng for a job
18%
Pensi oners
8%
Housewi ves and
other dependants
40%
Formal empl oyees
26%
The low human capital is reflected in a weak position on the labor market and, consequently, in low
and irregular incomes. Thus, the proportion of employees is extremely low (26%), while the share of
the economically dependant persons is very high (40%), as figure 1 shows.
Figure 1 Distribution of participants to the focus group discussions by main employment status



Data: Urban Poor Areas and
Disadvantaged Communities,
Qualitative assessment (June
2013). N=137 persons 16+
years.
Correlated, 62% of participants belong to households with no wage earner (38% have 1 to 4
employees) and 80% do not benefit of any type of pension. So, for most participants, informal work
and social benefits (especially child allowance and Minimum Guaranteed Income) represent the
main livelihoods.
The large majority (82%) reached the city before 1989, but only 37% of them lived in the current
poor area at that time. Within the city, they changed several locations (lived with relatives, rent),
with periods of homelessness mixed with attempts to work abroad, and in the end they moved in
the poor area as the only place with dwellings affordable for them. Thus, 20% of them reached the
poor area during the '90s, other 20% sometime between 2000 and 2005, and 23% after 2005,
particularly during the crisis years 2011-2012.
With regard to the housing conditions, out of the 137 participants to focus groups, 56% live in
houses, 38% in apartments in block of flats, and 7% in improvised shelters, usually built abusively on
the public domain. About a third have rent their dwelling from the municipality, only 3% have
private rent, and the rest are owners of their dwellings or shelters, but only a part of them have
property papers over dwellings and/or land. Their dwellings have between 5 and 300 m2, with a
predominance of those of 10-40 m2 (about 70%), and are rather poorly endowed with utilities for
the urban environment: 22% are not connected to electricity, 21% have no running water and as
much as 35% have no sewerage system.
As a result, most of the interviewees emphasized that they are 'poor' even among the 'poorest', with
no prospects to escape the vicious circle of poverty and with little to offer to their children.
Considering all three dimensions used to built the theoretical typology, we can say that the situation
of the participants to focus groups appear to confirm the fact that most identified areas are among
the urban marginalized communities.




9
3 Main findings
3.1 Types of zones and main problems
The qualitative assessment confirms the theoretical typology. All three main types of urban
disadvantaged areas were identified in the field: (1) economically disadvantaged cities, (2) areas with
poor access to infrastructure and (3) marginalized areas. However, the later two types include a
variety of subtypes, which are discussed below. For more details, Annex 2 presents the city reports
including information on all disadvantaged communities identified in the field.
3.1.1 Economically disadvantaged cities
All four small cities (Clan, Dorohoi, Oltenia, and Strehaia) included in the study are considered
economically disadvantaged cities, by consensus, mainly due to the decline of the local economy
after 1990. For example, in Strehaia, the private sector offers currently 'mere 40-50 jobs, mostly for
women'. In all these cities, the former socialist enterprises, which used to hire a considerable part of
the population and for which thousands of workers were moved from the rural areas during the '60
and '70, are now only ruins to be greened. The generalized lack of jobs has been repeatedly
mentioned as the main social problems of all these small cities.
In medium and large cities, lack of jobs has also been mentioned as a severe social problem, but
mostly in relation to work opportunities for people with no or low formal education that
predominate within the disadvantaged areas. They have low or no access to the available training
schemes, have marginal and vulnerable positions on the formal labor market, and have lower
chances to work temporarily abroad (mainly due to the high travelling costs).
3.1.2 Areas with poor access to infrastructure
Within the ten studied cities,
11
15 areas with poor access to infrastructure were identified. Two
subtypes of such areas were found: (a) village-type neighborhoods (identified 13), located in
Strehaia, Dorohoi and (b) emergent residential areas (identified 2), situated in Oltenia and Slobozia.
Village-type neighborhoods
This subtype of disadvantaged communities refers to areas of individual houses with small gardens,
usually old city districts with rural characteristics and highly stable population as most residents
settled before 1990. As one interviewee described such an area: 'houses, gardens, horse carts, dogs,
pigs, and cars [...]'
12

Village-type neighborhoods are usually located at the periphery of cities. Some of them are highly
remote (being separated from city by natural barriers such as a river, a forest etc.), while others have
developed,
13
new houses being built closer and closer to the city. While in the remote village-type
neighborhoods appear that older residents, mostly pensioners, predominate, within the developing
areas, the population is rather mixed - new and modern houses of middle-class people 'have rose'
next to old and weak houses of the local people. In terms of ethnicity, the population of village-type
neighborhoods is a combination of Romanians (and/or Hungarians) and Roma, in variable
proportions from an area to another.

11
Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Brila, Clan, Dorohoi, Oltenia, Slobozia, Strehaia, Trgu Mure, and Bucharest Sector 5.
12
Case, grdini, crue, cel, purcel, maini *...+ (Dorohoi interview).
13
In most cases, these are villages located along or next to a national or European road.
10
The life style of the inhabitants of such areas is a combination of rural and urban styles. Most
inhabitants own small plots of land that they generally use for subsistence agriculture: 'they have a
cow and some vegetables with which they make a penny on the market, but the money is very
little'.
14
In the same time, many inhabitants migrate abroad in search of job opportunities (especially
seasonal work). However, as pensioners from the former socialist agricultural cooperatives (CAP)
seem to account for a large part of the stable population, low-level pensions for farmers represent
the main source of cash incomes in such areas.
Most dwellings are legally owned, except for the areas inhabited by Roma, who inherited the house
from their parents/ grandparents but have no legal property papers for the land.
Two main problems are mentioned in these areas: (1) 'high local taxes' (on land and house)
specifically given the (2) lack or severe underdevelopment of infrastructure: 'the endowment is rural,
but local taxes are urban'. Thus, in most cases, these areas have access to cable TV, mobile phone,
Internet and electricity, but do not have the modern utilities otherwise available in the city. They
generally lack gas, running water or sewage infrastructure since local administration cannot
financially support the relatively high costs of such investments. Many of them lack also access to
modernized roads, while transportation seems to being solved in most cases.
Investments in infrastructure represent the interventions usually envisaged by the local authorities
for these areas as 'those are mostly needed'. In this respect, 'there are no institutional barriers, just
lack of funding' and community participation is expected to be medium-high, although 'they have no
leaders, must be mobilized, pushed from behind, as people have their own household, they don't
really bother with public issues unless it passes in front of their gates' (mayor of a small city with
village-type neighborhoods).
Emergent residential areas
Two emergent residential areas were identified in the field, which are related to the implementation
of the Law 15/2003 on support for young people to build a personal house (in Oltenia and Slobozia).
This subtype of infrastructure-challenged areas refers to newly established neighborhoods in the city
suburbs, where the mayoralty leased construction land to local people selected on a set of criteria.
Thus, in accordance with the Law 15/2003, mayoralties from Oltenia and Slobozia provided building
plots of 200-300 m2 to young families (under 35 years old) without housing property but with
possibilities to build a house in two years. If in the two-year period the house is not built and
officially registered with the mayoralty, the land concession is cancelled, the building plot being
reassigned to the next on the list. The law has been implemented, however, with some variation
from a city to another. While in Slobozia, the required house model is large and expensive (one floor
plus attic), in Oltenia more modest house models have been accepted. Accordingly, the two
communities differ. In Slobozia, the neighborhood population is mainly Romanian, employed, highly
educated and from well-off families, whereas in Oltenia, the emergent area includes heterogeneous
population by income, education and ethnicity, selected based on a social inquiry.
Nonetheless, in both cities, the emergent areas were established in the absence of basic
infrastructure: dirt roads, electricity, water, sewerage system are available only partially or not at all.
The infrastructure development process is extremely slow. The local budgets are so low and
suffocated by all sorts of emergencies and the funding necessary for the investments in the
emergent areas are not available. The relations with utility companies are also difficult and
asymmetrical in terms of power. Hence, these communities are highly mobilized (more cohesive in
Slobozia compared with Oltenia) and perceive the entire process as 'a real fight' where they are on
the weak position: the community has to meet all sorts of rules and conditions, whereas the
mayoralty or the utility companies 'have only to gain and do not have to observe any rule even the

14
Mai au o vcu, nite zarzavaturi, cu care mai scot un bnu la pia, dar banul este tare puin (Dorohoi interview).
11
ones provided by law'. For instance, many inhabitants made bank loans for the houses, which have
considerable burdened the family budget, while the new houses still cannot accommodate the
family due to lack of infrastructure. Therefore, on the top of current spending and bank loan, they
have also to continue paying rent in order to ensure accommodation. This pressure combined with
'the fight' with the public and private institutions lead to a permanent tension which significantly
erodes their quality of life.
The main mean to address this problem is institutional and requires legislative changes, besides
ensuring funding for investments in infrastructure at the local level. A balanced relation between
state and citizens should be secured through clear regulations: the mayoralty and the citizen should
conclude a contract with clear obligations on both sides. However, these communities 'do not want
to upset the mayoralty' considering that they 'would only pull the rug from under our feet. Asking
them to treat us correctly would not mean winning dignity. They would simply cease the housing
program and construction land would not be available anymore for young. Striving for building a
positive relation with the local council may lead in 1, 2 or maybe 10 years in infrastructure for us, we
hope' (focus group Slobozia).
3.1.3 Marginalized areas
A total of 32 urban marginalized areas were identified within the ten visited cities.
15
These
communities may be grouped in four broad subtypes: (1) areas of low-quality blocks of flats often
called 'ghetto' by their inhabitants and by other local people; (2) slum areas including Roma
traditional communities, next to which sometimes hovels (maghernie) and/or improvised shelters
were put together by extremely poor people; (3) modernized social housing and; (4) social housing
buildings in the historical city centre. The subtypes are not exclusive as the large-size disadvantaged
areas may simultaneously include a slum and modernized social housing, for example.
(1) 'Ghetto' areas of low-quality blocks of flats
The ghetto areas refer to low quality housing facilities built before 1990 for the workers of the
former socialist large enterprises. In most cases, former hostels for single workers (cmine de
nefamiliti), but may also include other types of buildings such as former workers colony (old and
ruined wagon houses). A number of 15 ghetto areas were visited and documented, situated in all
cities, with the exception of Dorohoi and Strehaia. Such areas may be well integrated within a large
neighborhood of block of flats (be it in the city centre or not) or may be located at the city outskirts
in disaffected industrial zones.
Most often, ghettos are small-medium areas (150-500 inhabitants) concentrated in one or two low
quality block of flats with a desolate appearance. In Bucharest Sector 5, the ghetto areas are much
larger and very numerous within RFG (Rahova - Ferentari - Giurgiului).
16

The apartments in these blocks of flats may be owned by residents or by mayoralty. However, they
are low quality and at low market prices so that represent the sole housing alternative 'with a roof'
for the poor: 'We would all leave from this place, if we would only have had a place to go. We are not
stupid, it is bad, but it is all we can afford' (focus group Alba Iulia).
Usually, apartments in ghetto include only one room of 9-15 m2, overcrowded with furniture and
numerous families, with many children. Nevertheless, inside, many of them are well organized and
clean. In some cases, common spaces are temporarily occupied by homeless people. Bathrooms may
be common (one bathroom per floor) or individual. Common spaces and installations (electricity,

15
Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Brila, Clan, Dorohoi, Oltenia, Slobozia, Strehaia, Trgu Mure, and Bucharest Sector 5.
16
Word play: the names of the three streets concentrating pockets of poverty form an acronym that in the Romanian
language means the Federal Republic of Germany. The 15 areas counted in this report include only one of the numerous
ghettos from Bucharest.
12
sewerage, water etc.) are obsolete, damaged and/or dirty. Utilities either are missing or are
disconnected due to arrears.
The regime of property over rooms and/or of the contracts with utility companies is diverse. In some
ghetto areas, residents own their rooms and have individual contracts for utilities, while in others
the residents own the rooms but have a common contract for utilities, or the rooms are rented from
the mayoralty but the utility contracts are individual, or both the rooms and contracts for utilities
belong to mayoralty or to another public institution (such as the County Council). Consequently, in
some ghetto areas the people pay for instance electricity at prices set for companies, which is much
higher than the price for individual consumers. There are also cases in which private owned rooms
are mixed with social rooms and individual contracts for utilities. Correspondingly, in some ghetto
areas, an administrator hired by municipality is responsible for collecting rents and other duties. In
others, the private owners have organized themselves in an association in order to deal with the
collective contracts for utilities. So, from one ghetto area to another the situation of property and
contracts for utilities need to be tackled distinctively.
Massive overcrowding leads to a serious pressure on the block installations, which are not
technically designed to support such a large number of users. As most installations are old and
broken, the basements of these blocks are usually flooded with water and dirt. So, the walls and roof
are eroded and full of dampness, which put at risk the residents' health condition: 'this apartment
block is poorly built, the walls are thin and swollen by mould, that you get frozen hard in winter and
you get cooked up in summer' (Alba Iulia focus group).
Paying for utilities (electricity, water, sewage, garbage) is a challenge for the entire population,
which is however more acute for the ghetto residents. In most visited ghetto areas, the majority of
population has some utilities overdue debts, of which some are historical. For example, in the case
of social housing, the rent to mayoralty is attached to the room in the accounting system, so that
when a tenant disappears, he/she is not followed, but the overdue debt already registered is passed
to the next tenant. The system of cancelling overdue debts that could not be recuperated is
administratively difficult (requires decisions of the Local Council) and therefore many tenants
receive together with the room a historical debt. For more details see the box 1.
A similar situation is recorded in cases of ghetto areas with collective contracts to electricity. Some
inhabitants leave from the area to another locality or abroad. The utility company has no
responsibilities in recovering the historical debts of the moved away family, but the overdue debts
remain with the block community that should cover it by their own modest means. Consequently,
from time to time, the electrical power is cut off for the entire block of flats, including the residents
that have correctly paid every month. For this reason people feel abused and helpless.
For avoiding overdue debts to the rent in social housing, some municipalities operate evacuation 'for
making people responsible and accountable'. During fieldwork, we witnessed three evacuations
from social houses. The evacuation process involves an impressive deployment of state forces
(including special forces - mascatii) against vulnerable people 'with just some junk'. In one case, a
young single mother with a 3-day infant was evicted. However, the housing department of
mayoralty is 'just applying the law', while the Public Service of Social Assistance either is not
informed or does not intervene. It is not clear where the evicted are going, 'we are just thrown in the
street' and the vulnerable persons, particularly children belonging to these families, live a most
traumatic life event with no protection at all. In their case, the human and child's rights are definitely
not observed by the state institutions. 'Let's be frank, here, this is the last road, from here on ... is
nothing, a hill, a forest, nobody knows, and then directly to hell' (administrator of a ghetto area).



13

Box 1. An intervention priority: Distorted system of overdue debts
for the rent in social housing
For social housing beneficiaries from disadvantaged communities monthly paying of fairly low monthly rents
(20-104 lei, about 4-23 euro) proves to be too heavy a burden. Historic debts are accruing fast, whilst the low
levels of monthly earnings are insufficient to cover the basic necessities of daily life, not to mention the
termination of the historic and current debts. The general rules applying to fiscal debts are also applied to the
rents owed by the social housing beneficiaries from disadvantaged communities. The uniformity of fiscal rules
application may be a cause for the current situation and in such situation, a priority of intervention, as well. In
what follows a brief presentation is made regarding Romanian fiscal regime.
Under the current Romanian legislation, interests and penalties are calculated by the fiscal authorities for any
unpaid taxes, owed to the state or local budgets. The applicable rates are established by government
ordinance or decision. The generic term of taxes is used here to include other budget revenues, including rents
payable for social housing facilities.
Late Payment Interest
Interest is added to any tax unpaid (owed to state or local budget), from the next day that the payment of tax
is due to the date of actual payment. Late payment interest rates are currently set by government ordinance
but used to be regulated by government decision in the past. Currently, the interest rate for failure of tax
payment is 0.04 % per day. Interest is assessed on the unpaid amount of tax.
Penalty for Failure to Pay
The late payment penalty applies to any portion of tax, owed to state or local budget, that is unpaid as of the
payment due date. Starting with the next day that the tax payment is due to state budget, central fiscal
authorities impose a failure-to-pay penalty of 0.02% per day, calculated on the unpaid amount of tax.
As an exception from the general rule applying to state budget taxes, late payment penalty rate applicable to
the overdue local taxes is established at the level of 2% per month, which amounts to 0.06% per day or 0.07%
per day, depending on the number of days each month has. Late penalties are owed for every month or
fraction of the month, until the complete payment is performed and are assessed on the unpaid amount of
tax.
The Termination of Fiscal Obligations through Voluntary Payments: Order Rules
In what concerns the termination of fiscal obligations through voluntary payments, some general rules apply.
When the debtor owes more types of taxes or other fiscal obligations, with different due dates and when the
amount actually paid does not cover for all the fiscal obligations due, the paid amount is distributed by the
fiscal authorities to terminate existing obligations according to the order rule, established by law and
presented as follows in a simplifying manner:
First, all fiscal debts (principal, interest and penalties) included in the fiscal payment facility plan, as
approved by the fiscal authorities and due when the payment is performed; all other fiscal obligations
whose payment is required as precondition for the continuation of the payment facility are
terminated;
Second, all principal fiscal debts are terminated in chronological order;
Third, interest and penalties are terminated in chronological order, as well.
Fourth, future fiscal obligations included in the payment facility plan.



14

Box 1 (continuation)
The first situation, when the debtor has the benefit of an approved fiscal payment facility plan is rarely
applicable to members of disadvantaged communities that are entitled to social housing services. One of the
reasons is that collateral is required by fiscal authorities in order to approve a payment facility plan and
beneficiaries of social housing services generally cannot produce such collaterals.
Thus, most of the disadvantaged community members find themselves in the second and the third stages of
rent payment, namely they have accumulated unpaid rents or sometimes even inherited them from previous
tenants; such historic debts are accompanied by both late payment interest and penalties.
The debts spiral is unbreakable in such situations. We shall take the following hypothetic example in order to
reflect the mechanism more clearly: A family from a disadvantaged community living in a social house rented
from the mayoralty counts 4 members: two adults and two children; The total net average earnings per family
(including all types of available allowances): 600/ month.
Earnings are cashed in on the 25th of each month; The rent due for the social house: 60 lei/ month; rent due
date: 10th of each month; Despite the fact that the family members have moved in only in the beginning of
the year (January 1st, 2013), they inherited from the previous tenants historic debts representing the unpaid
rent for the entire year of 2012. Historic debt relating to social housing services at 31.12.2012:
863 lei, out of which:
o 720 lei represent unpaid rent for the last 12 months,
o 54 lei represent interest and
o 89 lei represent penalties.
First of all, the family has to pay the rent on the 10th and only receive the social allowances on the 25th of
each month. Earnings are not sufficient to be saved; consequently the family cannot pay the current month
rent from the previous month earnings. From the 10th until 26th (the payment day, one day after earnings are
cashed in), namely for 16 days, interest and penalties are calculated: both for the historic debt and for the rent
currently due.
For January 2013, the total amount accrued at the payment date (January, 26th 2013) is:
943 lei, out of which:
o 780 lei represent unpaid rent for the last 12 months plus the current month rent,
o 62 lei represent accrued interest and
o 101 lei represent accrued penalties
The current month earnings will barely cover the interest accrued to date but, under the current regulations
will, in fact, be used to cover the rent due 12 months ago (January 10
th
, 2012). No part of the current month
rent, interest and penalties are going to be covered. The rest of the historic rent and the current month rent
will continue to generate interest and penalties. And the mechanism will perpetuate the indebtedness spiral
although the family will continue to pay the rent due each month.
Possible solutions include:
1. the creation of a more accessible framework mechanism of granting fiscal payment facilities to the
most disadvantaged families, including the decrease of collateral levels required in relation to social
housing services;
2. the urgent settlement of the historic debts related to social housing services: rent debts should not be
bound to dwellings, but to tenants.


15
An empirical observation: the larger the number of apartments (rooms) with beneficiaries of
Minimum Guaranteed Income (MIG), the larger is the number of rooms with overdue payments to
utilities. These families receive 100-300 lei (20-65 euro) per month as minimum guaranteed income
out of which they need to pay the monthly rent (4-23 euro) and utilities (which during winter may
reach more than 200 lei only for electricity that is about 45 euro), daily food and other bare
necessities. So, even when they earn some additional money from informal activities (which range
from casual work to begging, prostitution, refundable junk or small thefts) the indebtedness spiral is
inevitable for these families, even more so in the cases of families with many children. Furthermore,
the informal activities are in most cases illegal and if and when they are caught, they risk fines, jail,
and in any case the cessation of social benefits such as MIG.
In accordance with the employment profile, the main sources of income in ghetto areas include
informal work by the day, or occasional work, child allowance and other family benefits, MIG,
handicap benefits, illness pensions, and simply living from the garbage.
The communities from ghetto areas are ethnically mixed, with Roma people statistically over-
represented compared to the national average (that is more than 2 Roma persons in every 100
residents). However, most local people, institutional representatives or not, tend to label these
areas as 'Roma' areas: 'Everybody tell them Roma, but in my view, only few of them are Roma, they
are poor people from poor families, mixed with each other, Roma and Romanians, or Romanized
Roma. Moreover, they do not declare themselves Roma, for instance at Census, and that is a problem
when the project exact targets Roma, nonetheless they are disadvantaged for sure' (institutional
representative Brila). Romani language is rarely spoken in these areas.
The population is gender balanced, but is younger than the general population, including a large
number of children. People and many children sitting or playing on the sidewalk in front of (or next
to) the block is a common appearance. The large number of children, compelled to live in very
narrow spaces, results in a noisy and chaotic atmosphere, against which neither area residents nor
neighboring areas are protected.
Ghetto blocks of flats do not offer safety or satisfaction to their residents. Besides poor housing
conditions, these communities face extreme poverty, marginal and vulnerable positions on the labor
market, poor health condition, no or low formal education of the adults. School abandonment, early
school living, school absences are relatively high among children. These are accompanied by rather
expensive bad habits of the adult population such as drinking and smoking, by 'neglect towards any
goods', by 'a lack of abilities to keep goods' as well as by 'a sort of laziness or refusal to work',
according to the institutional representatives. This complex of behaviors and attitudes correspond to
'a mentality' of 'culture of poverty' (Lewis, 1966), which would represent the main source of their
deprived situation. So, mindset changing should be part of any interventions in such areas.
The number of beneficiaries of Minimum Guaranteed Income (MIG) in the ghetto areas is lower than
in other marginalized areas and very low compared to the actual living situation of these families.
'They tend to apply for the MIG only in case of severe illnesses', according to SPAS representatives.
In the institutional representatives' view, the main explanation lies in 'a sort of laziness or refusal to
work' as 'they do not want to do the days of community work provided by law'. In the poor people's
view, not applying for MIG is determined either by the existence of a fine or debts at local taxes (due
to which they are no longer eligible) or by a rational calculus: 'If we apply, we would receive some
104 lei out of which they would subtract the 60 lei rent. With the remaining 40 lei we would have
been expected to solve all the rest, food, bills, children and so on. And in exchange we would be
asked to make days of work. Instead, I better prefer to got out and find work day by day or to beg by
the church and so we make it better. I don't need their papers and days of work as long as I'm able ...
if I get sick, we will see, God the good to keep us healthy. They should provide us proper jobs and not
crumbs for the unfortunate' (interview in a ghetto).
16
Ghetto communities are fragmented between owners and tenants, between the 'bad' and the
'behaving' (cuminti), between the self-declared leaders who impose themselves by the fist law and
the 'weak' ones. They are characterized by low self-esteem, lack of confidence in other people, lack
of trust in institutions (public or private). For example in Clan, a German lady opened a foundation
that has provided free meals to people from a ghetto area. The residents could not believe that such
generous attitude is possible and so they developed a legend as, in fact the foundation would
receive from mayoralty some funds that should have been dedicated to the area residents. So, they
developed the most plausible rational theory in their terms, which to place them on the position of
'robbed victims' instead of 'vulnerable victims' in their relation with this foundation.
The degree of community cohesiveness is variable, but overall is rather low. In most areas, they
declare willing to participate for improving their own lives but do not know how to do this: 'We are
not educated people, we need help from knowledgeable people, with a voice to speak to the
mayoralty or to the electrical company, to help us sort all out and organize a bit. We really want, but
we don't know how.' (group discussion in a ghetto area).
These communities are dominated by helplessness, which is accentuated by the constant shame to
live in an infamous area, associated with a strong feeling of being diminished and discriminated by
almost everyone: 'Taxi do not accept to approach to our area', 'Ambulances refuse to come to us',
'Police is not entering here' and so on. Actually, many residents of the ghetto areas hide their
address in order to keep respectability: 'If I tell people where I live, they would just mock me, so I
always avoid saying where I stay' (young from a ghetto). In addition, particularly the tenants of social
housing live in constant fear of being evicted or of losing the room due to overdue debts. In some
areas, the fear is fuelled by rumors that 'big people with big interest' negotiate with mayoralty to
buy and develop the area and as a result 'they will move us out of the city, far away, just to get rid of
us.'
Thus, most ghetto communities do not have the abilities to perform collective actions, but need
facilitation and coaching for several years in order to be empowered and to enhance their human
agency. This process is even more difficult as only a part of the residents are stable, the population
fluctuations being rather high as in some cases the ghetto areas represent a transitory
accommodation for poor people.
(2) Slum areas of houses and/or improvised shelters
Many of the findings presented in the previous section are applicable also to the subtype of slum
areas such as the issues related to social housing, Minimum Guaranteed Income, perceived
residents' laziness or discriminatory attitudes against the residents of these areas. In order to avoid
redundancy, these will not be repeated in this section.
Eleven slum areas were identified in all ten studied cities, with the exception of Strehaia and Clan.
In most cases these areas include consistent Roma traditional communities, speaking Romani
language. Usually these are old peripheral neighborhoods which have extended after 1990 with
communities of very poor people (Roma or not). So, next to low-quality houses (made of adobe), a
lot of hovels and/or improvised shelters (made of plastic and paperboard with some wood
infrastructure) were put together either within the courtyards of the old houses or on the public
domain found in the immediate vicinity of the neighborhood. The houses are placed chaotic, one
next to another, with very small space between them. These types of areas are usually placed next
to a river or to disaffected train tracks.
Not all urban slums are grafts on traditional Roma neighborhoods. Some have been developed in the
beginning of the '90s by local people who lost their apartments due to overdue debts to utilities.
This is the case of Craica zone from Baia Mare. From 5 shelters in 1992, the community has reached
200-250 shelters in 2013, although the mayoralty placed more than 400 persons from this area in
modernized social housing (in Cuprom zone).
17
Unlike the ghetto areas, in slums the community is spread on a large territory, much more difficult to
be tackled. In some slums there is virtually no infrastructure (at most a tap ensuring water for the
entire area), while in others (such as in Oltenita) the infrastructure is developed along the main
street but is not available in the rest of the area (not even electricity). As a result, many of these
areas are insanitary and highly exposed to environmental risks such as a heavy rain or floods. Due to
the poor construction materials and to proximity (stick one to each other), the smallest fire at a
dwelling may engender damages for tens of others houses in the area, as it is very easy for the fire to
spread. However, considering the chaotic development of buildings and the continuous expansion
tendency, the investments in infrastructure in slum areas would need a completely different
approach than for a ghetto.
The main problems mentioned for these areas refer to the lack of identity papers as well as of
property documents, besides extreme poverty and miserable housing conditions. The problem of
identity papers was solved in most areas, as the local authorities declared. However, for instance in
Craica zone from Baia Mare even the number of inhabitants is unknown and the Census
enumerators obtained data only from a part of the population selected by leaders and brought to
the area limit to fill in the questionnaires. So, actually, these areas are at least partially 'invisible'
(administratively) as long as they do not apply for social benefits. Consequently, residents claim that
they are 'meat for trafficking and prostitution' being highly exposed to discretionary actions of
powerful leaders of competing gangs active in the area. Some slums are more 'quiet', particularly the
old neighborhoods, while others are rather unsafe and dangerous, many people being taken as
'slaves' by the informal leaders.
The problem of property documents over the land is common to all slum areas. In the old
neighborhoods, people inherited their houses from parents/grandparents but have no legal papers
on land. Their children also built a hovel as an extension or in the garden of the old house and also
lack property papers. However, as most stable residents of such areas have lived in their houses for
more than 30 years, they are entitled to use it for life. Much more difficult is the situation of those
who live in plastic and cardboard shelters placed on the public domain. This is seen as a serious legal
issue even by the institutional representatives: 'The only barrier [to interventions] is the legislative
one, which doesnt allow us to make them owners and give them legally the right to use the public
domain, which meanwhile have become private domain for the properties they have. Another
problem would be that of releasing identity papers, problem which we solved. The most serious is
that of making them owners, and this can be solved only through the national legislation. A
framework should be created which to allow the mayors to use this possibility' (Alba Iulia city
manager).
Sometimes, in the immediate vicinity of such areas, the municipality placed also some container
houses as social housing. These are highly appreciated by the beneficiaries as they are fully endowed
and contrast strongly with the neighboring area. In some cities, beneficiaries of container houses do
not have to support any running costs, while in other cities the beneficiaries should cover the
electricity costs. As cooking, heating, washing etc. depend all on electrical power, the electricity bills
are quite high, which leads in time to disconnection and so the containers become 'just a box to
keep us away from rain' but with no utility whatsoever.
Inhabitants are extremely poor and a large part of them live from garbage (particularly scrape metal
and recyclable plastic, but also food items and other goods). In addition, many inhabitants
(particularly in the old neighborhoods) receive various benefits, child allowance, Minimum
Guaranteed Income, food staples, etc.
The level of education of adults is extremely low, particularly of women, and children are not sent to
school, particularly girls. Marriages of children aged 10-12 years old are still widespread. The fertility
rate in the area is rather high. So, these communities have an expanding tendency, which is
18
determined both by new generations of children and by the new comers in these areas, including
perpetrators searched by police.
Usually in slum areas a few leaders compete for supremacy. The traditional model of 'bulibasa' is no
longer functioning in slum areas, as these communities are highly segmented in groups more or less
segregated with different leaders each. The fist law is very strong, but also the shop owners, who sell
on credit and have 'on notebook' the entire community, have a significant influence within these
communities.
Participatory actions in slum areas are very difficult to be organized. The main issues to be addressed
require either huge investments (in infrastructure and urban planning, for example) or a national
approach as in the legal issues related to land property. The issue of low participation in education
or school drop-out for children should represent a national priority and it needs to be addressed in
cooperation by mayoralty, local schools, Roma leaders, Roma experts, experts in education and civil
society organizations. Therefore, these medium-large communities, with an important fluctuating
population and an expanding tendency, would require a national framework, well-coordinated local
actions on medium and long term, multiple local actors highly knowledgeable, and considerable
budgets.
(3) Modernized social housing
Four areas of modernized social housing were identified: Baia Mare (Cuprom zone), Dorohoi
(Drochia and Dumbrava Roie zones) and Trgu Mure (part of Valea Rece zone). In Baia Mare and
Trgu Mure, former residents of slum areas were moved into the newly modernized areas. In
Dorohoi, Drochia is a neighborhood built for Roma people who used to stay in social houses from the
historical city centre, while Dumbrava Roie is an area developed as part of a disaster management
program. The first three areas are mainly inhabited by Roma population, while the fourth
community is formed of Romanians.
All four areas are presented in detail in Annex 2. The development of these areas was done through
integrated projects, which have combined large investments in new buildings with infrastructure and
a series of social interventions. These can be found in the section on Best practices (section 3.2.2). In
this section, we will focus only on few aspects that we deem highly relevant for future interventions.
In all these areas, payment of utilities has remained a considerable challenge for the poor residents.
However, some local authorities have managed to develop systems that prove to be sustainable and
people succeed to cover the monthly running costs. For example, Cuprom facility is fully endowed
with utilities and thus very much appreciated by its inhabitants (463 persons in 135 families).
Residents were hosted for free in the first three months. In the next three months the first payments
(20 lei, respectively 30 lei) were introduced. Then, the bills were gradually raised at every three
months period, up to 100 lei per month for one room, respectively 120 lei per month for a two-room
apartment, of which 50 lei represents the rent and 70 lei account for the running costs. The overdue
debts are low, and people have not been evicted. In order to ensure heating during winter, the
mayoralty provides radiators which are taken back at the beginning of the spring. The area is also
considered a best practice as it gathers a very large complex of social services, a school and a high
school, facilitating the education for all the children in the area.
The second problem is that residents of the modernized social housing areas still live in constant fear
of being displaced 'somewhere out of the city' by mayoralty. This is exactly what happened in
Dorohoi with Drochia zone. Residents of the social houses from the historical centre were 'moved by
force, with trailers, in a gypsy neighborhood, [...] a camp, irrespective how modern it is, [...]
disposable people, [...] thrown away at the bottom of a pond, [...] why didn't they shoot us?' (focus
group Drochia, Dorohoi).
When the modernized social housing is located out of the city, closer to a village than to the city
where the residents lived and grew up, in hazardous environmental conditions, without proper
19
information and consultations, perverse effects are most likely to occur. Drochia is an area of new
houses, well endowed with utilities (even better than most inhabitants of the city) but its placement
and the fact that residents were displaced from a multi-ethnic community (city historical centre) to a
Roma-exclusive neighborhood lead to serious questions regarding the impact on discrimination and
marginalization. Even more so considering that the territorial segregation has been also translated
into segregated classes for Roma children at school: 'I raised seven children. They all went to school
as we lived among Romanians and we have learned one from the other. Now, even in school are
classes for Roma, Roma in one part and Romanians in another. What can learn a child in school if all
in a class are the same, Roma?' (focus group Drochia, Dorohoi)
Furthermore, after the 2010 floods the new modernized social housing neighborhood Dumbrava
Roie was built 'in a different location, only for poor Romanians'. Actually, some ten 'well behaving'
Roma ethnic families were relocated from Drochia neighborhood, specifically 'in order to meet
certain nondiscrimination standards' as local authorities representatives put it. This ethnic
separation of the modernized social housing areas feeds even further the concerns on discriminatory
attitudes towards the Roma.
However, we should mention that both Roma and Romanians living in the modernized social housing
from Dorohoi face significant difficulties in covering the monthly payment of utilities (besides the
rent to mayoralty). As a result, in both areas some residents have already cumulated overdue debts
and/or were disconnected from utilities.
Actually, people from marginalized communities (ghettos, slums or social houses within the city) are
right to worry. Mayors from various cities presented us various plans very similar with Drochia zone.
They plan to demolish the 'pockets of poverty grown within the city' and to relocate the poor,
especially the Roma, somewhere in nice and well endowed compact complexes of buildings
somewhere out of the city, on a hill, next to a former enterprise, next to a forest and so on. So, some
Roma people have grounds to talk about 'a new, capitalist type of deportation, somewhere in
nature'. In conclusion, modernized social housing should respect all technical standards in terms of
size and endowment with infrastructure, but should also pay attention to: (i) the geographical
location within the city territory and (ii) the ethnical composition of the relocated population.
(4) Social housing buildings in the historical city centre
The 'historical centre' refer to central areas of individual houses, nationalized during the socialist
period, in an advanced state of degradation, which after 1990 have been used as social houses. We
identified two such communities, in Brila and Bucharest Sector 5 (Uranus zone). Most of these
houses were assigned by the local authorities to the poor families either before 1989 or in the early
'90s and, in the case of ruins, were abusively occupied by homeless people. Thus, these communities
are a combined effect of the housing policy of the communist party and of the post-communist local
authorities. They are rather old neighborhoods, with inhabitants living in the same house for more
than 30-35 years, even being born in that house. Previous studies (e.g. Stnculescu and Berevoescu,
coord. 2004) show that these subtype of marginalized communities include large proportions of
Roma people (both self- and hetero-identified).
Except for the location in the city centre, the living situation of these communities resemble to a
large extent with slum areas. So, we do not repeat the issues already highlighted above.
A theme specific to the historical centers relate to the restitution of the former nationalized houses.
As the location is highly attractive for investors and have high market potential, the former owners
(or their inheritors) of these houses made all efforts to recuperate them. According to the Law
10/2001, the former owners (or their inheritors) were reinstated. The tenants have had a five-year
period to find new housing. At this moment in Bucharest, the five-year transitory period is coming to
its end for a rather large number of tenants. Actually, the DGASPC of Bucharest Sector 5 has no
estimation on the number of people/ families found in this situation and with no financial
20
possibilities to secure another dwelling. However, the municipality developed a program for tenants
who cannot afford a private rent through which offer them rent subsidies and/or social housing for a
transitory period of three years. According to a DGASPC director, 5-6 cases per year address this
program, and they do not expect the number to jump abruptly in the near future.
On the contrary, some NGOs active in these areas express high concerns in this respect. The study in
only one such area (Uranus zone, see Annex 2) show that out of about 200 residents approximately a
half are at risk of forced eviction before the end of 2013. They are highly concerned that they will
end in a social housing from the Ferentari ghetto: 'They throw us in Ferentari. You know how is
there? Here we have done everything to educate our children, to send them to mixed schools, to
teach them music, painting and other such things. [...] We have done all, all that we could and they
want to send us and our children to drugs, SIDA, prostitution, crime, ... to hell.' (focus group Uranus)
Furthermore, according to the municipality rules, some people were left to occupy abusively some
ruined buildings but were not given identity papers as tenants at that address (as the building has
been administratively registered as destroyed). So, there are people who have been living in the area
for the past 10-15 years that have only provisory identity papers on which is written 'without
dwelling', situation in which that person cannot get a job, has no right to medical care, to social
benefits, etc.: 'I've tried many times to get the papers. I accepted their demeaning comments. [...]
But they probably have some rules that do not allow me to have an identity. So, let's be clear I am
worse than a dog. Dogs are nowadays adopted, have licenses, microchips and passport. I have none
of these. I have ended underestimating myself, thinking at myself as being a street dog. I will hang a
sign on my neck saying I am a stray, a stray evicted from Uranus.' (focus group Uranus)
3.2 Types of community interventions
The main types of interventions in urban development either already realized or foreseen by the
local authorities refer to infrastructure - paved or asphalted roads, running water, gas, sewerage,
public transportation, including new buildings and/or neighborhoods (such as in Dorohoi). All these
actions imply consistent logistic, material and administrative processes which cannot involve simple
citizens. 'The local budget is low, so it must be prioritized, and general population comes first, so first
should be solved the elementary infrastructure and only afterwards to think about the so called
disadvantaged areas' as a mayor explained.
Nearly all municipalities developed some actions in some disadvantaged areas, particularly related
to the social housing in mayoralties' administration. Such actions include from full renovation of
buildings to small repairing. In this respect:
(1) the municipalities explain that according to the law they cannot invest public money in private
structures. Nonetheless, in national programs such as the one for improving energy efficiency
through the thermal rehabilitation of blocks of flats, private buildings can participate as long as they
are organized in associations and they support a certain share of total costs. The ghetto areas
privately owned rarely are organized in association and anyhow the residents cannot support any
costs. For ghetto areas owned partly by the mayoralty and partly by residents it is not clear why the
program was not at all applied.
(2) in most cases, the renovations have damaged at high pace, so that the investment is 'a waste'.
Due to the residents' life style, low education, poor abilities to preserve and value goods. or simply
neglect, say local authorities. Due to low-quality construction materials and messy works, 'so
someone to gain as much as possible' or 'because they see us as second hand people', claim the
ghettos' residents.
(3) repairing of common installations is usually not sustainable as the number of residents (users) is
too high in relation to the technical capacity of the system.
21
(4) sometimes repairing involve just small works using all sort of old materials from demolished or
old building. Although very useful in case of emergencies, these types of patchworks add to the
erratic aspect of the building and are perceived as a sign of disrespect.
(5) nearly all municipalities have developed in recent years playgrounds for children, but only very
few in the marginalized areas. Nearly in all visited marginalized communities, the residents
mentioned playground for children as a community priority.
Furthermore, investments in refurbishment of a ghetto block of flats or a slum area are highly
visible. The general population usually associate these marginalized communities with undeserving
poor (lazy, untidy, bad etc.): 'these actions are seen as a positive discrimination since areas of the city
where there are villas, where the citizens pay taxes and dues, dont have sewage, street lights or the
road covered in asphalt. The people are discontent because we are investing a lot in these
disfavoured areas from which the local budget collects no taxes and which are sources for the local
crime and delinquency' (institutional representative Alba Iulia). So, usually such investments results
in loss of political capital and not in gains. Consequently, the mayors and the local councilors have
more to gain if ignore the marginalized areas than to invest in them. Considering also the complexity
of the needed interventions it becomes obvious that the rational action on the local authorities' part
is to stay away of this 'unrespectable' city areas. Even so, in most studied cities, the local authorities
have strove to reconcile these two conflicting tendencies. The available funding through Phare
programme for Roma or the structural funds (especially POR and POS-Mediu) have been very helpful
in this respect. The availability of funding for investments in marginalized areas may really boost the
interest of local authorities for these areas. All mayors, vice mayors, director of programmes from
the visited cities have declared willing to access such funds.
Much fewer and of smaller scale are the social-educational interventions targeted to children. Day-
care centers, multi-functional centers and other facilities including meal, clothes, access to social
benefits and services, spare time activities have been developed by municipalities, usually in
cooperation with donors or NGOs. Interventions in the employment area (including training), social
economy initiatives, as well as 'soft' projects in the socio-cultural field are even fewer. The major
problems related to these types of interventions: (i) are small scale, although some were quite
expensive (20-60 persons or children); (ii) are strongly dependent on the existence of donor's
funding, (iii) many have rather high running costs; (iii) impact can be observed only on long term.
Especially for these reasons, some have severely shrunk during the crisis period.
The least numerous are the integrated interventions, which are described in the section 3.2.2 on
good practices. These are complex actions with large budgets. However, in terms of hard impact
indicators, they have not resulted (at least until now) in increased employment, enhanced incomes,
diminished discrimination (against the residents of marginalized communities, be it Roma or not), or
improved public image of these areas. To some extent, it seems that the school participation of
children have somewhat improved, at least according to our interviewees, which is however a very
encouraging outcome. Children should definitely represent the main target of such interventions as
they are the residents who might have a real chance to break the vicious circle of poverty as long as
they get the appropriate protection and support.
3.2.1 Relation between the local authorities and poor communities
We should open this section with the issue of discrimination. Most institutional representatives tend
to describe the city social structure as: 'the Roma, the underdogs, and the normal or civilized
people'. In the spirit of truth, many interviews abound of discriminatory labels, remarks and
comments. Political correctness is still strongly underused in the Romanian public administration and
so the public discourse is inappropriate and aggressive. It is difficult to believe that the local
authorities with such a discriminatory discourse can built a partnership with a marginalized
community, especially when involves a large number of Roma.
22
Actually many narrations about 'charitable' or 'helping hand' actions of the local representatives
indicate that the institutional representatives infantilize the residents of marginalized communities.
So, local authorities have the tendency to make people of marginalized communities to seem
passive and helpless. Let us provide a common example. In cases of some ghettos with a collective
contract with the electricity provider, disconnection from the system happens periodically. For re-
connecting, any consumer should pay a high price and some additional taxes. Due to social reasons,
some mayors are willing to help the community to reconnect before the debts are paid. So, they play
the role of a mediator between community and provider. Many of them put a lot of effort and make
use of their personal relations in order to solve the problem. However, in the process, most mayors
treat the service provider as an equal, but treat the community as an infant. Do not explain them the
process, do not take their representatives to negotiation, do not offer advice and counseling so that
to find a sustainable solution. Instead, they solve the problem as efficiently as possible (least effort,
highest impact). However, the community learns that they are abused by the utility company and a
phone of the mayor can solve anything, irrespective debts and any other conditions. So, with any
new event of such kind, the poor community learns helplessness. This kind of intervention (quite
spread) is not at all helpful because it does not empower community, but teaches it helplessness.
Local authorities should play the role of mediator in such situations because the relation of power
between the company and the community is highly imbalanced, but in such a way in which the
community to become more accountable, to develop a sustainable mechanism, to enhance their
abilities to cope with service providers and so on. But also to transmit the company the message
that they are observed and cannot abuse of poor and low educated people.
Actually, the communication between marginalized communities and local authorities is casual,
usually linked to a crisis situation or elections. There is no clear proactive mechanism in which to
discuss plans for the future, priorities, rules, change of behavior. As a rule, the communities have the
problem and the authorities have the solution. Rules are unknown or unclear. That is why most
people expressed a feeling of being cheated: 'when the mayor has the problem to be elected, we
voted him. Now, when we have a problem, they treat us with total indifference'.
This adds to the fact that most marginalized communities are not cohesive and organized but
segmented and marked by shame and fear. Poor education and dialogue skills prevent many of the
community members to contact authorities. They also lack confidence in their fellow inhabitants to
empower them with common problems solving capacities. There is a need of consistent and
complex support to empower them to organize, to mobilize, and to develop a voice.
The participation of the population to projects of community development depends largely on their
trust in mayoralty. This rule has been proved empirically by many sociological studies: the higher is
the trust in mayoralty, the larger is the citizens propensity to participate in projects of community
development. On the other hand, the trust in mayoralty is largely determined by the trust in mayor.
In this respect, the situation varies from a marginalized area to another.
The trust in mayoralty is accompanied by the belief that the communication between authorities/
institutions and citizens is good. The reverse is also true: lack of trust in mayoralty is associated with
the belief that communication between authorities/ institutions and citizens is highly distorted. For
this, people should be well informed and should understand how to use that information
meaningfully for their life. In a project, community participation require intensive information
(priorities, objectives, sequence of activities, desired impact, possible risks and so on), involvement
in all phases, starting with the project preparation, and including participation in the decision making
process.
Most residents of marginalized areas as well as local authorities are rather negative regarding
working with NGOs. However, there are also success stories. For example, one studied community
(Uranus zone, Bucharest Sector 5) has organized itself in an association (la Bomba Studios). Actually,
they have started to work with a team of artists since 2006. After intensive and low-cost cultural,
23
civic and educational activities, the community organized themselves and undertook the artists'
NGOs in 2013, developed an action plan and have organized: a protest, tutoring lessons with
volunteer teachers for children and adults, but also a round table with various specialists and the
representatives of the mayoralty of Bucharest Sector 5.
3.2.2 Good practices
We present below a list of good practices identified in the field. We have to underline that the
interventions listed here are not necessarily good practices in all respects. For example, observations
regarding the modernized social housing from Dorohoi have been already presented in a previous
chapter. Most interventions lack proper information of inhabitants or involvement of community
from the preparation phase and/or in the decision-making process. However, in the same time, all of
them include elements that can be replicated and/or scaled up.

Area Intervention
Lumea Nou
(Alba Iulia)
Kindergarten

Social Economy
project
Cooperative for packaging waste recycling
Social houses
11 container houses installed there in 2010 and in which live
about 50 persons.
Infrastructure Water, sewage, roads
G2-Turturica
(Alba Iulia)
Bun, G2. ADIO
TurtuRELE!
17

Period: 2010-2012
Started at the initiative of the municipality and a group of
sociologists.
The project aimed to improve the quality of life of the residents
by making repairs of the building, but also by promoting positive
behavioral patterns among both adults and young people.
Twenty children, who had the best results in the project activities,
were awarded a seaside camp.
The project was based on community participation.
Cuprom (Baia
Mare)
Social houses
Renovation of former offices buildings.
135 families (463 persons) have been here from Craica area.
After school centre
Capacity: 80 children, most come from Cuprom area.
The centre has library and computers.
The children also benefit of showers and clean clothes.
Others Employment facilitation; Kindergarten
Lacu Dulce
(Brila)
Multifunctional
Social Centre for
children
Opened in 2010
It is a Romanian Social Development Plan Project
Capacity: 25 children
Activities: homework help, computer lessons, cultural and
educative activities.

Building expansion
for the
Multifunctional
Social Centre
Project to be implemented using European Structural Funds (it
has been submitted).
The centre will no longer have activities only with children, but
with the parents as well. The adults will benefit of qualification
courses and counseling in finding a job. The project also includes
courses for socio-medical education and the acquisition of
washing machines for the use of the community members.

17
Word play. 'Turturele' translates in English as doves. However, in the Romanian language is a composed word from
'Turtu' and 'RELE', which means 'bad'. So, the name of the project means 'Hello, G2', which is a 'normal' name for a block of
flats in that area and 'Goodbye ...bad things!'.
24

Area Intervention
Lacu Dulce
(Brila)
Renovation of the
building located in
Rmnicu Srat Street
no. 115
Project to be implemented using European Structural Funds (to be
submitted in June 2013).
After renovation, the building will have 35 apartments where
families who live now in improper houses will be moved. The
authorities have in mind few families who live in the Historical
Centre in very old and deteriorated houses, which cannot be
renovated; also families from the outer boundaries of Lacu Dulce
area, who live in improper and illegally built houses.
Social services: School mediator, medical mediator
Historical Centre
(Brila)
Renovation of the
building located in
Ancorei Street no 12

Project to be implemented using European Structural Funds (it
has been submitted).
The building is going to be completed renovated and reorganized
in apartments with own kitchen and bathroom and all utilities. In
the newly renovated apartments will live the same families that
live now.

Setting up a
community centre
(Grandparents and
Grandchildren) in
Anghel Saligny Street
no. 17
Project to be implemented using European Structural Funds (it
has been submitted).
The centre will include activities for pre-school children (done
together with their grandparents), afterschool activities for school
aged children and qualification courses for adults.
KM 10 (Brila)
Romanian Social
Development Plan
Project
Period: 2004-2008

Project with 3 components:
-installation of a pumping station for the sewage system
-area cleaning
-trees planting
Rahova_Uranus
(Bucharest
Sector 5)
Educational-cultural-
artistic activities with
the community
members
The projects were initiated by a group of young artists and had
the participation of various other members from the civil society.
Harta Sensibil (2006); Rahova Non Stop (2006); Construiesteti
comunitatea (2007); Biluna Jam Session (2007,2008,2009,2010);
Flexible (2008); Laborator Urban Mobil (2008,2009,2010); Parada
femeilor evacuate (I) (2010); Improvisation on generosity
(2010,2011); Ziua cartierului (initiated by Chloe Salembier 2011);
Fara sprijin (2011).
Music concerts were performed by the local children in the
building from Calea Rahovei nr. 194: 2006-2012 at Green Hours 1,
2 (2006 -2012) and Street Delivery (2010, 2011, 2012).
Between 2006-2011, drama workshops, creative education,
movement and body performance (dance, choreography)
workshops were organized along with drawing activities (including
graffiti art), community activities, public debates etc.
Ferentari
(Bucharest
Sector 5)
Childrens club
Activities: homework help, dancing courses, football, courses
about health.
With the participation of the community members, a football
pitch was built (the necessary materials were donated).
Project implemented by the Policy Centre for Roma and
Minorities

Mothers Action
Group
Activities: discussions regarding the problems their families are
confronted with. The NGO representatives mediate the
community members interaction with different institutions.
Project implemented by the Policy Centre for Roma and
Minorities

25
Area Intervention
Ferentari
Centre for early
education
Project implemented by the Bucharest Municipally with the World
Bank
(Bucharest
Sector 5)
Maternal centre
Project implemented by the Bucharest District 5 Municipally with
World Vision

Centre for children
with disabilities
Project implemented by the Bucharest District 5 Municipally with
World Vision
Drochia
(Dorohoi)
Social houses
The municipality built 36 houses form governmental funds.
The families living here were moved from the city Historical
Centre.
Infrastructure Water, sewage, gas, heating
Life skills courses
Courses for the residents regarding the use of the home
equipments.
Social services: Administrator, Roma school mediator, Romani language teacher

TBC prevention
activities
Visit in the community of a specialist doctor
Medical unit The municipality intends to open a medical unit in the area.
Others
Employment counseling from representatives of the local
employment agency but no member of the community attended.
School bus
Dumbrava Roie
(Dorohoi)
Social houses
The municipality built 46 houses.
People from a flooded area were moved here.
Infrastructure
Water, sewage, gas.
The municipality obtained the funds for roads modernization.
Bora (Slobozia)
Multifunctional
Social Centre for
children
Romanian Social Development Plan Project
Capacity: 30 children
Educational and artistic-creative activities

Lunch for children
who attend the local
school
Intervention implemented by the municipality with a private
company.
Socio-medical centre
Valea Rece
(Trgu Mure)
Social houses
The municipality built 7 blocks, each with 10 apartments.
The residents do not pay rent.
Infrastructure Water, sewage, gas

Personal hygiene
services
Lavatory with 6 washing machines and gender based showers
(three places for men and three places for women)

Social economy
activities
Workshop where the residents manufacture products made of
wood.
The workers received training.

Rainbow School - day
care center for
children

It has a capacity of 100 places and with a part of beneficiaries
from Valea Rece; a collaboration between the County Schools
Inspectorate and an NGO.
The centre includes school and kindergarten.
The centre offers services for improving childrens school
attendance like: school bus, food, clothes. The children benefit of
showers, if necessary, before starting classes.

Social economy
activities
Workshop where the residents manufacture products made of
wood. The workers received training.

Playground for
children




26
4 Lessons learned
(1) Starting from the main problems of the marginalized communities, the need for a national
legislative framework becomes apparent. This framework should provide regulations related to:
property over land in slums areas, investments in collective buildings owned partly by municipality
and partly by owners, as well as the change of fiscal rules for calculating the interests and penalties
for unpaid taxes owed to the state or local budgets by social tenants and also to settle the historic
debts related to social housing services (see box 1).
(2) Any intervention in marginalized area should be integrated, which to combine investments in
housing and infrastructure with components aiming employment, education of adults, education of
children, hygienic services, parental education courses, family planning, hot meal for children, life
skills development (at least for teenagers), fight discrimination and community empowerment and
any other social, medical or cultural activities. A national scheme of vocational training need to be
made available for adults who are with no or low formal education (at most 8 classes) tailored for
the adults from marginalized areas.
(3) Any investment in housing and infrastructure should tackle the following dilemma, high running
costs are usually bound by the refurbished (or new) social houses fully endowed with utilities, even
more so considering that the prices of gas and electricity are going to increase considerably up to
2018. Tenants of social houses are poor people, with little income, insufficient to cover the monthly
running costs. At this moment there are many social tenants that have cumulated (or inherited)
huge overdue debts for rent and/or are disconnected from one or more utilities. So, in order to be
sustainable, the projects for developing marginalized areas must search for innovative solutions
affordable for the poor, in the same time aiming the raise of family incomes within the community.
Only in this way the intervention is sustainable and the quality of life is enhanced.
(4) Intervention in marginalized areas needs to be medium or long term, with a preparatory phase of
1-2 years, in which both local authorities and the marginalized community to learn to communicate,
to build a partnership between equals and to create a participatory environment with a well-
defined, predictable and transparent set of rules. Also neighboring communities (not marginalized)
should have a dedicated component and should actively participate from the preparatory phase.
This is a way to foster social integration, but also may represent an incentive for the local
authorities.
(5) The authorities have very few data regarding the marginalized communities. Thus, in the
preparatory phase, among the first collaborative activities a survey (or census) should be done in the
marginalized area and its neighborhood, preferably with the involvement of specialists. This should
include a set of key outcome indicators defined in consensus by all partners, which to be regularly
monitored. These key indicators should be aligned to a set of responsibilities evenly distributed
between partners, so that to ask certain activities and performances from the marginalized
community as well and not only on the part of authorities. 'A thorough sociological survey done in
the area of reference and in the neighbouring areas of the target area, using a quantitative
questionnaire monitoring at least the quality of dwelling, education, health and employment in the
area. Once these elements are met, you can actually talk of social inclusion. Otherwise, its just nice
theories.' (Alba Iulia city manager)
(6) Interventions centered on children are more likely to have positive spillovers at the community
level and would increase the level of collective support of the inhabitants that do not benefit directly
of the project.
According to Teller's (2013: 4) Review of European experience on Methodologies for Integrating the
Needs of Poor Urban Communities in Urban Planning show that: 'In the specific Romanian context, to
date there have been no incentives to tackle urban decline and target funding towards segregated
27
neighborhoods, and the general provisions of spending EU funding offered very limited
opportunities. Beyond all these, there has been a lack of integrated approach in the design of
interventions. The shortage of national level resources makes it inevitable to make use of (future)
available funding, especially taking into account the ever increasing scale of the problem of
vulnerable communities, especially of Roma. Taking into account the Position of the Commission
Services on the development of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Romania for the period
2014-2020 and the CSRs for Romania, the government should aim at increasing labor market
activities of the Roma, launching initiatives specifically benefiting marginalized communities,
especially in rural areas, in particular the Roma, improve accessibility of social and health services
and fight discrimination against Roma. Regarding education, prioritized areas should be early school
leaving and preventing and tackling school segregation. Moreover, the extension of the growth pole
program is recommended. It is obvious that these issues can be tackled only via integrated actions,
because the above list comprises various sectoral policies. Beyond mainstreaming integrated
approach, making sure that vulnerable communities and neighborhoods benefit from the
interventions should be included via incentives and conditionalities.'
4.1.1 Urban development with the people and not for the people
An intervention in urban areas cannot be deployed everywhere and cannot solve everything, due to
the limited financial, human and time resources. The marginalized communities are 'extreme' cases
which require focused actions accompanied by facilitation and coaching, on the medium or long
term. Any successful action in a marginalized community will add value to the impact area too.
However, the actions in the marginalized area must be balanced with interventions in non-
marginalized communities in order to make the project visible and to increase its odds to be
accepted and valorised by all citizens. In this regard, the municipality must diversify the action tools,
so that to adapt the intervention to the community needs.
In order to make the community accountable, the intervention must rely on clear, predictable and
transparent rules and procedures, publicly debated, agreed by all stakeholders and put into action.
For example, an explicit and disseminated local policy to regulate social housing would add value to
the relation between tenants and mayoralty. Correlated, a clear set of penalties and rewards has to
be formulated, so that the desirable behaviours are acknowledged and thus 'rewarded', while the
undesirable ones are discouraged. It is useful to disseminate both the positive and negative
examples.
In the same time, all actions must be constantly monitored in terms of effectiveness and not only
financially. Deadlines and evaluation indicators must be set and agreed by all stakeholders. Regular
progress report must be largely disseminated and discussed by all stakeholders for deciding on the
next steps and potential adjustments.
People from marginalized communities are very creative. As a fact, they succeed to survive in very
harsh conditions in which many of us would not resist a single day. They see the world through
survival lens and so their priorities may significantly deviate from what scientific planning would
recommend. However, through perseverance and continuous communication they may represent a
partner in changing their living conditions. Usually, the mayoralties with their specialists and external
experts decide as they 'know' what is best. Nevertheless, the only way to make an effective and
sustainable impact on the marginalized communities is to talk to them, to listen to them and to work
with them and not for them. Community empowerment should lie at the foundation of intervention
and not 'helping hands' or 'social engineering' which infantilize the community. In this way the
poor's human agency may enhance and they can further change their lives for better, on their own.


28
5 Annex 1: Research Instruments
5.1 Focus group discussion guide
City ...................................................................
County ..............................................................
Zone .......................................... named by local people ..................................
Census tract .....................

Day Month Year Hour min Hour min
Duration I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I

1. Introduction
Short presentation of the project, of the research team and of the participants (table tour).
2. The city as a whole
Ask participants about their city, what the main neighborhoods are, whether some are richer/
poorer, where people with power live and people without power live. What does it mean to be
included/ excluded in this city?
3. Location on the city map
Present to the participants the city map (printed on A3 format) and ask them to indicate the area at
which we will refer during the group discussions.
4. Neighborhood description. Ask participants about the following topics:
4.1. Neighborhood boundaries, who lives there, who used to live there, the neighborhoods
history.
4.2. Livelihoods, type, formal/informal, whether people receive pensions or other state
assistance, barriers to employment.
4.3. Whether people have lived in the neighborhood a long time or whether people move in and
out frequently. Frequency and destination of migration.
4.4. What kind of housing people have, whether it is rented or owned, if rented, who owns the
housing and where they live.
4.5. Services in the community, safety, accessibility.
4.6. Whether there are people who are richer/ poorer in this neighborhood and whether
particular groups in the neighborhood are richer and poorer.
4.7. Whether people trust each other in the neighborhood, whether certain groups arent
trusted or keep to themselves or are otherwise excluded and why.
4.8. Is this neighborhood included/excluded according to the criteria they described in section 2?
5. Type of area (key problems)
5.1. Ask participants to describe their area and discuss each type of problem from the list below:
29


The most important for well-being/
priorities for improvement
(number of votes)
Isolation from the city (remoteness)
Infrastructure (streets, water, sewerage etc.)
Housing conditions (including pollution)
Access to public services (street lightening, public
transport, school, kindergarten, medic, pharmacy, shops,
market, garbage, playgrounds, green spaces etc.)

....................................................
Crime and public safety
Employment and income generating activities
Other problems, namely
.................................................................................

.....................................................

5.2. Regarding the priority problems, find out the changes that took place in the last 5 years:
The problem is old versus newly emerged?
The problem has grown versus it has shrunk (or the situation has deteriorated or it has
improved)?
6. Types of interventions
6.1. Regarding each priority problem, ask participants if in the last 5 years there were any
actions/ interventions to solve it?

List of priority problems

Have been at least
an intervention
Have been at least a
successful
intervention
Isolation from the city (remoteness)
Infrastructure (streets, water, sewerage etc.)
Housing conditions (including pollution)
Access to public service:
..................................................
Crime and public safety
Employment and income generating activities
Other problems, namely
.................................................................................


6.2. For each intervention, repeat the following sequence of questions:
(If there were many interventions in the area, ask participants to select the 3-5 interventions
most important for the community well-being)
What actions have been done?
What institutions/ organizations (governmental/ non-governmental) have been involved?
30
What role played the community and how it interacted with the local authorities or
institutions involved?
With what results/ benefits for the community and participants' households? Have there
been negative impacts as well?
Was it a successful intervention? If yes, what does it mean by 'successful' and which would
be the main success factors?
Is there any aspect which used to be a community problem that has been solved in the last
5 years? If yes, please discuss this intervention (these interventions) based on the above
sequence of questions.
Are there other interventions that took place in your neighborhood that they would like to
mention? Are there interventions that they know about in other neighborhoods that they
know about and would like to talk about? Why was their neighborhood not included?
7. Overall interaction with government
7.1. What they think of the institutions meant to serve them (local authorities, service
providers.)
7.2. Whether they have interacted with them, know how to interact with them, think it is
worthwhile to interact with them. How have they interacted (letters, visits to officials, been
consulted.) Who is their point of contact when they have an urgent issue? Was there any
follow-up on the actions discussed, were any of the suggestions raised by the community
adopted/implemented, etc.?
7.3. Do people feel like their representatives and institutions know the needs of the
neighborhoods and can address these needs?
7.4. Beyond contacting/submitting complaints to responsible institutions, what actions if any, are
you aware of any actions that residents in the community have taken to improve living
conditions in the community?
7.5. Have you participated in any consultations, discussions about improvement of living
situation in your neighborhood? If yes, please describe. How effective was your participation

7.6. What have been some successful examples of community action that youd like to see
happen in the future? What are the limitations of self-help action by the community?
7.7. What are the best ways of citizens to receive information from government (meetings,
media, letters, community representatives)?
8. Future development policies and community participation. For improving the living conditions in
your area:
8.1. Who should develop a plan?
8.2. What specific activities you would like to see in this plan?
8.3. Which mistakes should be avoided?
8.4. What role should play the community members?
8.5. Who should be responsible for this plan?
8.6. Would they agree to: (a) participate in consultations; (b) contribute with money; (c)
contribute with labor; (d) take the responsibility for designing and implementing the plan?
(d) participate in other ways, namely ................................................?
31
8.7. Do they think that other members of your community would agree to participate?
9. Map validation
9.1. Ask participants to point out other city areas sharing the same problems with their area.
All mentioned areas will be recorded on the same working map, which will be subsequently
compared with (1) the map completed based on the Census data as well as (2) the maps
provided by the city representatives.
9.2. What has made these areas similar? Why do they have the same problems?
10. Socio-demographics
In the end, each participant was asked (and assisted) to fill in a household grid, including information
about all household members regarding:
Presence within the household 1 - person present
2 - p. works abroad
3 - p. studies or works in other locality
4 - p. in hospital
5 - absent from other reason
Birth year
|__|__|__|__|
Gender
1. M 2. F
Ethnicity 1 -Romanian
2 Hungarian
3 - Roma
4 - German
5 Other
Marital status 1 - married
2 consensual union
3 - divorced
4 widow(er)
5 - single
6 - separated
Relation to the FG participant 1 - FGD participant
2 - husband/ wife/ partner
3 - son / daughter
4 - son-in-law/ daughter-in-law
5 - grandchild/ niece/ nephew
6 - father/ mother/ father-in-law/ mother-in-law
7 - brother/ sister/ brother-in-law/ sister-in-law
8 - other relative
9 - non relative
Highest level of education achieved 1 - no school
2 - primary (4 grades)
3 - secondary (8 grades)
4 - vocational, apprentice or complementary
5 - first level of high school (10 grades)
6 - high school (12 grades)
7 - post-secondary, technical school
8 - college degree
9 - university (including Master degree)
10 - doctoral studies
Person has a disability/ chronic disease
1. Yes 2. No
Wage earner
1. Yes 2. No
Pensioner
1. Yes 2. No

32
Occupational status 1 - employee
2 - other status of employed persons (daily worker, black market worker etc.)
3 - business owner
4 - self-employed person in non-agricultural activities (include PFA, AF, liberal
professionals)
5 - self-employed person in agricultural activities
6 - (unpaid) family helper
7 - registered as unemployed
8 - unregistered unemployed (no longer receives an unemployment allowance
/ support allowance and looks for work)
9 - retired due to age
10 - retired other causes
11 - pupil, student (children that go to pre-school are included)
12 - housewife
13 - person unable to work
14 - another status of non working person
Year since (s)he lives in the city |__|__|__|__|
Year since (s)he lives in the neighborhood
|__|__|__|__|
Dwelling ownership 1 - Private property
2 - Rented from a private owner
3 - Rented from the municipality
Dwelling type 1 - House
2 - Apartment
3 - Improvised shelter
Dwelling size
|__|__|__| m2
Dwelling is connected to electricity
1. Yes 2. No
Dwelling is connected to tap water
1. Yes 2. No
Dwelling is connected to sewerage
1. Yes 2. No


33
5.2 Interview guide
City representative ...............................................................................................................................
Institution ..................................... Department .............................Function .......................................

City ................................................................... County .........................................................

Day Month Year Hour min Hour min
Duration I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I I__I__I

1. Introduction
Short presentation of the project and of the research team.
2. Understanding of poor and disadvantaged areas in policy and practice
2.1. Ask the interviewee to describe their city, listing areas that are better and worse off and the
main characteristics of each.
2.2. Ask them to focus on the areas that are poor, disadvantaged of somehow excluded and to
explain a bit of the history behind these areas and what has made them as they are today.
Ask them about the boundaries of these areas, about who lives there, what their challenges
are and their opportunities are.
2.3. Ask the interviewee to define what they think is an area that is disadvantaged or excluded.
Ask the interviewee what the definition is according to policy and whether this definition is
used in practice.
2.4. Ask the interviewee to describe the policies for integration of different areas, who put them
in place and for what reason. Ask them how the policies are implemented and by whom.
3. Validation of the map of poor areas
3.1. If the map with 'theoretical' poor zones is available
Present to the interviewee the city map (printed on A3 format) with the poor areas as
determined by the Census data (based on the project methodology). Short description of the
indicators used to define the 'theoretical' poor zones and of the types of poor areas.
Ask the city representative to validate (confirm or infirm not) the identified 'theoretical' poor
zones and to mention the poor zones which were not captured (if any).
'Theoretical' areas which are infirmed by two or more interviewees as well as the newly
mentioned areas will be visited in the field and documented by the research team.
3.2. If the map with 'theoretical' poor zones is not available
Present to the interviewee the city map (printed on A3 format) and a short description of the
indicators used to define the 'theoretical' poor zones and of the types of poor areas.
Ask the city representative to indicate on the map the poor zones in which live disadvantaged
communities using the following code: (a) triangle - for areas disadvantaged only through
infrastructure; (b) square for economically disadvantaged areas; (c) circle - for isolated poor
zones (ghetto, garbage pit etc.). Subsequently, these maps will be compared with the maps
resulted based on the Census data.
34
4. Validation of the poor areas' types. For each validated poor zone, ask the interviewee to
describe:
4.1. Neighborhood type (houses versus block of flats, newly emerged versus old).
4.2. Population (turnover of families high or low, young or elderly, coming from rural or urban).
4.3. Dwelling ownership (private versus state owned dwellings, owned or rented).
4.4. Access to public services within the area.
4.5. Connectivity with the city versus remoteness.
4.6. Crime and public safety.
4.7. In what way the area is 'poor', 'excluded', 'marginalized', 'disadvantaged' compared to other
areas of the city.
4.8. Is there any informal or formal community leader that interacts with local authorities in the
name of the community? If yes, ask more details so that to interview this community leader.
4.9. Ask the interviewee about their main concerns for each particular area and how they would
address those concerns.
5. About interventions for integrating the poor areas
5.1. In what poor areas the local authorities implemented development projects/ actions?
5.2. Does the city have an urban development strategy mentioning the poor areas and
identifying actions for integrating those? Does the Local Development Strategy include an
explicit component regarding the communities from poor areas?
5.3. What interventions have been tried related to the poor areas?
5.4. What worked and what did work? Why?
5.5. What institutions/ organizations (governmental/ non-governmental) have been involved?
5.6. What role played the community? Under what conditions will work a participatory approach
(community-led) for integrating urban marginalized communities in your city?
5.7. What were the institutional bottlenecks which limited the intervention results?
5.8. What were the success factors?
5.9. What incentives and support would the city representatives need to help them address the
needs of marginalized communities?
Were these interventions monitored and evaluated? Which are the most relevant indicators for
interventions in poor areas?


35
6 Annex 2: City reports
6.1 Field Report: Baia Mare
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 04-07 June 2013 by Bogdan Corad and Mihai Magheru.
The data collection activities included three interviews with institutional representatives (mayor,
urban planner and architect, director of the Public Social Assistance Service), two focus groups
discussions with residents of disadvantaged communities (with 16 participants), and field visits in
four poor zones.
18
The participants to the focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-ethnic
categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 1 5 0 0 0 0
Roma 1 6 0 0 3 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (Craica and Cuprom) and cover a variety of
social situations. Thus, out of the 16 participants: (a) 9 persons come from households with 2-4
members, while the others have 5-8 members; (b) 14 live in households including 1 to 5 children (0-
14 years); (c) in 4 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers of a handicap or disability;
(d) 9 participants have no formal education and another 5 have completed gymnasium at most; (e)
only 4 are employees, 4 are informal workers, only 1 pensioner (on sickness grounds), 4 are
housewives and 3 are jobless actively looking for a job (informal, by the day); (f) consequently, in
only 4 households there is a wage earner and only 2 households benefit of a pension (low level but
regular); (g) 88% of participants arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with 1957), but the large
majority (75%) moved to the poor zone after 2000; (h) 3 live in self-constructed weak houses, 9
inhabit an apartment in a block of flats, and 4 live in an improvised shelter; (i) 8 rented their flat
from the mayoralty, 1 is owner, and 7 have structures illegally built on the public domain; (j) the
participants occupy dwellings between 10 and 63 m2, the majority of about 20 m2; (k) 12 have
electricity (some are informally linked to neighbors), and 9 have water and sewer (the ones living in
the block of flats).
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

18
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (67 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
36
City profile


A medium-size city with
a famous wall.



Baia Mare it is the capital city of Maramure County. The city is situated at about 600 kilometres
from Bucharest, the capital of Romania, 70 kilometres from the border with Hungary and 50
kilometres from the border with Ukraine. The city is an important industrial, commercial and cultural
centre in the north-west part of the country, sadly famous for the environmental catastrophe of
2000 when tones of cyanides, originating in the gold exploitation in the area, were accidentally
discharged in the citys river Sasar, directly linked with Tisza River. Considered as the worst
environmental disaster since Chernobyl, the accident largely affected the ecosystem and the
population (at least 100 tons of dead fish in the River of Tisza and least 2.5 million Hungarian people
affected by contaminated water).
Moreover, measurements carried-out in the Danube at that time often indicated concentrations
from 20 to 50 times more than the accepted limit of cyanides.
Accordingly to the National Institute of Statistics (NIS)
19
, Baia Mare has in 2012 a population 137,334
inhabitants, a decrease of about 6000 (less than 4%) from 2002 census figure. Some of the local
online journals
20
indicate, at the time of preliminary 2011 census data, a much higher decrease of
almost 23,000 inhabitants (four times higher than the official figure) but the information couldnt be
confirmed by any official source. The Romanian ethnics are a majority (84.11%), followed by
Hungarians (12.25%) and Roma (2.76%). Very few (less than 0.5%) inhabitants are German or
Ukrainian ethnics. Women represent for about 53 % and men for the rest of 47%.

19
https://statistici.insse.ro/shop/ The TEMPOONLINE page of NIS
20
http://www.ziarmm.ro/statistica-trista-in-10-ani-populatia-baii-mari-a-scazut-cu-peste-23-000-de-persoane/
Maramure
County
Romania map
37
The economic activity of Baia Mare has been based on the mining activities located in the
surrounding areas. This was mainly focused on gold extraction, at the origin of the environmental
catastrophe as the extraction was carried out based on cyanides. However, after a series of
economic, political and industrial changes, the mining industry declined considerably which lead the
Government to issue de Decision 233/1999 to declare Baia Mare city and its surroundings as
underprivileged area. This was a national measure to protect the populations living in similar areas
where massive dismissal of the workers engendered significant unemployment and risks of poverty.
This status implies fiscal and taxes facilities for investors, leading, after 10 years of implementation,
to an economy of secondary and tertiary sector, relying on few industrial activities (furniture and
food industry), on construction industry and on services. Not only that Baia Mare lost its status as
mining capital of the region but also it closed down its main metallurgy (copper) centre, Cuprom
21

and interrupted the activity Romplumb (plumb industry) as a measure to adjust it to environmental
requirements.
Due to its geographical positioning Baia Mare has a great tourism potential in terms of traditional
and rural specificities, winters sports mainly skiing and generally the whole landscape. As skiing
slopes the most known is Mogoa, which is the most difficult slope in Northern Romania. Moreover,
Baia Mare is positioned in a valley and is encircled on all sides by hills and mountains, which makes
the climate in the city milder than the rest of the surrounding area. Despite this high potential the
city did not developed a coherent tourism plan and in the same time is not necessarily well
connected thorough railways and roads to the rest of the country. Its international airport is largely
underused. For instance it became international in 2010 but only 5 flights a week in total are
operated, and those in connection with Bucharest only. Baia Mare cannot be described neither as a
university city, since its name was well known at a time when metal industry was developed and the
university was of excellence in the area, but now, after the economic decline, the university couldnt
keep its relevance.
The city administers four villages which are practically suburbs neighbourhoods of the city: Blidari,
Firiza, Valea Borcutului and Valea Neagr. Among these villages, positioned on the small valleys at
the border of the city, Firiza is also the place of the city reservoir (consumption and drinking water).
As in other places in the country (see, for instance, the research report on Trgu Mure) the most
disadvantaged and poor neighbourhoods or communities are associated with the Roma people. Baia
Mare is (re)known
22
at both national and international levels for the mayoraltys policy concerning
ghettoization of Roma population and the means to address it in relation to the few groups of Roma
living in the city.
Here is the list of main neighbourhoods of Baia Mare city:
- Depozitelor (Storehouse) in the west part of the city, close to centre
- Ferneziu (untranslatable) in extreme north-east of the city, also the siege for Romplumb factory
where originated environmental disaster, far from centre
- Firiza (untranslatable) positioned close to Ferneziu and siege of the city reservoir, far from centre
- Grii (railway station) in the west part of the city, surrounding the Railway Station,
- Griviei (untranslatable) in the northern part of the city, close to centre,
- Oraul Vechi (the old city) is the centre where the city was built at its origins,
- Progresul (progress) is in the south part of the city, close to centre,
- Republicii (republic) is in the extreme south of the city, close to Progresul,
- Ssar (untranslatable) is in the north-west part of the city, close to centre,

21
This former factory (complex of buildings) is very emblematic for the city not only in economic terms but also social ones.
In the chapter analyzing the poor and disadvantaged communities, it will be presented how this former industry ward
became virtually a Roma people neighborhood.
22
Each sub-chapter relevant to these issues has specific paragraphs explaining in-depth the situation.
38
- Decebal and Traian are in the west respectively south-west parts of the city, close to centre,
- Valea Borcutului (Borcutului valley) is a former village, in extreme north-west of the city, far from
centre
- Valea Roie (Red valley) is in the north part of the city, far from centre,
- Vasile Alecsandri, a neighbourhood surrounding the boulevard with the same name, in the south
of the city, close to centre.
- As it concerns the mentioned villages Blidari and Valea Neagra, they are not anymore distinctive
parts of the city but have been included and dispersed throughout the urbanization process in
70.
When it comes to the vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged communities there are six areas where
they are to be found as follows: Craica, in the south part and practically stick to Grii
neighbourhood, Grii the Roma community in an area which is practically stick to the gara (the
railway station), Ferneziu a similar community not far from Garii, Cuprom in the east part of the
city, industrial area, Pirita (pyrites) industrial area in the east, not far from Cuprom and Valea
Borcutului a small community of Roma people in the same name neighbourhood (former village).
These communities are inhabited predominantly by Roma people, speaking Romani language.
The urban disadvantaged areas
There is a general tendency of assimilating the concepts of poor, disadvantaged and vulnerable with
the Roma ethnics, mainly in localities where there are important groups, often condensed in an area
either central or in suburbs, of people of Roma ethnic minority. Baia Mare follows the pattern of
such synonymy within the speech of all interviewed stakeholders. Accordingly to the typologies of
the study, all disadvantaged areas identified in the city correspond to the third scenario, isolated
poor zones, since most of the characteristics are representative: small areas within or beyond the
cities formal residential boundaries that are marginalized in a number of ways poor or no access
to infrastructure, high degrees of unemployment among residents, few or no education and health
centres, in some cases hazardous environmental conditions.
According to Stanculescu and Berevoescu (coord., 2004), the urban poor zones, in many cases,
concentrate Roma population. Some of these zones, include communities of improvised shelters,
often near a garbage dump site with residents living from refunded scrap metal or other goods
found in the garbage, social housing buildings in the historical town centre, former hostels for single
workers where some residents have remained after closure of enterprises with uncertain ownership
status or other buildings in former industrial areas at the city periphery.
As presented briefly in the previous chapter, there are six main areas identified as being poor and
disadvantaged at the level of Baia Mare city. But before entering into more details related to each
area, it is important to bring some context information specific to Baia Mare.
On one hand, there is the famous wall
23
the mayor of Baia Mare decided to build in June 2011.
Accordingly to the mayoralty, this wall in bricks is supposed to protect the population (mainly
children) against the risks of accidents in the main road passing in front of the blocks surrounded by
the wall. The mayor also confesses I would like to see exactly which persons fulfil the norms of
cleanliness and hygiene and which dont. The community has no duty in tolerating such behavioural
deviations
24

On the side of the civil society, the reactions are strong and claim for revision of such decision: The
representatives of Romani Criss (national Roma NGO), of the "Sanse Egale" (Equal Chances)

23
http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-9215801-zidul-baia-mare-protectia-sau-ghetoizarea-tiganilor.htm
24
Ibid.
39
Association and Amnesty International have issued an open letter indicating that building the wall
will lead to ghettoization and humiliation of Roma, making them subject to degrading treatment
25
.
The reality now is that the wall is built, it is not a wall of 3 m as often presented by the media and
NGOs at that time, but of 1.8 m, the Roma people in the area have a speech close to the one of the
mayor (which may hide the fear of reprisals but also the simple truth) and the issue of hygiene is still
among the biggest in the area. The wall separates the two blocks inhabited by Roma (the mayoralty
own the blocks) from the road but also from the other blocks around. The buildings and the wall
have marks of fire.
On the other hand, it is the famous contaminated block where Roma people were moved in from
Craica area in 2012, as a commitment of the mayor towards his electors to clean up the area of
Craica where an estimated 2,000 inhabitants were living in extremely bad conditions. As this block is
part of the Cuprom community, more information will be provided during the respective chapter.
Here is the list of main poor and disadvantaged communities:
i) Craica is the biggest and the poorest area inhabited by Roma counting for about 1,000 persons
on our estimated but only 500 in the figures of the municipality, mainly the social assistance
service. Il all started in 92 with a group of 5 houses says the director of Public Social Assistance
Service (SPAS) and twenty years later are more than 250 families, among them about a half have
been placed in Cuprom block. All the dwellings are simple improvised shelters from plastic, wood
and some cardboard, stick one to each other and built along the railway which is not in function
anymore. Not a single infrastructure facility is in place, besides some wires which connect the
blocks in the area to the huts of the colony, and for which the inhabitants pay, if they had the
luck to convince a person in the block to give them access to electricity. A tap at the entrance
ensure water for the whole community.
ii) Cuprom as presented in the brief introduction above, the area is a disposed industrial facility
where the copper was transformed till recent years. One of the former laboratories (it is more a
former offices buildings) was adapted by the mayoralty to host a part of the people living in
Craica. Despite criticism related to the risks of contamination, the area appears from far as the
most endowed in terms of infrastructure, being connected to canalization, water and electricity,
and thus very much appreciated by its inhabitants. A total of 463 inhabitants in 135 families live
in these premises, some of them in one room and others (numerous families) in two rooms.
Initially offered for free by the mayoralty, these premises were progressively charged with rent,
on one hand to partially cover the costs and on the other to render the inhabitants accountable.
The area is also considered a model of intervention (best practice) since it gathers a very large
complex of social services, a school and a high school, facilitating the education for all the
children in the area. More details available in the respective chapter.
iii) Garii is a smaller area very close to the railway station in Baia Mare. It is estimated a number of
27 families living in the area which is pretty isolated from any facility and which has no
infrastructure. Some wires (people do not provide information on where they are effectively
connected and the visit on the ground has not offered more information because of the lack of
visibility) connect these houses, of a better condition than Craica, to electricity.
iv) Ferneziu is an area close to Pirita, also the industrial zone of former exploitation of pyrite. An
estimated number of 50 families are living in this area in similar conditions with the people from
Garii area. It is to be noted that the number of inhabitants is estimated based on general figures
of members per family, which in this case would reach about 180-200 persons.


25
Ibid.
40
Source: Google maps.
41
v) Pirita in addition to the characteristics above which are pretty common among almost all areas
besides Cuprom, Pirita is also known for its high mobility since it is estimated that between 50%-60%
of the population is not from Baia Mare, on one hand, and, on the other hand, usually people from
this area migrate a lot, both in the country and abroad.
vi) Valea Borcutului is a smaller community of about 32 families which lives at the end of a former
village which now became a neighbourhood of Baia Mare city. It is perceived as the most integrated
Roma community of Baia Mare. A significant part of the inhabitants managed to buy the land and
thus have legally built their houses. They are also accepted by the community of the wider area. It is
a model of good cohabitation. There are no problems here, neither in terms of neighbouring nor in
terms of crime or delinquency says the SPAS Director.
vii) Melodiei a block of flats which is in an advanced state of degradation and with poor access to
infrastructure.
viii) Horea Luminiului a block of flats which is in an advanced state of degradation and with poor
access to infrastructure; this is the block with the famous wall; the research team could not enter
this area.
Craica zone
Isolated area, extremely poor and of medium size (500 to 1,000 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
Craica appears from far to be the most vulnerable area, in terms of infrastructure, size, status of the
population and complexity of the problems in Baia Mare. In line with an unused railway and also in
parallel with the river of same name, Craica represented the biggest urban Roma community in the
city of Baia Mare, before a part of its population (about a half) was moved into Cuprom buildings,
two years ago. Many of its inhabitants arrived in the early 90, starting with a creation of a small
group in 1992, followed by waves of two types of migration.
The most important consisted in the people who previously were living in modest block of flats. In
their opinion they were forced to leave these premises because they couldnt afford to pay the
running costs and thus were obliged to sell the apartments. In the authorities opinion, they
destroyed their dwellings and didnt pay taxes so were forced to sell as a punitive measure by the
justice. Other inhabitants now are simply born there or came from other parts of the city.
The area is traditionally inhabited only by Roma people and all the dwellings are simple improvised
shelters from plastic, wood and some cardboard, stick one to each other and built along the railway
which is not functional anymore.
There is no infrastructure, besides some electrical wires connected to the blocks which are to be
found at about 100 meters from the Craica area. A particular characteristic is the proximity of the
river which, during the heavy rainy weather, generates impressive floods inundating all the houses
and practically destroying them, at least partially.
All the people who attended the focus group are stable inhabitants of the area; they came there in
the nineties or, for the younger, were born there. They live in very small houses, most of them in
plastic and paperboard with some wood infrastructure. Few in the community have houses made
out of bricks and soil, covered with metal plaques. A public infrastructure is not available, since the
area is abusively occupied.
42
Only a tap at the entrance in the community is ensuring water provision. Due to materials and
proximity (they are stick one on each other), the smallest fire at a dwelling engender damages for
tens of others houses in the area, as it is very easy for the fire to spread.
There is virtually no employed person in this community; their revenues come from recycling plastic
at the garbage dump and some of them are working informally on a daily basis, depending on the
possibilities which may occur. Those who have babies (till the age of 2) have more generous social
benefits of RON 200 per month, which is 5 time higher than the allowance of children from 3 to 18
years old.
The group has one leader but the person and his family is living in an apartment in a block in front of
the Craica area. On the ground, it appeared that this leader is accepted by a part of the inhabitants
but small groups are also isolated or segregated, and have different leaders. Not always is a good
understanding among inhabitants.
As the area is very close to the neighbourhood of blocks, it is also close to services in the area such
as access to school, kindergarten, dispensary, pharmacy, etc. This does not imply that the services
are accessed, mainly because of peoples hygiene status, their shame or simply the lack of
awareness about a modern social life.
All the participants to the focus group agreed their area may be considered safe. Indirectly, though,
they express often the opinion that not everybody is honest and correct enough or do not respect
the values of living together which may lead to the idea of existence of some issues in terms of
public safety, which are generally address by calling the public police. The lack of latrines is of crucial
concern, engendering outbreaks of infection and rats invasion, even entering the houses and biting
the inhabitants, mainly the children.
B. Key problems
A key aspect which requires attention when analysing the community is its size. On one hand, the
public authorities speak about less than 500 individuals living in the area. On the other hand, the
Roma leader and other inhabitants speak about 1,000 families this figure is for sure a very
subjective perception of the reality but not necessarily very far from it. The visit on the ground
showed us not only a very large area of the community but also the existence of more than 200-250
dwellings. If it is to count at least 3.7 members per household (a figure communicated by the
mayoralty) the total would be around +/- 800.
The most stringent aspect of their lives is a mixture of land property and infrastructure. This problem
is so complex it cannot be separated within the analysis: the living conditions are so bad that the
inhabitants complain often they live worse than animals but when it comes to the risk of being
displaced, they prefer keeping these conditions but at least not needing to move elsewhere. A
general fear that the mayor will take them all from this land and move them out of the city, close to
the forest, where a former chicken farm existed previously, was expressed often during the FG
discussions.
Of course, at the very present time, the infrastructure is the biggest problem the people are
confronted with. The lack of any basic facility (besides those who have some electrical wires
connected to the blocks around) makes the life in Craica not only extremely poor but also
dangerous. People complain about the huge number of rats, which is already a sanitary risk, and also
the fact that their children are bitten by the rats when parents are not around.
In terms of services, theoretically they have physical access to schools and health facilities, but in
practice, due to their very poor status (material, educational, social skills) they will rarely access
these services.
43
C. Types of interventions
The most significant intervention for this area was two years ago when the Cuprom facility was
opened (detailed information about its constituents is provided in the next chapter). As it was
described above, the conditions in Craica are extremely bad so it appears that Cuprom is a sort of
paradise, as SPAS director confesses during the interview: in Craica you will have some difficulties
in entering the zone. Just go and buy some rubber boots but on the contrary, in Cuprom, although
we may say that conditions are average or below average, they are 10,000 times better than Craica.

44



45
The mayoralty opened a year ago an impressive complex
26
of social and educational services in
Cuprom area, opened for beneficiaries from all Roma communities. As of discussions, with both
people from Craica and the public institutions, unfortunately, very few children from Craica
effectively access these services. Nevertheless, a bus is available to transport them and those who
attend activities have access to health, education, hygiene, food and spare time facilities.
Similar to other areas in the city and in the country, institutional stakeholders complain about:
i) dirt and garbage, including lack of hygiene of vulnerable groups, in conditions where access to
services to impede these aspects are available,
ii) non-respect of the goods and facilities, often followed by destruction of the goods,
iii) a sort of inner laziness, 'characteristic to these people',
iv) lack of education, and implicitly, impossibility of offering them jobs.
When it comes to community members, they complain about the following:
i) discrimination, based on ethnic origin, generally in any aspect of the life,
ii) marginalization of children at school, mainly due to their hygiene status,
iii) abuses (insecurity due to abusive occupancy of the land), fear of reprisals, complexity of
difficulties and problems related to day-by-day living in severe poverty.
D. Community organization and cohesion
It appeared that Craica is a community of sufferance where at least small groups use to have
stronger relationships and help each other. Often when some parents go to work or search in the
garbage their children are left with the ones remaining in the community and vice versa. Everything
is so close that it appears sometimes several houses are like rooms of a bigger house.
The opinions are also very clear about the good and the bad inhabitants. It is generally accepted
that a part of the community is good (serious, working, cleaning, taking care of children, not
stealing), but there is also a part of bad (most of complains refer to hygiene and the lack of latrines
which practically transform the small alleys between the houses in places where people defecate).
Apparently there are several leaders, a characteristic of every small community inside bigger
communities and they may be rivals if the personal relationships deteriorated at a certain moment
in the past. In the case of Craica we met only one, who lives in a block but not in the community per
se, and who represents at least a part of the population, mainly in relation with the mayoralty and
the complex of social services.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
Very little contact with authorities exists in this community. People are represented by the leaders
and, due to the general fear of being displaced they prefer to stay quiet. The mayor goes on the
ground and discusses with people, which is partially appreciated by inhabitants, although the
message is often detrimental to their status.

26
Please look for detailed information in the section of social services in Cuprom area, next chapter.
46
Cuprom zone
Isolated poor area, placed in a former industrial facility, small-medium size (less than 500
inhabitants + unknown surroundings)

A. Area history and general description
As presented, the area is a disposed industrial facility where the copper was transformed till recent
years. One of the former laboratories
27
(on the ground visit it was confirmed as being a former
offices building) was adapted by the mayoralty to host a part of the people living in Craica. Despite
criticism related to the risks of contamination, the area appears from far as the most endowed in
terms of infrastructure, being connected to canalization, water and electricity, and thus very much
appreciated by its inhabitants. A total of 463 inhabitants in 135 families live in these premises, some
of them in one room and others (numerous families) in two rooms. Initially offered for free by the
mayoralty, these premises were progressively charged with rent, on one hand to partially cover the
costs and on the other to render the inhabitants accountable. The area is also considered a model of
intervention (best practice) since it gathers a very large complex of social services, a school and a
high school, facilitating the education for all the children in the area.
The area, more precisely its surroundings is traditionally inhabited by Roma people who live in some
blocks of flats, most in bad shape and surrounded by garbage, dirt and mud. The building known as
Cuprom and where from the participants to FG came, is a former industrial building with most of the
rooms occupied by inhabitants from Craica. Very few rooms are empty and not habitable (no
windows, only the walls in very bad shape).
The inhabitants appreciate a lot the living conditions: they have running water and electricity,
everything is stable (the walls instead of paperboard or plastic), inside toilettes and bathrooms in
common use, with very few exceptions where people have their own bath-corner in the room or
apartment, depending on the family size and the type of space they received.
Some of the rooms are very well kept, refurbished, endowed with fancy furniture, huge plasma TV
sets and exotic decorations; the rest are of modest but well-kept condition, including in terms of
hygiene: all visited rooms (more than 10) are clean and proper; the same for common spaces.
A part of residents are beneficiaries of social benefits or pensions and the other part are employees
of the Public Cleaning / Garbage company of the mayoralty. Others work for the mattress factory.
Although not clearly spelled out during the FG, the less formal discussions when visiting the
disadvantaged areas of the city indicated a dynamic migration abroad. It came out that more than a
half of inhabitants in this area started to travel many years ago, and they were part of all types of
networks: traditional musicians, bagging, theft and robbery networks, blue-collars employments.
Due to visa constraints they spend the legal 3 months in Schengen area and after another 3 months
go back and continue their activities.
The community has strong leaders. One may say even too many and too strong: each small group
has an informal leader and unwritten rules apply when it comes to get in contact, visit them,
exchanging, etc. A general public opinion is that there is no leader in place (partially true in the sense
that traditional Roma communities have a bulibasha chief which, in the case of Cuprom, does not
exist) but our FGs and the visits on the ground wouldnt be possible without the support of some
leaders. Including an eccentric atypical priest, with tattoos and piercings who built his church in one
of the Cuproms rooms and pretends to be the communitys priest, although he recognises that he
has no training in the field.

27
The term is used by media and NGOs, but the city hall claims the contrary, as confirmed by our visit.
47
In terms of services the community of Cuprom is considered the most endowed because they are a
few meters from the Community residential centre for Roma
28
, a project of Baia Mare municipality
and the Public Social Assistance Service (SPAS) financed through the Regional Operational
Programme 2007-2013, Priority axis 3 Improvement of social infrastructure, The field of
Intervention 3.2 Rehabilitation, modernization, development and endowment of the social services
infrastructure.
Here they have access to education, health, hygiene, lavatory, laundry, library, non-formal education
and spare time facilities, including some night services (hosting in 10 beds) for the most in need and
the support of professionals in social assistance, legal and psychology areas.
Some complaints about the safety were expressed, not in relation to the Cuprom building itself but
rather some disputes between residents of different buildings in the area. We spent few hours on
the ground with some key leaders and we understood that some areas cannot be visited because
the leaders are not in good relationships. Not even the intervention from the SPAS, couldnt help us
to have at least a short discussion with the leaders from other areas and we were advised to be
satisfied with what we have.
B. Key problems
All the residents in the Cuprom building are paying a rent and the running costs. At their first arrival
in the building, for there months, they were hosted for free. Afterwards, every three months they
had to pay increased taxes starting with RON 20 respectively RON 30 per month (depending if the
family has a one room or two rooms house) and ending actually at a total of RON 100, respectively
RON 120. For example, the costs for two rooms include RON 50 for the rent and RON 70 for the
running costs. It is to be mentioned that during the winter season, the mayoralty provided radiators
(electrical heating) which were taken back at the beginning of the spring, and which normally will be
given back in the next winter season.
This being the context of their living conditions, there are two aspects about which the inhabitants
are concerned of: on one hand is the (im)possibility of monthly paying the costs (some of them are
effectively very poor; but the visit on the ground indicated that most of them manage somehow
29

to access the necessary funds). They would have preferred to keep the original costs. On the other
hand, is the lack of security in relation to their effective presence there: despite rental contracts in
place (which appear to be of short duration, less than 6 moths with possibility of extension)
everybody fears that the mayor will take them out of the buildings and send them out of the city.
The employment issue was often raised in the sense that it is very difficult to find a job, in general
but also that employers avoid to hire gypsies. Some complaints about the bad gypsies were also
raised, referring mainly to the problem of hygiene and insecurity in the neighbourhood, the non-
respect of common premises mainly, and some scandals.
C. Types of interventions
It may be considered that Cuprom building is, as a whole, one of the most successful interventions of
the mayoralty of Baia Mare, because of the number of inhabitants, because of the complexity of
transformations in their lives, because of the access to new services.
The creation of the Community residential centre for Roma contributed largely to improvement of
the quality of life of the inhabitants in the area, not only the residents of Cuprom building but also
the residents of other buildings in the area.

28
http://www.nord-vest.ro/galerie-foto/Centrul-Comunitar-Romanii---reabilitarea-modernizarea-si-echiparea-cladirii-in-
care-va-functiona-centrul-rezidential-pentru-romi---dezvoltarea-si-modernizarea-infrastructurii-serviciilor-sociale-din-Baia-
Mare--eID1266.html
29
Please refer to the labour migration paragraph .
48
The sustainability of such type of project may be subject to further discussions since it is obvious
that one of the social assistance purposes of such interventions should be to help people getting out
the circle of poverty and not to engender dependency. In practice, it is appreciable that, for
example, the beneficiaries of the social canteen (be them children or adults) cannot attend only this
activity alone, but need to jointly attend school activity, for the children for hygiene and lavatories
for adults, to mention but a few.
Intensively accused of discrimination and marginalization, by the media and civil society
organizations, the local authorities managed somehow to use this unfavourable context and to turn
it into significant projects. It is worth noticing that the value of investment in the project is very
consistent: RON 3,496,941 which is the equivalent of USD 1,000,000 and represents the total
amount of money for the infrastructure only.
On the other hand, the progressive introduction of rent and running costs for the dwellings may also
be a positive manner in rendering accountable and responsible the whole group of vulnerable
people.


49
All the above experiences and practices are to be considered successful intervention since, to a
certain extent, they respond to local requirements, both from a public authority perspective and
from the beneficiaries side. It is worth noting that on both sides (Roma people and institutional
actors) the speech is often focused on the non-involvement of the vulnerable groups: one the side of
public authorities it is said that these people do not generally respect the order and are
traditionally lazy and dirty. On the side of the vulnerable groups, there is a general acceptance of
the fact that many (more than the half) of their community correspond to the description of the
public authorities. Therefore we cannot speak of a clear and consistent role of such communities in
the development of integration programmes.
D. Community organization and cohesion
It appeared, mainly during the field visits in several areas, that the larger community of Roma in Baia
Mare is well structured in castes. Even within smaller communities (for example a block of flats)
there are at least two groups: the one of accountable/responsible and the one of lazy/delinquent.
Maybe the most illustrative example of how the community is structured is given in a context where
the inhabitants express their fear about the potential displacement in a rural area, outside of Baia
Mare city: they dont tell us where they are going to take us so, for us, we do not agree that
citizens of Baia Mare be forced to go at 20 km outside the city. What are we going to do there? What
are we going to do in the countryside? Go directly to jail! Among us certain drink, others steal, one do
this and other that. They will take us to prison. Even among us there are certain who steal. We
cannot pretend we are saints. There is a part who steal even here in the block we had problems
with some thefts. And if you take us there in a hole at 15-20 km and have some families with
chickens, pigs, some land nearby the house theres going to be theft! A lot of people do not have
income... they are going to hit the other in their head What to do? We are used to live here in the
city. Here is more peaceful we are not people to go to countryside, we are not peasants, says one
of the key (older) community leaders.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
As a general note, people prefer a one-way relationship with the mayoralty and other institutions
when it comes to projects and solutions to their problems. This means that the mayoralty should
conceive the plan and provide all the support for its achievement; as the case of Cuprom. And they
should keep it like this, giving people the assurance they will live there forever.
As it concerns specific needs, they act individually and sometimes through a more recognized leader.
A general feeling is that the stakeholders are aware about the problems but often they dont have
the means to address them.
From time to time (the risk of being moved out of the city) they consider that high level people have
high level interests and thus it is a matter of personal willingness of the mayor to solve the issue
(ensuring that Cuproms destination will be kept, no matter what the economical or other type of
constraints may occur). There is a general feeling of fear that the mayoralty wants to get rid of all
gypsies in the city, which may also be reinforced by some interventions of the mayor at the local or
national televisions where he declared such potential scenarios.
Nevertheless it is true that such declarations were made in a context militating for increased
accountability, employment of Roma people, and connection of the community to the values of the
society and the municipality and not of a marginalization and displacement plan. It is also true that a
look at the city halls site indicate a huge infrastructure development project exactly in the area
occupied today by Cuprom people.

50
Grii, Ferneziu and Pirita zones
Isolated poor areas, small size (less than 200 inhabitants each)

A. Area history and general description
Despite some differences determined mainly by the typology or, rather the profile, of these
populations (their belonging to a certain caste which not necessarily mixt with other castes) the
areas of Grii, Ferneziu and Pirita are all traditionally inhabited by small groups of Roma, consisted in
some few tens of families distributed in a small land area.
They are more isolated than those mentioned above (significant distance to infrastructure, road,
services) and the houses are of poor condition but better than Craica area.
The inhabitants have social benefits or pensions, very few work, and, with the exception of Grii
area, there is a high population dynamic, in terms of national and international migration, for many
of the inhabitants not even being considered as people from Baia Mare (their ID papers, existent or
missing, indicate they come from outside the city or even the county). The neighbourhoods are
considered safe, the main problem being the infrastructure.
B. Key problems
If Grii area appears as more connected to infrastructure due to its proximity to the railway station,
the other two areas are very isolated. The same situation of electrical wires connected somewhere
in the neighbourhood or simply stealing (based on observation) from the public lightening
characterises these areas which are deprived from roads, canalization, water and other sanitation.
The main problem concerning the children, underlined by the representative of the municipality, is
the school abandonment (or the fact that children dont even go to school at all). As for the
employment, residents here use to have horses for daily work, fact which is forbidden by
municipality and engender frequent tensions.
C. Types of interventions
There were no interventions identified in favour of these communities, besides one project
mentioned by the SPAS Director for the creation, this year, of a day care centre for children in
Ferneziu, as means to fight against school abandonment and to improve education and nutritional
status of the children.
D. Community organization and cohesion
The visit in Grii area indicated an organization by group of 3-5 households very close one to each
other, and a general feeling of fear that the authorities would like to displace all Roma outside the
city, in the countryside area.
Valea Borcutului zone
Very small area (about 32 households), rather rural

The small community of about 32 families lives at the end of a former village which now became a
neighbourhood of Baia Mare city and is acknowledged, by all stakeholders, as a very typical,
traditional and quiet community of Roma. It is perceived as the most integrated Roma community
of Baia Mare. A significant part of the inhabitants managed to buy the land and thus have legally
built their houses. They are also accepted by the community of the wider area. It is really a model of
51
good cohabitation. There are no problems here, neither in terms of neighbouring nor in terms of
crime or delinquency says the SPAS Director.
This area is also very far from the city (as the whole community of the former village), the road going
up through the hills surrounding Baia Mare at the north-east part of the city.
Melodiei and Horea Luminiului zones
Ghetto-like (around 200 inhabitants each)
The two blocks of flats located in Melodiei Street and Horea Luminiului Street are owned by the
municipality, but all residents live there illegally. The buildings are deteriorated and have been
somehow abandoned by the local authorities. The contracts with the residents have not been
renewed for many years and no interventions have been made. Until any renovation of the buildings
will be done, the municipality will no longer ask the residents to pay their rents.
The last intervention in the block made in the buildings was not sustainable. The water pipes were
replaced with new ones, but in few days all disappeared. In 2008-2009 the municipality had plans
to renovate the blocks, but due to the shortage of funding the intervention was postponed. At the
moment the mayoralty plans to renovate them with funds from the local budget.
Crosscutting issues
As many municipalities in the country, the municipality of Baia Mare is in the process of validating a
third generation of General Urban Plan (PUG in Romanian Plan Urbanistic General) which is a
comprehensive analysis and plan of action for the next 10 years in terms of both infrastructure and
urban planning of the city as a whole.
From an official perspective, as it came out from the discussions at the level of architect office or the
mayor, the disadvantaged areas - which are those abusively occupied during the last 20 years by
Roma people, need a strategy or action plan very well developed, in order to ensure enough
protection of the most vulnerable but also to contribute to their accountability and involvement in
the citys life.
Baia Mare is considered a city which still needs significant developments in terms of a part of the
infrastructure. There are neighbourhoods (such Valea Borcutului as a whole, but also other parts of
old neighbourhoods of the city), which urgently need canalization.
Some projects are on-going within a wider plan financed by the European Commission in the area of
urban infrastructure. The same is for the asphalted roads or improvement and development of new
and existing ones.
Community participation
From the discussions with all the representatives of public institutions, it came out that usually the
citizens, if they are of a mid and upper social status usually get involved in projects and plans of
improvement of their neighbourhoods.
Baia Mare municipality developed recently an important civic mobilization project which led, at the
end of 2012 to the creation of a network of Neighbourhood Civic Councils
30
(CCC from Romanian
name Consiliile Civice de Cartier). Accordingly to the Internet site of the mayoralty (see footnote)

30
http://www.baiamare.ro/ro/Viata-in-Baia-Mare/Viata-si-Comunitate/Consiliile-civice-de-cartier/Consiliile-civice-de-
cartier/
52
these CCC are groups of volunteers in the role of an active citizenship practice and through
involvement of as many as possible citizens in the process of development and improvement of the
quality of life in the city of Baia Mare. CCC rely each on the activity of minimum 15 volunteers, they
dont have any characteristic of political party, and they dont organize political based actions and
cannot be involved in political campaigns. Any citizen above 18 years old, inhabitant of Baia Mare,
may be member of a CCC.
Most of the actions of the mayoralty consisted in development of infrastructure: access through
paved / asphalted roads, canalization, water, electricity and public transportation. All these
processes imply consistent logistic, material and administrative processes which cannot involve
simple citizens. As the needs are important and at a very basic level, it is generally considered that
first, there is a need to solve elementary infrastructure and further on to think about smaller and
softer projects to better include the most excluded.
As for the inhabitants involvement and support, generally they expect to be consulted on themes
selected by the mayoralty rather than to come with their own ideas. As it concerns a financial
contribution, all interviewed persons declared that if they would have money, for sure they would
contribute to projects in the event that this would be required.
On the both sides of institutions and citizens, is clear evidence that specialized work should be
ensured by professionals, but the residents participation should be fostered at least with regard to
manual non-skilled works, such as cleaning or green areas maintenance. However, a participatory
mechanism to ensure proper informing of residents and participation in decision-making and
prioritization of activities would bring the interventions closer to the communities and would favour
ownership.
In relation to each of the disadvantaged community, there is a common acceptance on the fact that
people living in these areas should change their habits and attitudes, be more responsible.
This point of view is partially agreed upon by the members of these communities. It appeared that,
in a context where even for the authorities it is not that easy to develop their own projects, for the
poor and disadvantaged communities there is a need of consistent and complex support to lead
them to be able to create their own projects. One of the key ingredients is the money, of course, but
the second and always mentioned is the education.
Local development strategy/ plans
An integrated plan of urban development
31
is elaborated by the mayoralty for the municipality of
Baia Mare for the period 2010 2020. It includes main strategic development action-lines, in terms
of strategic vision and policy but also programmes to be implemented, some of them being already
implemented. As it concerns the vulnerable groups and the disadvantaged communities of the city,
the local plan envisages several action-lines:
- Development of infrastructure of health and social protection services for most vulnerable, which
includes further development of the complex of social services in Cuprom area,
- Social houses and health services for vulnerable people, mainly Roma, which are to be placed or
already have been placed in proper dwellings,
- A series of projects facilitating the access to education for young and adult vulnerable population
(mainly Ferneziu).
Within a discussion with the mayor, it came out that the municipality has a coherent plan concerning
the vulnerable groups which illegally occupy the public domain: for a part of disadvantaged
communities, respectively the Roma living in the pockets of severe poverty, adjacent to certain

31
http://www.baiamare.ro/ro/Administratie/Administratia-Publica-Locala/Strategia-de-dezvoltare/Strategia-de-
dezvoltare/
53
neighbourhoods, which soon are going to be demolished, they will receive some land, for about 200
square meters each, with connection to canalization, water and electricity, with an architectural plan
carried out by the staff of the City Hall and there they will build, based on their own forces, step
by step, a full household each, all these are to be realized in a semi-rural area of the city. This
indicate a clear strategy, at the level of mayoralty, which take into account a long-term plan of
action (which exceeds the mandate of a mayor) in addressing the issue of vulnerable and excluded
populations in Baia Mare city.
The plans imply that a series of stakeholders from public to private, including NGOs, have different
responsibilities in its achievement. As a general rule, the local development area includes an explicit
component regarding the communities from poor area, based on the national plan of action focused
on social inclusion of the most vulnerable groups, particularly Roma.
In any implemented project, a series of indicators are used in order to measure and ensure the
expected results are effectively reached. There is also a monitoring plan and some evaluations are
carried out, depending on the specificity of each project. It is obvious that most of the indicators are
clear as it concerns the infrastructure projects. Nevertheless, it didnt come out clear what are the
indicators the municipality is using to measure the progress concerning the wellbeing of vulnerable
groups. This does not mean that, for example, the Community residential centre for Roma does not
use specific indicators in the achievement of its results. The same as for the other implemented
projects. It simply means that most probably, at a larger scale, there is a need of increased capacity
building of the stakeholders to better understand and measure their expected results through a
more articulated monitoring and evaluation strategy and the use of relevant indicators.
The municipality has projects, proposals, ideas, and often even available financing but sometimes
everything is blocked by bureaucratic issues. Nevertheless, it is expected that the groups of
vulnerable people be more voluntary in supporting their own development, such as taking more care
of the cleaning and hygiene, but also getting more involved in actions influencing their own
communities.
The education is an issue which often appears as a key factor of success in the near future. If the
parents are too old to be recovered, the focus should be on the new generation, as means to
ensure the circle of poverty is stopped.
From the social assistance services to urbanism and the mayor, it came out that there are enough
professionals in place and that the need of assistance would rather consist in terms of financing
(social and infrastructure projects) but also in terms of knowledge on how to better involve the
communities characterised by such vulnerabilities as described above.

54

6.2 Field Report: Trgu Mure
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 26-29 May 2013 by Mihai Magheru and Georgiana
Neculau. The data collection activities included three interviews with institutional representatives
(mayor, chief architect, director of the Public Social Assistance Service), two focus groups discussions
with residents of disadvantaged communities (with 14 participants), and field visits in four poor
zones.
32
The participants to the focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories
as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hungarian 0 2 0 0 2 0
Roma 1 3 0 3 3 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (Valea Rece and Bneasa -'The Chateau')
and cover a variety of social situations. Thus, out of the 14 participants: (a) 8 persons come from
households with 3-4 members, while the others have 5-8 members; (b) 11 live in households
including 1 to 5 children (0-14 years); (c) in 6 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers
of a handicap or disability; (d) 3 participants have no formal education and another 8 have
completed gymnasium at most; (e) only 5 are employees (at the public cleaning services), only 1
pensioner, 6 are housewives and 2 are jobless actively looking for a job (informal, by the day); (f)
however, in 11 households there are between 1 and 4 wage earners and only 2 households benefit
of a pension (low level but regular); (g) 13 participants arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with
1955), 8 persons have always lived in the poor zone (even before 1989), while the others moved to
the poor zone rather recently, in 2005-2010; (h) 10 live in rather weak houses, 3 inhabit an
apartment in a block of flats, and 1 live in an improvised shelter; (i) 7 of them rented their dwelling
from the mayoralty, 6 are owners, and 1 has a shelter built on the public domain; (j) the participants
occupy dwellings between 18 and 158 m2, the majority of about 20-30 m2; (k) all 14 have electricity,
running water and sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

32
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (63 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
55
City profile


A multi-ethnic city.




The city of Trgu Mure is located in the Mure River valley and is the capital city of Mure County.
The city spreads out from Fortress Church in the centre of the town, built in the 14th century, to
form an area of 49.3 square kilometres. It is located at the centre of the historical region and lies at
the junction of three geographical area of Transylvania (the Plain, Mure Valley and Niraj Valley).
It is situated at 346 km by road from Bucharest, 171 km from Braov, 105 km from Cluj-Napoca and
124 km from Sibiu. As a particularity of the city, all these distances are much longer if it is to take the
train (often an additional 100 km for each) which indicates a very poor railway infrastructure linking
the city to other bigger cities in the region or with the capital. For instance, going from Bucharest to
Trgu Mure by train takes between 8 and 9 hours.
As of 2011 census data,
33
Trgu Mure has a population of 127,849 persons, a decrease from the
figure recorded in 2002 census with approximately 22,000 inhabitants (almost 15% decrease).
Among the total population 57,404 (44.9%) are Hungarians forming the largest urban Hungarian
community in Romania, surpassing that one of Cluj-Napoca. The city is officially bilingual and both
Romanian and Hungarian languages are recognized as official and used in public signage, education,
justice and access to public administration, however, in case of commercial signage and
advertisements the bilingual signage is usually used only by companies if they are owned by
Hungarians. As it concerns the Roma people, they make up 2.51% of the city's population which is
considerably lower than the proportion of almost 7% of Mure County. It is also to be acknowledged
that, during the discussion with local authorities representatives, Roma representatives and the
members of focus-groups, it came out a higher number of estimated Roma inhabitants with at least
1,400, making the percentage above higher with approximately 1%.
From an economical point of view, Trgu Mure followed a pattern characterizing almost all cities in
Romania where the traditional industry
34
(manufacturing units in the fields of mechanical
engineering, electrical products, chemicals, furniture, leather, textiles, glassware, porcelain and

33
http://www.mures.insse.ro/phpfiles/COMUNICAT_DATE_PROVIZORII_RPL_2011_judetul_MURES.pdf
34
http://www.tirgumures.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=236&lang=en
Mure
County
Romania map
56
food), was constantly shrinking in the nineties to a sharp decline and disappearance after
privatization. While industry in general has entered a downward trend, the evolution of one sub-
branches of chemical industry registered a significant growth (pharmaceutical products industry
currently holds a 15.8% share of the citys turnover business, with high labour productivity and with
no generated losses).
Moreover, despite the economic challenges of the last years, Trgu Mure kept one of the most
important economic agents in the chemistry industry in Romania, the Nitrogenous Fertilizer Plant
Trgu-Mure Azomures founded in 1962 as a producer of nitrogenous fertilizers.
Trgu Mure Municipality is a centre of excellence in medical care area, with elite units equipped
with highly-effective devices and specialized medical staff, a place where Emergency (SMURD)
service unit was firstly created in Romania and where an Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and
Transplant is a well-recognized unit of excellence, directly subordinated to the Ministry of Health.
More than 30% of the patients hospitalized in Mure County Clinical Emergency Hospital come from
other counties.
Trgu Mure is famous beyond the countrys boundaries through the University of Medicine and
Pharmacy, which attracts students both from the country and abroad, through the quality of
education, the exceptional facilities, and by the fact that education is available in other languages
than the national one: Hungarian and English. The research programs are carried out both at the
universities and in the hospital, most of them with partner institutions from abroad.
In the recent years the city continuously developed strong linkages with the suburbs area of several
existing communes (13 communes around, with labour migration mainly). Not necessarily
distributed throughout specific, well delimited neighbourhoods, the municipality of Trgu Mure
includes a mixt of houses-neighbourhoods both in the traditional city-centre and some other
marginal areas and typical communist block of flats neighbourhoods.
Not far from the centre of the city, 5 distinctive neighbourhoods associated with Roma people and
being characterized by specific particularities flourished during the last decades. As in other places
in the country (see Baia Mare report) the most disadvantaged and poor neighbourhoods or
communities are associated with the Roma people.
Here is the list of main neighbourhoods of Trgu Mure city:
- Remetea (untranslatable) in the extreme north-east part of the city, pretty far from centre
- Unirii (union) in north-east of the city, next to Remetea, at the south, closer to centre
- Orasul de sus (upper city) in the north part, close to centre
- Cornisa (cornice) practically linking the Orasul de sus to the Centre,
- Centru (centre) is the cultural, financial, administrative and commercial core of the city
- Budai (name) is virtually an extension of the centre towards Tudor Vladimirescu neighbourhood,
- Tudor Vladimirescu (name) is a typical socialist block of flats neighbourhood in the south-east
part of the city, the biggest and close to centre,
- Ady (name) is in the north west part of the city, a traditional small houses neighbourhood, close
to the centre (virtually a residential centre) and Rovinari (name) being a block of flats
neighbourhood at the north of Ady,
- Dambul Pietros and Libertatii (the rocky hill and liberty) are both at the south of Ady, Dambul
Pietros being the second biggest blocks-neighbourhood of Trgu Mure pretty close to centre,
- Orasul de jos (down-town) is not necessarily in the heart of the city, due to its development, but
is a typical between the wars buildings with gardens, not very far from centre, traditional,
- Mureseni (name) is a neighbourhood covering the south south-east part of the city, southern
than the Orasul de jos and thus the farthest from the centre.
As it concerns the vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged communities inhabited by Roma people, they
are to be found as follows: Valea Rece (cold valley), in the extreme south part of the city and also
57
the biggest Roma community in the city, placed between Budai and Orasul de jos neighbourhoods,
Zona Fnatelor (the pasture area) is in the extreme north part of the city, between Remetea and
Unirii neighbourhoods, Zona Bneasa (name), which includes two types of dwellings, the chateau
(former administrative buildings) and the living containers (provided by the mayoralty for people
previously living in very improper conditions in the same called Bneasa area), at the north of
Mureseni neighbourhood, Zona Dealului (the hill area, as there is a big hill in the south of the city),
at the south of Mureseni neighbourhood and Rovinari, some block of flats in the same
neighbourhood.
The urban disadvantaged areas
There is a general tendency of assimilating the concepts of poor, disadvantaged and vulnerable with
the Roma ethnics, mainly in localities where there are important groups, often condensed in an area
either central or in suburbs, of people of Roma ethnic minority. Trgu Mure follows the pattern of
such synonymy within the speech of all interviewed stakeholders. Accordingly to the typologies of
the study, all disadvantaged areas identified in the city correspond to the third scenario, isolated
poor zones, since most of the characteristics are representative: small areas within or beyond the
cities formal residential boundaries that are marginalized in a number of ways poor or no access
to infrastructure, high degrees of unemployment among residents, few or no education and health
centres, in some cases hazardous environmental conditions.
As presented briefly in the previous chapter, there are five main areas identified as being poor and
disadvantaged at the level of Trgu Mure city. Here below is a presentation of each one accordingly
to the declarations of the Director of Social Assistance Public Service (SPAS) of the municipality. The
further discussions with other stakeholders and mainly with the population from the areas and the
visits on the ground, largely confirmed these descriptions.
i) Valea Rece is a traditional area inhabited by Roma where there is an estimated number of
3,000 inhabitants, living in houses which may be simple improvised shelters from plastic, wood
and some cardboard but also huge houses (very few but of impressive size, belonging to the
richest). The area is recognized for its delinquency and it is recommended to visit on the ground
accompanied by a representative of the community. In this location the municipality invested
the most during the last years, mainly in infrastructure (main road with asphalt, running water
and canalization, but only for about two thirds of the neighbourhood, the rest living in very basic
and poor conditions).
ii) Zona Fnaelor is a smaller area than Valea Rece where about 500 Roma people are living in
modest but solid houses. It is an isolated community with basic infrastructure (road and running
water, canalization) and is considered with less delinquency than Valea Rece.
iii) Zona Bneasa is an area of transformation, since a part of the inhabitants who were living in
very unsafe wards were moved by the municipality in two types of dwellings: the chateau as it
is called by the inhabitants, is a former bourgeois villa, transformed by the communist regime
into offices and later on, by the municipality into a sort of block with individual rooms for
families and all infrastructure in place and the living containers which are now less numerous
than several years ago, about 10 from an initial 20. The infrastructure is in place but the
inhabitants, as key difference with those from chateau, do not have to pay a rent or the running
costs of water and electricity.
58
Source: Google maps.
59
iv) Zona Dealului is considered a traditional area inhabited by Roma in the sense of more stable
than Valea Rece, where the dynamic, fluctuation and migration are much higher. This area is not
endowed with the necessary infrastructure and the investments of the mayoralty are only about
to start (for instance the road is only in the phase of first layer of rocks but apparently the
canalization and water, although not functional yet, are built as underground infrastructure).
Nonetheless, this area may be consider, at least at the moment of visit, as lacking key / vital
infrastructure.
v) Rovinari neighbourhood is rather a former disadvantaged area inhabited by Roma since the
few blocks where Roma people used to live till several years ago are now entirely refurbished.
Ten years ago, people says, in a few blocks Roma people were living with their horses and other
animals and most of the apartments were practically destroyed (no windows, no doors, no
facilities). The mayoralty refurbished entirely the blocs and now, the inhabitants pay rent and
charges.
Valea Rece zone
Isolated poor area, mixture of houses and improvised shelters, very large (3,000 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
Valea Rece neighbourhood is situated in the southern part of the city and follows a street with the
same name (translated it means the cold valley) and it is very close to a newly built neighbourhood
called Belvedere (among newest and richest in Trgu Mure). The neighbourhood hosts about 3,000
inhabitants living in extremely contrasted dwellings. There are households including numerous
families counting often incredible number of inhabitants each: it is difficult to carry out a valid
assessment of the number since there is a high fluctuation of persons and, moreover, there are
households where over 150 persons are living together, sharing few beds and needing, in order to
rest each other, to turn by series of sleeping cycles says SPAS Director. There are also impressive
villas of small and rich families.
The area is traditionally inhabited by Roma people and is now a mixture of old and new houses,
comprising an area endowed with the city infrastructure (asphalted road, canalization, water,
electricity) and another part lacking, besides electricity, most of the infrastructure.
All the people who attended the focus group are stable inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the
few people met on the ground are also stable inhabitants. As per the declaration of the SPAS
Director, there is a high fluctuation of population, in the sense that stable population often hosts
acquaintances. But generally, the people in the neighbourhood are stable inhabitants and wish to
keep this status: we are born, we grew up and we had children here. We want also that our children
and our grandchildren to live and grow up in the area, but in better living conditions.
The neighbourhood is a mixture of houses and very few small blocks of flats the mayoralty
consulted with them and they said they dont want to live in blocks but rather in houses, having a
yard and a garden, and not being disturbed by neighbours living in upper-apartments and making
noise said the SPAS Director. There are 7 blocks with 2 levels and inhabitants have a large room per
family and possibility to cook. The bathrooms are in shared used, at each floor. As it concerns the
houses, in the centre there are few big houses belonging to the richest inhabitants, also the
representatives of the community. For the rest, the houses are very modest along the Valea Rece
street. At the top of the hill, after the asphalted road ends, there are for about a third of
communitys houses which lack entirely the infrastructure and are of very poor, often bad,
condition. As it comes to the ownership, besides the rooms in the blocks of flats where people need
60
to pay a rent and the running costs to the mayoralty, all the dwellings are not owned by inhabitants
since they are not officially registered in the public land register of the mayoralty.
A part of the inhabitants (some tens of people) are employed, most of them by the Public Cleaning /
Garbage company of the mayoralty but most of the people are extremely poor and practically live
from garbage or recycling: the people do not find where to work (woman in the FG) and people
are living out of garbage () they collect PET recipients and sell it to the local business owner in the
area (male in the FG). There are also people living out of bagging, most of them using their
children in the street to ask for money form people (another male in the FG).
There is a small group of rich people in the community and they are also the leaders in dialogue with
the mayoralty. They ensure a sort of management of local business, be it the public lavatories,
showers, stores, bars, churches. Some of them possess huge villas and very fancy cars.
In terms of public and private services in the community, it is to be mentioned that the mayoralty
invested in the creation of a lavatory with 6 washing machines and gender based bathrooms (three
places for men and three places for women). The keys of these facilities are kept by one of the
communitys representative who declares that anybody may have access whenever they want to.
Additionally, the evangelic church build a dispensary but it is not legally authorized by the health
public authorities. Apparently, a family medical doctor provides consultation weekly.
The neighbourhood does not possess other services than some stores, and children need to go to
school in a different place but public transportation is provided by the mayoralty.
All the participants to the focus group agreed that despite some problems when the parties are
pretty loud, the neighbourhood may be considered safe. Indirectly, though, they express often the
opinion that not everybody is honest and correct enough or do not respect the values of living
together which may lead to the idea of existence of some issues in terms of public safety, which are
generally address by calling the public police.
Valea Rece street is directly linked to one of the biggest boulevards in Trgu Mure and, for this
reason, it is considered its connectivity with the city is of good quality, including in terms of public
transportation passing at the corner of the street.
B. Key problems
It came out during the focus group that the dwelling ownership is considered to be the harshest
problem the inhabitants are confronted with. We live with the fear that during the night the police
comes and takes us out, who knows, in the forest or somewhere, because we are not registered in
the official land register of the municipality says a man from the FG.
In terms of housing conditions, the participants considered that those who arrived later in the
community, also called the aliens and who are living either on the secondary small streets at the
rights and left of Valea Rece street, either at the top of the hill, where the asphalt ends, are the ones
effectively living in bad housing conditions, which is also confirmed by field visit and other
discussions which took place with stakeholders.
The infrastructure is partially in place (main road, canalization and water) but for a third of the
community there is no infrastructure, people walking in the dust / mud, and getting water from a
public tap at the end of the street. The electricity is also a problem in the sense that the electricity
meters are placed at the top of the electricity poles, making them inaccessible to consumers. They
accuse the electricity provider of adding unjustified costs to the bills of electricity without for the
people to have the possibility of checking their real consumption.
The employment issue was raised often, in the sense that it is very difficult to find a job, in general
but also that employers avoid to hire gypsies. Other types of discrimination were evoked by all
members of the group, mainly in relation to school segregation of Roma children, including the
creation of special classes only for Roma.
61
All these problems are old and considered as worsening during the last years due to the economic
crisis, the difficulty of finding jobs and a general pauperisation of the population.
C. Types of interventions
Despite a general tendency of complaining about the problems which, in the context of the
research has genuine fundaments in the concrete reality most of the problems were tackled by the
mayoralty, although not at an expected degree of intensity (or at least not covering the wide
problem area this community is confronted with).
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the issue of public infrastructure was at least partially tackled
through big projects of developing road, canalization and water. Carried out mainly by the
mayoralty, through EU-EC funds, both pre-accession and structural funds, these projects results are
now evidence, and they are very visible on the ground.
In terms of schooling and education, several day-care and education centres were created, both in
partnership with NGOs or at the initiative of the mayoralty. At present all of them are financed
partially by the mayoralty and run by NGOs: Rozmarin day care centre for 80 pre-school children,
including from Valea Rece neighbourhood, Scoala Curcubeu (Rainbow school) with a capacity of
100 places and with a part of beneficiaries from Valea Rece and a day-care centre in Zona Dealului.
All the above experiences and practices are to be considered successful intervention since, to a
certain extent, they respond to local requirements, both from a public authority perspective and
from the beneficiaries side. It is worth noting that on both sides (Roma people and institutional
actors) the speech is often focused on the non-involvement of the vulnerable groups.
For instance, institutional stakeholders complain about several factors:
i) dirt and garbage, including lack of hygiene of vulnerable groups, in conditions where access to
services to address these aspects are available,
ii) non-respect of the goods and facilities, often followed by destruction of the goods,
iii) a sort of inner laziness, 'characteristic to these people',
iv) lack of education, and implicitly, impossibility of offering them jobs.
When it comes to community members, they complain about the following:
i) discrimination, based on ethnic origin, generally in any aspect of the life,
ii) marginalization of children at school, mainly due to their hygiene status,
iii) abuses (i.e. electricity provider), including the non-regulating of the land-property issue.
As a general note, all the interviewed people from community accepted that they should deploy
more efforts in contributing to their own acceptance, including by being better citizens, but it
appears it is not a fact but rather a declarative manner of being polite.
D. Community organization and cohesion
On a general tendency where people declare helping each other because of the same ethnic origin
we are all gypsies and we should help each-other, the richer and the poorer it came out during the
discussions that, in the end, everybody is fighting first for her / his own (family) wellbeing. Most
probably the aliens face more pressure from the rest of the community as they are considered to
generate also most of the problems, especially in the delinquency area.
62




63
A group of leaders are in charge with the dialogue between the community and the public
institutions. One of them is even employed by the mayoralty as an adviser to the mayor on Roma
issues. They appear to be a strong group and also sharing economic and commercial interests as
they own the stores and bars in the community. They also have a close relationship with the
evangelical pastor.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
As a general note, people prefer a one-way relationship with the mayoralty and other institutions
when it comes to projects and solutions to their problems. This means that the mayoralty should
conceive the plan and provide all the support for its achievement.
Nevertheless, when it comes to consultations, the residents enjoy being asked about what and how
to do, and generally to be informed, on the ground, in the community, about the projects affecting
their wellbeing. They dont feel the interaction with the institutions is necessarily worthy but accept
it as a bureaucratic step which may lead, with some luck, to succeeding in their demands.
The preferred contact is face-to-face, in a hearing where the representatives of the community talk
in front of the mayor. A general feeling is that the institutional stakeholders are aware about their
problems, but often they dont have the means to address them. From time to time (like in the case
of land property) they consider that high level people have high level interest and thus it is a matter
of personal willingness of the mayor to solve the issue of the lands where the neighbourhood is
built.
Bneasa - 'The Chateau' zone
Isolated poor area, small-medium size (around 500 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
Zona Bneasa is an area of transformation, since a part of the inhabitants who were living in very
unsafe wards were moved by the municipality in two types of dwellings: the chateau as it is called
by the inhabitants, is a former bourgeois villa, transformed by the communist regime into offices
and later on, by the municipality into a sort of block with individual rooms for families and all
infrastructure in place and the living containers which are now less numerous than several years
ago, about 10 from an initial 20. The infrastructure is in place but the inhabitants, as key difference
with those from chateau, do not have to pay a rent or the running costs of water and electricity. The
number of inhabitants is estimated (discussion with the members and visit on the ground) to about
500, although during the discussion with the SPAS director it came out that the figure used to be
bigger: there were for about 1,000 persons living there, but now are much fewer.
The area is traditionally inhabited by very poor people who came there in the early nineties and used
to live in very improper dwellings (plastic, paperboard, wood and no infrastructure). Now it includes
the chateau and the living containers and has asphalted road, canalization, water, electricity.
All the people who attended the focus group are stable inhabitants of the chateau (living there for
the last 6-9 years) and, prior to the chateau, were living the containers or came directly from their
former dwellings. Another part of residents live in the containers. The population is stable.
At its origins a refurbished building, the chateau became lately an insanitary place with very dirty
shared areas (halls, cuisine and bathrooms), sign that the people do not necessarily use to act jointly
in order to keep it clean and expect the mayoralty to take care of it.
64
A part of the inhabitants access social benefits or pensions and very few are employees of the Public
Cleaning / Garbage company of the mayoralty. Most of the people are extremely poor and
practically live from garbage. Some recognize they are bagging together with their children.
No clear leader was identified in the community and people tend to act individually when it comes
to have a dialogue with public institutions.
In terms of services in the community it came out that no services are in place, besides the classical
infrastructure of roads, canalization, running water, electricity and gas. There is easy access by bus
or walking (3 bus-stops) to the school, for the children but there is no medical facility. Most of
inhabitants declared they have their family medical doctors in different neighbourhoods (Rovinari
and Valea Rece), because the medical doctors there agreed to register them on their lists.
Their neighbourhood is considered safe, because everybody knows everybody even though,
maybe, people from outside may be afraid of entering their community because they are gypsies.
Bneasa area is directly linked to the rest of the city through the road named the same.
B. Key problems
All people in the chateau are paying a rent and the running costs. Often, the costs are higher than
their own income and the mayoralty operates evacuations. It is not clear where the evacuated
people are going, but the arrivals are always from the living containers. From the public institutions
perspective this is the road to making people responsible and accountable but for the residents this
is among the most traumatic events that may occur.


On one hand, there is the matter of running costs and the rent. The inhabitants declare that the
costs are so high that often they cannot afford to pay on time so the debts are increasing, which
leads to evacuation. They are reproaching the mayoralty that it accepts no delays and expect the
public authority to be more sympathetic.
On the other hand, as a result of the first issue, new arrivals came into the chateau. It appeared that
all interviewed persons from the chateau would prefer to keep the same neighbours and not to
65
accept the new arrivals from the community of containers. Besides a sort of human jealousy that
people from containers do not have to pay anything for their dwellings, the biggest fear is that they
are not accountable and will not respect the rules of the chateau, potentially engendering additional
problems (dont pay bills, do not respect inhabitants, are violent, etc.)
The employment issue was raised often, in the sense that it is very difficult to find a job, in general
but also that employers avoid to hire gypsies.
C. Types of interventions
Despite a general tendency of complaining about the problems which, in the context of the
research has genuine fundaments in the concrete reality the mayoralty managed to arrange a
series of aspects:
- Transformation of the former colony of improper dwellings into a small area of containers with
access to water, electricity and road,
- Refurbishing the chateau and placing residents in the spirit of responsibility and accountability,
- Ensuring transportation for the children who attend schools or centres like Rozmarin
All the above experiences and practices are to be considered successful intervention since, to a
certain extent, they respond to local requirements, both from a public authority perspective and
from the beneficiaries side. It is worth noting that on both sides (poor people and institutional
actors) the speech is often focused on the non-involvement of the vulnerable groups. The
information provided in the section on Valea Rece is entirely relevant for Bneasa.
D. Community organization and cohesion
The difference between the chateau and the containers seem to be more significant than those
between the richest and the poorest in Valea Rece area. The community of the chateau is well
structured and people are close to each other. The same for the community from the container, but
when it comes to put them together, the problems occur as described in chapter B.
There is no clear leader in the community but as a general note, it appeared that women are more
organized in Bneasa area and have a greater voice than in Valea Rece, which is more patriarchal.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
As in other poor zones, people prefer a one-way relationship with the mayoralty and other
institutions when it comes to projects and solutions to their problems. This means that the
mayoralty should conceive the plan and provide all the support for its achievement.
As it concerns specific needs, they act individually. A general feeling is that the stakeholders are
aware about the problems but often they dont have the means to address them. From time to time
(like in the case of evacuations) they consider that high level people have high level interest and
thus it is a matter of personal willingness of the mayor to solve the issue (ensuring free of charge
dwellings). There is general feeling of fear that the mayoralty wants to get rid of all gypsies and poor
in the city.

66
Dealului zone
Isolated poor area, medium size (about 1,000 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
Zona Dealului is an area of transformation, traditionally inhabited by Roma people since the Second
World War. The authorities consider the inhabitants as wealthy but the visit on the ground proved
rather the contrary.
Main road is about to be asphalted and there is no canalization and running water (the
infrastructure appears to be created and it is expected to be functional till the end of the year). The
houses are of poor condition, for about a half of them in solid resistant materials (bricks, tiles) and
the other half rather in improvised materials (plastic, paperboard, different materials).
A part of inhabitants access social benefits or pensions and other part are employees of the Public
Cleaning / Garbage company of the mayoralty. It appears, during a discussion with a community
leader, that traditionally people from this community were employed of the cleaning company. It
also came out that people are respectful and, despite difficulties, try to do their best.
The neighbourhood is considered safe, the main problem being the lack of infrastructure.
B. Key problems
The lack of infrastructure has appeared to be the biggest problem in this community. It affects daily
habits like accessing the water for daily activities: a tap, at the end of the main road, deserves all the
community, and those living upper on the hill or at the other end of the neighbourhood have to walk
for about 1.5 km of to access water. When the weather conditions are bad, this reality transforms
into a serious adventure with a lot of mud.
The same applies for children going to school, since they have to take the same road, and,
additionally, to find a bus or simply walk to the school, which is in the next neighbourhood.
C. Types of interventions
Only now the types of interventions like in Valea Rece or Baneasa are about to commence in
Dealului area. Everybody is keen to see their lives changed by a good road, by running water at least
in front of their yard and canalization.
On the education side, the mayoralty and an NGO opened a day-care centre mainly for the children
in Dealului zone. Nevertheless, it came out that during the rainy season, children get so dirty that
they are not accepted into classes or simply refuse to go because of the difficulty and the shame.
D. Community organization and cohesion
It appears that the community leader knows well the area and there is a sort of traditional spirit
which animates the neighbourhood. It is more proper than the others, apparently people are more
respectful one with each-other and, definitely, the team leader is not only charismatic but also well
respected by the community as a whole.
67
Fnaelor and Rovinari zones
Small-medium areas (less than 500 persons), not disadvantaged

As mentioned previously, Zona Fnaelor is a smaller area where less than 500 Roma people are
living in modest but solid houses. It is an isolated community with basic infrastructure (road and
running water, canalization) and is considered with less delinquency than Valea Rece. The
neighbourhood was mentioned only by the representative of SPAS and its description was very brief.
As is concerns Rovinari neighbourhood nothing from the past is now in place. Local stories, telling
that it was inhabited by Roma people who, 10 years ago, were living with their horses and other
animals and most of the apartments were practically destroyed (no windows, no doors, no facilities),
are now simple history. The neighbourhood is well refurbished; it even appears that the former
blocks inhabited by Roma are now in better condition than those around. The atmosphere is of a
typical block of flats neighbourhood in the suburbs.
Crosscutting issues
The municipality of Trgu Mure is in the process of validating a third generation of General Urban
Plan (PUG in Romanian Plan Urbanistic General) which is a comprehensive analysis and plan of
action for the next 10 years in terms of both infrastructure and urban planning of the city as a whole.
At least from a formal / official perspective, as it came out from the discussion at the level of the
architect office, the disadvantaged areas (which are predominantly populated by Roma people)
appeared spontaneously at a certain moment in the past (this may vary from tens of years to very
few years). In this respect, these areas, which originally were populated by small groups in
inappropriate dwellings, and which further on became bigger and bigger, couldnt be included in
concrete plans but only recently (e.g. the projects in Valea Rece).
Community participation
From the discussions with all the representatives of public institutions, it came out that usually the
citizens, if they are of a mid and upper social status usually get involved in projects and plans of
improvement of their neighbourhoods.
Most of the actions of the mayoralty consisted in development of infrastructure: access through
paved / asphalted roads, canalization, water, electricity and public transportation. All these
processes imply consistent logistic, material and administrative processes which cannot involve
simple citizens. As the needs are high and at a very basic level, it is generally considered that first,
there is a need to solve elementary infrastructure and further on to think about smaller and softer
project to better include the most excluded.
As for the inhabitants involvement and support, generally they expect to be consulted on themes
selected by the mayoralty rather than to come with their own ideas. As it concerns a financial
contribution, all interviewed persons declared that if they would have money, for sure they would
contribute to projects in the event that this would be required. On the both sides of institutions and
citizens, is clear evidence that specialized work should be ensured by professionals and the
residents involvement to be limited to some help, such as cleaning or green areas maintenance.
In relation to each of the disadvantaged community, there is a common acceptance on the fact that
people living in these areas should change their habits and attitudes, be more responsible. This point
of view is partially agreed upon by the members of these communities. It appeared that, in a context
68
where even for the authorities it is not that easy to develop their own projects, for the poor and
disadvantaged communities there is a need of consistent and complex support to lead them to be
able to create their own projects. One of the key ingredients is the money, of course, but the second
and always mentioned is the education.
Local development strategy/ plans
An integrated plan of urban development
35
is elaborated by the Mayoralty for the municipality of
Trgu Mure for the period 2010-2020. It includes main strategic development action-lines, in terms
of strategic vision and policy but also programmes to be implemented, some of them being already
implemented. As it concerns the vulnerable groups and the disadvantaged communities of the city,
the local plan envisages several action-lines:
- Development of infrastructure of health and social protection services for most vulnerable, which
includes further development of the Rozmarin centre, city social canteen and counselling services
for parents and vulnerable families,
- Social houses and health services for vulnerable people, mainly Roma, which are to be placed or
already have been placed in proper dwellings,
- A series of projects facilitating the access to education for young and adult vulnerable population.
This plan implies that a series of stakeholders from public to private, including NGOs, have different
responsibilities in its achievement. As a general rule the local development area includes an explicit
component regarding the communities from poor area, as an effect of a national plan of action
focused on social inclusion of the most vulnerable groups, particularly Roma.
In any implemented project, a series of indicators are used in order to measure and ensure the
expected results are effectively reached. There is also a monitoring plan and some evaluations are
carried out, depending on the specificity of each project. It is obvious that most of the indicators are
clear as it concerns the infrastructure projects. Nevertheless, it didnt come out clear what are the
indicators the municipality is using to measure the progress concerning the wellbeing of vulnerable
groups. This does not mean that, for example, the Rozmarin centre does not use specific indicators
in the measurement of its results. The same as for the other implemented projects. It simply means
that most probably, at a larger scale, there is a need of increased capacity building of the
stakeholders to better understand and measure their expected results through a more articulated
monitoring and evaluation strategy and the use of relevant indicators.
The municipality has projects, proposals, ideas, and often even available financing but sometimes
everything is blocked by bureaucratic issues. Nevertheless, it is expected that the groups of
vulnerable people be more voluntary in supporting their own development, such as taking more care
of the cleaning and hygiene, but also getting more involved in actions influencing their own
communities.
The education is an issue which often appears as a key factor of success in the near future. If the
parents are too old to be recovered, the focus should be on the new generation, as means to
ensure the circle of poverty is stopped.
From the social assistance services to urbanism and the mayor, it came out that there are enough
professionals in place and that the need of assistance would rather consist in terms of financing
(social and infrastructure projects) but also in terms of knowledge on how to better involve the
communities characterised by such vulnerabilities as described above.


35
http://www.tirgumures.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=194&Itemid=201&lang=ro
69

6.3 Field Report: Strehaia
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 12-13 June 2013 by Ctlina Iamandi-Cioinaru, Andreea
Trocea and Oana Fechete. The data collection activities included three interviews with institutional
representatives (vice mayor, urban planner, inspector at the Public Social Assistance Service), two
focus groups discussions with residents of disadvantaged communities (with 15 participants), and
field visits in three zones.
36
The participants to the focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-
ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 0 5 1 0 9 0
Roma 0 0 0 0 0 0

The participants to our study come from two areas (city area and one village) and cover a variety of
social situations. Thus, out of the 15 participants: (a) 2 persons come from one-person households, 9
belong to households with 2-4 members, while the others have 5-7 members; (b) only 7 live in
households including 1 or 2 children (0-14 years); (c) in 8 households at least one member (child or
adult) suffers of a handicap or disability; (d) 1 participant has no formal education, 1 has only
primary education, other 4 persons have completed gymnasium, 7 have vocational education, and 2
are high school graduates; (e) only 1 person is employee, 1 is informal worker, 3 are pensioners, and
10 are housewives; (f) consequently, in only 2 households there is a wage earner, but 8 households
benefit of a pension; (g) 93% of participants arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with 1943), and
75% have never moved; (h) 13 live in houses and 2 inhabit apartments in a block of flats; (i) all 15
own their dwelling; (j) dwellings have between 25 and 80 m2, the majority of about 30-40 m2; (k) all
15 are connected to electricity, 11 have water pipe in the courtyard, but only 3 have sewer (done on
their own).
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

36
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (96 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
70
City profile


An economically
disadvantaged city.



Strehaia is a small town located in Mehedini County, in the southern part of Romania - Oltenia, 48
km from the capital-city of the County - Drobeta-Turnu Severin, on the Motru River valley. With a
stable population of about 9,800 persons
37
in 3,326 households (2011 census data), Strehaia is the
second largest town in the County, after the Municipality of Drobeta Turnu-Severin. However, the
population has registered a sharp decline since 2002, with about 17%.
Under the local authority of Strehaia are six localities Hurduceti, Comanda, Lunca Banului,
Ciochiua, Sltinicul Mare, Sltinicul Mic, plus three villages Meni, Motruleni, Stnceti. All these
are considered to be the suburbs of the town and host about a quarter of total population. The town
is divided in four areas (with different taxation regimes), the 'city' being separated by the localities
found next to the national road between Craiova and Drobeta Turnu-Severin and respectively by the
isolated villages to which the only access are two suspended bridges (made of iron or wood) over
the Motru River.
With a reduced area of apartment buildings, and o large part of house districts with small gardens,
the life style of the population of Strehaia is predominantly rural, especially in the suburbs/villages.
The town includes a relatively large Roma community. All city areas are 'mixed, rich next to poor
people, but the richest are the Roma with palaces' (located next to the national road to Craiova).
Once a town with a full industry sector that accounted for the employment of the population of the
town and all the souring areas, with a good coverage of gender specialized jobs (heavy industry and
manufacture), nowadays, Strehaia is a highly economical disadvantaged town. Due to lack of
strategy and a shortage of investors in the area, almost all the industry has been dissolved, with only
one factory being functional in present, working at a very low capacity, and offering poor conditions

37
50% men and 50% women.
Mehedini
County
Romania map
71
of employment (2/3 of the minimum wage). Therefore employment is accounted mostly by the
public sector and the tertiary sector, as in many other former industrialized towns: 'overall only 40-
50 jobs are available within town, the rest are employed in the public institutions or are pensioners'
(vice mayor).
In the education sector, the city has 5 kindergartens (1 with long day care program), 4 schools and a
high school, thus providing a good covering of the school population needs. The health sector on the
other hand, is one of the local authorities main concerns, as the local Hospital was closed in 2011.
To provide a minimal health care to the population, there are currently 4 specialized departments
and 1 admitting facility with a capacity of 25 beds.
The urban disadvantaged areas
In terms of poor areas, Strehaia as a whole is an economically disadvantaged community including
areas with poor access to infrastructure, particularly the remote villages (which are more rural
than urban in all aspects).
Figure 2. Map of Strehaia and its component localities
Source: Moldovan and Man (June 2013) based on 2011 census preliminary data.
A. Area history and general description
See also City profile above.
The employment in Strehaia town is very low. The process of deindustrialization, determined by the
lack of local/regional strategic planning, and/or the self-interest of different actors (either public or
private), led in time to the economic decay of the town. Today, in the industry sector of Strehaia
there is only one active branch - the clothing manufacturing factory, which is working at low capacity
72
and provides employment mostly for the women in the area, in return of low working benefits.
Employment in the area is also provided by the public and tertiary sector.
Because of the extent of the economic difficulties in the whole Mehedini County, employment in
other cities/towns is also very hard to find. To make ends meet, the unemployed are active as day-
workers in the informal sector, which provides limited options of low-paid, seasonal, manual jobs.
The main source of income for the largest part of the population remains the subsistence
agriculture.
For many families, livelihood is accounted by pensions, Minimum Guaranteed Income (Law 416),
38

child allowances, and other forms of social welfare (financial aid for wood supply, etc.). Even if the
need for social welfare is high among the population, not all families in need benefit of it, either
because of legislative loops, bureaucracy, poor understanding of their rights, or in some cases due to
inefficient communication with the authorities (accountable on both sides).
Because of the general economic situation, the income differences do not result in the segregation
of poor and rich neighborhoods. However, two exceptions can be highlighted, attributed more to
ethnicity than to income, a traditional Roma rich neighborhood, and a poor hetero-identified Roma
neighborhood Rudari area (not traditional, with little cultural ethnic traits remained). The
traditional Roma neighborhood is in terms of goods, especially houses, much richer than all the
other areas of the town, be it Roma or non-Roma. The amount of possessions of some members of
this community makes somehow controversial the means by which this wealth has been acquired.
B. Key problems
The main problems, besides lack of jobs, refer to underdeveloped infrastructure and poor access to
social services, in the opinion of both population and local authorities. Lack of infrastructure is even
more acute in some suburbs, especially in the remote villages.
The water supply and sewage systems are very limited, with less than half of the town and only one
out of nine suburbs having this type of infrastructure, thus entailing a low quality of living for the
population. The sewage system is 35-40 years old and after 1990 the mayoralty succeeded to repair
and modernize only 1 kilometer. Consequently, in some areas, the system exists but is not
functional. The water supply system was built in 1960-1965, so particularly during the drought
summers the water does not reach the 3rd and 4th floors from the block of flats. Recently, the
municipality modernized it partially but to an insufficient extent. Moreover, because of the
fragmented development of this type of infrastructure, some areas have only water supply and no
sewage system.
Another issue identified in the Strehaia area is the shortage of public health services, due to the
closing of the local Hospital in 2011. The four specialized departments that are currently assisting
patients (within a multifunctional center) dont cover all the needs of the population that used to
attend the Hospital. Patients need to find assistance at the Hospital in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, which
can be difficult especially for those with very low or no income. In some cases another problem
arises, because of the distance, patient well-being can be jeopardized. Moreover, the development
of the local Hospital was one the objectives of the local authorities, for which external funding was
found and approved. However the health institution was closed exactly before the project actually
started: 'Yes ... well, although the hospital was in the city center and it served also 12 adjacent
communes and it won an Axis 3 - Improving the Quality of Life project, it was closed [...] so I was
notified of Craiova Development Agency on March 30 that we won and on March 31 have appeared
the famous list of cities that should close down their hospital by April 1, and I appeared on the list
bada-thump, two hospitals from Mehedinti County, Strehaia and Vnju Mare, though at that time we
benefited from a number of specialized medical staff, nurses ... all were transferred' (vice mayor).

38
At the research moment, 230 MGI files were in payment (Legea 416/2001).
73
The road infrastructure is very poor, most of these being cobbled at most. Some investments were
made by the local authorities in regards with the improvements of the road conditions and public
spaces (asphalt concrete, sidewalks, playgrounds, etc.).
Focusing only on Strehaia town (without the suburbs) other issues are highlighted by the local
community: a deficient waste management and a high number of aggressive stray dogs. Little or no
action has been taken in regards to these issues. In addition, people are dissatisfied that 'live in rural,
but pay land and house taxes for urban'.
Early school dropout is a problem with a higher incidence among the traditional Roma community. If
in other communities (Roma or non-Roma) this behavior is usually linked to lack of financial
resources, in this case other factors seem to be involved. The projects made by the School and the
Child Protection and Social Services that addressed this issue have had little or no impact so far.
One other concern of the local Social Services is the lack of public services provided for persons with
disabilities (approx. 150 1st degree, approx. 700 2nd degree). However, due to the lack of local
resources and other problems that needed to be addressed, this issue has not yet been pushed on
the agenda of local authorities.
As already stated, the suburbs are to some extent even more disadvantaged in regards with the
infrastructure, especially the villages located on the other side of the Motru River. Only one suburb
is provided with running water Comanda, for which a sewage system will be developed in the near
future. Besides the lack of utilities (water supply, sewage system), a severe problem of the suburbs is
the road-access infrastructure. This is the case of the Meni and Motruleni villages that are
connected with the town thru suspended wooden gangways that allow only pedestrian access.
These gangways are easily destroyed by floods, leaving the population in almost complete isolation.
This is why many residents of these areas have left the villages and moved to Comanda, buying or
renting houses (mostly immigrants that work abroad in the western European countries). Again, the
lack of financial resources has made difficult for the local authorities to invest in this issue.
The Rudari area located in the Comanda suburb distinguishes itself by the dwelling ownership status,
most of them possess the houses but dont have ownership of the land on which the houses were
build. In most cases, they inherited the houses from their parents, but with no attached documents.
They have the right to live in those houses, but for obtaining the ownership title they need to
address court, which is time consuming and costly for poor people.
C. Types of interventions
The local authorities put a lot of effort into developing infrastructure and in modernizing schools,
however, with limited success. Roads, water supply and sewage systems were constantly addressed
in the last ten years, through different projects aimed to provide financial aid from the GOR or from
the European funding mechanisms. Few of these attempts had any outcomes, due to extended delay
of financing, lack of GOR provisions, or due to: 'Political intervention [...] all these political changes
and interventions ... We hoped so much, it was so difficult to cover the preparation phase, and then
we strived so much to reach the consolidated budget for getting support for our projects. Yet we did
not solve anything. So, for little towns like us, it is an imposed clear political rift, you can record and
tell anywhere' (vice mayor). Besides the development of the water supply and sewage system in the
communist period, all new investments were realized mostly from local funding, targeting small,
specific areas.
However, this issue could be overcome in the near future, as the local authorities of Strehaia are
partners in a regional development project (POS Mediu) that aims the water supply and sewage
system in Strehaia and the Comanda suburb, which should start in July-August 2013. Thus, making
the development of the water supply and sewage system in the others suburbs the next priority of
the local authorities.
74
A barrier encountered by the local authorities in their efforts to develop the infrastructure and
public services was also the co-financing requested in almost all projects, amount that many times is
too high for the revenues of a small town, with low economic activity.
The educational units are modernized and well endowed with utilities (central heating, water, indoor
toilets etc.), with the exception of the high school (another project that 'was politically ceased in
2009'). For children from remote areas, school buses are available. However, during rainy periods,
there are frequent problems.
D. Community organization and cohesion
In terms of cohesion, Strehaia is a typical small town from Romania. Kin and proximity networks are
quite strong and active, people know rather well each other. However, collective actions related to
public goods are rare. The civic participation is also rather low.
The NGOs active in the area either left the city or have drastically reduced their activities. 'They used
to be very active in 2000-2004, they came and asked support or pushed for various actions. Now are
gone or anyway they do not ask at all for our participation or support' (vice mayor).
E. Residents interaction with institutions
Because little interventions of the local authorities were translated in improvements of living
conditions and general wellbeing, the perception of the residents is that the local authorities either
dont follow with gusto their objectives, are not helped by the regional/national representatives, or
they engage in preferential behavior. Due to an inefficient communication and a default lack of trust
in the local representatives, residents tend to belief that their problems are not taken in
consideration, and so addressing the authorities most probably is a 'waste of time'. This is why public
consultation is highly valued and seen mostly as a way to express each one needs/problems, even
though there is a general consent that the local representatives know the needs of the community.

75

76

Crosscutting issues
Community participation
From the discussions with all the representatives of public institutions, it came out that the citizens
usually get involved in projects and plans of improvement of their neighbourhoods, 'only money are
missing and not the good will to participate'. However, no example was produced.
The residents are willing to participate through consultation and labor to improve their living
conditions. However, they consider that besides their personal contribution, the participation of the
beneficiaries of the Minimum Guaranteed Income should be mandatory in any project/intervention,
as they should by law provide community work for the received income.
Local development strategy/ plans
Strehaia does not have a General Urban Plan (PUG in Romanian Plan Urbanistic General), that is a
comprehensive analysis and plan of action for the next 10 years in terms of both infrastructure and
urban planning of the city as a whole. At least according to our interviewees, Strehaia has only a
Local Regulation for Urbanism and Zone Urban Plans for the city and the component localities.
The main plans for the future, similar to the actions from the last ten years, focus on the
development of infrastructure. However, major concerns are linked to the future regarding the risk
of depopulation in the area: 'what I see as a local is a shift of everything good from places like ours
to zones with improved access to everything, with a better life. Everyone runs away, and tomorrow
or the day after tomorrow our town will remain with only 5,000 souls and no leading force, no
specialists, no [...] who will run it in 20-25 years?' (vice mayor)
77

6.4 Field Report: Brila
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 19-21 June 2013 by Bogdan Corad and Simona Anton.
The data collection activities included four interviews with institutional representatives (mayor,
architect, director of the Public Social Assistance Service and director of the Department for
Strategies, Development Projects and International Relations), two focus groups discussions with
residents of disadvantaged communities (with 15 participants), and field visits in four poor zones.
39

The participants to the focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 0 6 0 1 4 0
Roma 0 0 0 1 3 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (Lacu Dulce and KM 10) and cover a variety
of social situations. Thus, out of the 15 participants: (a) 6 persons come from households with 1-4
members, while the others have 7-9 members; (b) 12 live in households including 1 to 5 children (0-
14 years); (c) in 8 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers of a handicap or disability;
(d) 4 participants have no formal education and another 9 have completed gymnasium at most; (e)
only 2 are employees, 1 is informal workers, 10 are housewives and 2 are jobless actively looking for
a job (informal, by the day); (f) consequently, in only 3 households there is a wage earner and only 2
households benefit of a pension (low level but regular); (g) 93% of participants arrived in the city
before 1989 (starting with 1952), and half of them (53%) moved to the poor zone before 1989; (h) 9
live in self-constructed weak houses, 5 inhabit an apartment in a block of flats, and 1 live in an
improvised shelter; (i) 5 rented their flat from the mayoralty, 9 are owners (j) the participants
occupy dwellings between 6 and 36 m2; (k) 11 have electricity, 7 have water and 5 have sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing the
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

39
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language are available at
request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could not be
recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
78
City profile



A multicultural city on the
Danube.

Brila is the first city of Brila county in terms of population size and it is the capital city of the
county. The city is located in the south-eastern part of Romania, 200 km north-east of Bucharest.
The city counts for 208,464 inhabitants in January 2012, according the National Institute of
Statistics
40
, with 47% represented by men and 53% by women. The 0-14 years old bracket represents
12% of the population, the 15-59 years old 68% and the 60+ years old 20%. The 2002 census data
indicate that the Russians (Lipoveni) represent the largest minority group in Brila (1.6%), while the
Roma represents only 0.7% of the total population.
Brila is an important port to the Danube River and it has a long tradition in commercial activities
and shipyard building and repairing industries. During the communist regime, Brila experienced an
intense process of industrialization. The existing industry was nationalized and new industrial plants
and factories were built. The largest industrial plant was built in the 60s at about 10 kilometers out
of the city (the Chemical Plant) and included a Pulp and Paper Factory, a Chemical Fibers Factory and
a research centre. In the 80s, over 15,000 people were employed at the Chemical Plant. The city
economy was negatively affected by the restructuring and privatization of industrial units after 1990.
The mid 90s were the worst for the local economy as the most important industrial units faced
restructuration and then ceased their activity (including the Chemical Plant). The local economy has
known a revival beginning with 2000. The economic distribution of the economic sectors in 2010
shows a preponderance of firms activating in trade and services with 44% and 32% respectively. The
industry has only 11% of the total number of firms.
41


40
TEMPO Online, Population at the beginning of the year http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/
41
Urbanproiect INCD (2012) Actualization of General Urban Plan. Brila. Socio-economical analysis.
http://www.primariabraila.ro:7200/Documente%20Pdf/AS/PUG%20Braila%20-%20Studiu%20socio-economic%202011/PUG%20BRAILA%20-
%20Studiu%20socio-economic.pdf

Brila
County
Romania map
79
Brila municipality covers an area of 4,392.30 ha and consists of three main parts: (1) the city; (2) the
Salt Lake resort; and (3) the former Industrial Plant Chiscani.
The city has a concentric distribution around the Historical Centre. Its main neighborhoods are:
Historical Centre, Dorobani, Radu Negru, Ansamblul Buzului, Viziru, Hipodrom, Obor, Grii, Izlaz,
Brilia, Progresului-Vidin, Lacu Dulce, Chercea. At 10 kilometers out of the city there is the
Kilometru 10 neighborhood, near the former Chemical Plant.
The urban disadvantaged areas
The citys areas identified as being poor or disadvantaged are the ones with large numbers of Roma
population. Even though not all residents of these poor areas declare themselves Roma, the
representatives of local authorities refer to them as being Roma communities.
During the fieldwork there were identified four disadvantaged areas:
(1) Lacu Dulce area of houses located in the west part of Brila, delimited by Rmnicu Srat
Street, the railway and the west boundaries of the city; the community living here is quite
large, of about 1500 inhabitants.
(2) KM 10 (the colony from kilometre 10) area of blocks of apartments located at 10
kilometres south-west of Brila, near a former industrial plant; the buildings are owned by
the municipality and the residents pay rent; the community here counts for about 900
members.
(3) Catanga area of houses, part of Chercea neighborhood, with a community of about 500
people; the streets that make up the area are: Cireului, Olteniei, Rapsodiei, Pescruului,
Oltului, G. Ibrileanu and Zimbrului.
(4) Arcadiei represented by two blocks of flats located in the Historical Center of the city, in
the Arcadia Street number 10 and 12; the buildings are owned by the municipality and the
residents pay rent; the community counts for about 100 people.
(5) The Historical Center was also mentioned (by the municipality representatives)as having a
large number of poor residents, apart from those living in Arcadiei Street, but they are not
concentrated in a specific area. The neighborhood is a mixture of private old houses, many
renovated and modernized, and old houses owed by the municipality, in different stages of
degradation, with poor tenants.
(6) NATO block a block of flats located in Hipodrom neighborhood.
All these four areas can be considered marginalized urban areas (third type of the theoretical
typology). As it will be described in the following chapters, all mentioned areas cumulate
disadvantages on all dimensions: housing, infrastructure, human capital, employment.
Brila has also other areas with poor access to infrastructure, but they are small, only 1-2 streets in
some houses neighborhoods. At the present, the municipality has ongoing or futures projects to
build the infrastructure in these areas too.


80
Source: Google maps.
81
Lacu Dulce zone
Very poor area of large size (about 1,500 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
Lacu Dulce is the largest marginalized area of the city, both in size and population. The
neighborhood is dated in the mid 60s, when many people moved in Brila from the rural areas to
work in the city factories and built their houses there. Those who later could afford a better house,
in better areas of the city, moved out of the neighborhood.
At the present, the community living there is poor, as the main income source of its members are:
informal work in agriculture, collection of recyclable garbage (scrap metal and plastic bottles),
Minimum Income Guaranteed and child allowances. The poverty is directly linked to the low levels of
education of its residents, that does not allow them to find qualified jobs, and to the large number of
family members (many children) the adults have to provide for.
The area resembles very closely a poor rural community, with poor houses and no infrastructure; the
general aspect is getting worst as one approach the areas close to the outer boundary of the city.
The better looking houses, built with better quality materials are few and belong to those who
worked abroad in the last years and came back with some money. Most of the houses are very
small, insufficient for the households needs and built with poor quality materials.
The majority of the residents has property papers for the houses. But the neighborhood knows an
ongoing expansion towards the western boundary (outer boundary of the city) and the newly built
houses have no authorization for construction from the municipality, therefore the residents have
no property papers.
The neighborhood is perceived by its residents as being safe. The participants to the focus group
declared that few years ago there were issues with the public safety and crime in the area, but these
problems solved itself, as the trouble makers left Lacu Dulce and went aboard.
The community members have good access to public and private services. There is one school in the
area and also there are a few shops. The access to other institutions/ services (like hospital,
pharmacy) is easy, as the neighborhood is well connected to the city though the public
transportation. The community has also a medical mediator and a school mediator.
B. Key problems
The main problems the residents from Lacu Dulce are confronted with are:
poverty
poor housing conditions
lack of infrastructure.
For many of the community members, to provide even the food necessary for the entire family is a
daily challenge. The few lei they manage to obtain after selling the collected recyclable materials are
insufficient to make the ends meet. Even those who receive social benefits have to find other
sources of incomes, as the sums received are very small, especially considering that all have large
families.
Due to the low incomes, they cannot afford to make improvements to their houses: to build more
rooms as the families go larger, or to repair the houses that initially were built with poor quality
materials and are deteriorated.
82
In terms of infrastructure, the lack of asphalted roads and the lack of sewage were considered as
main problems. The participants to the focus group declared that their roads become impracticable
when it rains. Also there is a real need of a system for collecting the used water, which is now
thrown away in the small yards or in the streets.
Other problem identified in the area is the uncollected garbage. Not all households have contracts
with the sanitation firm and therefore the waste is thrown in various places in the neighborhood.
C. Types of interventions
The main interventions made in Lacu Dulce have been focused on children. The neighborhood school
was renovated by the local authority and a social multifunctional centre for children was built,
through a project of the Romanian Social Development Plan.
The centre did not have a good start in the community, because the parents were unhappy that the
children were not offered a meal while staying there. Therefore, after the opening, there were no
children in the centre. The local authorities were forced to find resources and provide at least a
snack to the children, in order to have the centre functional. The centre still does not work all the
time at its full capacity. There are days when only 10 children come, while 25 can participate at once
at different activities (homework, computer lessons, cultural activities). For the parents whose
children frequent the centre, this was a good intervention for their neighborhood. They declared
that their childrens school results have improved since they go to the centre.
The community members had no contribution to the interventions regarding the school and the
multifunctional centre.
During the focus group there were also mentioned punctual interventions for the community
members. The social assistance department helped some families with money for connection to the
electricity, or for construction materials. Also, the local representatives from the Party of the Roma
helped some families to obtain in court the property papers for their houses. Even though the
residents built their houses without construction authorizations, if they prove in court that they built
them, can receive property papers on the building and also land concession from the mayoralty. The
actions of the Party of the Roma come somehow in contradiction with the municipality, which tries
to stop the illegal constructions and the uncontrolled expansion of the neighborhood.

83



84

D. Community organization and cohesion
The Roma community from Lacu Dulce is a traditional one, as the big majority speaks Romani. Still, it
is not a community with a recognized, formal leader. The participants to the focus group said that in
the community there are no informal leaders either. We cannot talk about community cohesion as a
whole, because Lacu Dulce is quite large; but the residents said that the neighbors use to help each
other when is needed.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
The residents from Lacu Dulce interact individually with different institutions in order to solve their
specific problems. The most mentioned interactions are those with the mayoralty, especially with
the social assistance department.
They consider that the municipality representatives know very well their problems, but little is done
to change the situation.
KM 10 zone
Isolated poor area, placed in a former industrial facility, large size (about 900 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
KM 10 is a disadvantaged area that is literally isolated from the city. It is located at about 10
kilometers out Brila, on the national road (DN 21) between Brila and Slobozia, in the vicinity of the
former Chemical Plant.
The blocks of apartments from this neighborhood were built in two stages. In the early 60s, 12
buildings, each with four apartments, were built for the German technicians who took part to the
construction and technology implementation within the industrial plant. After the Germans left,
workers from the factories moved in the apartments. These apartments have two rooms, kitchen
and bathroom. In the 80s, another block, with 114 apartments, was built for the workers form the
industrial plant. These apartments have only one room (12 m
2
), kitchen and bathroom.
After the Chemical Plant ceased its activity, all the apartments have been taken by the Brila
municipality to be lent to poor families. In the neighborhood live former workers on the plant,
former workers children, who lived there all their lives, and people who came in the area after the
municipality took the apartments in 2002. The residents from the one room apartments pay a rent
of 25 lei per month and those living in two room apartments pay 55 lei per month.
The majority of the residents from KM 10 are unemployed. The main sources of income are the
informal work in agriculture, the Minimum Income Guaranteed and child allowances. Many of the
residents here receive also food from the social canteen.
The access to public and private services is limited for the community members. In the
neighborhood, beside the blocks, there are only two small shops. The link with the city is made by
one tramway, in the morning, midday and evening, and which during the winter is not in service all
the time. The community has one medical mediator, who lives there, and from time to time a nurse
from a nearby commune (Chiscani) comes voluntarily to KM 10.
The participants to the focus group declared that their area is safe. They all know each other and
share the same problems. On the other hand, the people who do not live there perceive KM 10 as an
unsafe area, full of offenders who found there a shelter after the release from the prisons.

85
B. Key problems
The residents from KM 10 are confronted with multiple problems; the priority ones, mentioned
during the focus group discussions, are:
the poor quality of the houses and of the infrastructure
the poverty
the isolation from the city
the discrimination they face from the potential employers.
Most of the blocks have the resistance structure deteriorated and need technical expertise to
evaluate the necessity of the buildings consolidation. The sewage system has lots of cracked pipes
which causes infiltrations in the apartments walls and flooded basements. Two thirds of the one
room apartments have no tap water and the residents have to carry out the water in bottles and
buckets. The residents have no contracts with a sanitation firm, so the garbage is not collected from
the area and deposited in the spaces between the blocks. The neighborhood has no public lighting.
The poverty level of the community members is very high. There are a few pensioners who worked
on the Chemical Plant and have a stable income. Those who were younger when the factories were
closed could not find any other jobs and depend on the Minimum Guaranteed Income until they
reach the retirement age. Most of the younger ones have never had a formal job. The isolation from
the city, the low level of education of the younger generations and the lack of qualifications
decrease the chances of employment. Another barrier to employment mentioned by the residents is
the discrimination. If they are sent by the Local Employment Agency to an interview and the
employer sees the address, KM 10, in their papers, there are no chances to get the job. In the last
years, the informal jobs they could find in agriculture have become scarce. The farmers use more
technology now and when they still need daily workers choose from the local rural population.
Many of the residents from KM 10 have debts to the municipality because they did not pay their
rents and risk evacuation. Also, there are families who have no electricity, as they did not pay their
bills and the electricity company disconnected them. The debts cumulated for the water are also
very high for some blocks a resident from a block with four apartments declared that they have
8,000 lei debts for the water.
The school attendance of the children is very low. The distance of about 14 kilometers to the school
and the transport costs determine the parents not to send their children to school every day or even
not at all.










86



87
C. Types of interventions
The main interventions made in KM 10 in the last ten years have been targeted on infrastructure and
housing. But, when asked about interventions in the area, the residents and the local authorities
representatives have different opinions. The authorities representatives declared that, after an
intervention which consisted in installation of water system and modernization of the bathrooms in
the newest block, the residents dismantled and sold the new taps and baths. On the other side, the
residents complain about the poor quality materials used and about the poor work the plumbers
did. The water system functioned only one week in the entire block and afterwards only for one
third of the apartments.
Between 2004 and 2008 there was another intervention to the sewage system within a project of
the Romanian Social Development Plan. A pumping station, meant to pump the used water from the
septic tank to the city sewage system, was installed. Just after all system was in place, a metal piece
from the pumping station was stolen and the machinery stopped working. The authorities replaced
the pieced but told the residents that it is the last time they do the repair and if any other damage
occurs it is their responsibility to fix it. Within the same project there were included activities of area
cleaning and trees planting at which the residents were supposed to take part. The authorities
declared that very few community members participate to the cleaning operations. More residents
helped at the tree planting activities, but afterwards the trees were not watered and many dried off.
Five blocks from the ones built in the 60s were renovated by the local authorities together with the
Alliance for Roma Unity, using international funding. Some residents make allegations of corruption
regarding this intervention. They affirm that the blocks in a better condition were chosen for the
renovation and not the ones where intervention was most needed. In this way, fewer funds were
spent and part of the money got in some peoples pockets.
Another intervention meant to help the families with children with money for the transport to
school did not finalize. As the residents did not come to the social assistance department to bring all
necessary papers to receive the money, the Director of the department asked the representative of
the Alliance for Roma Unity to mobilize the people in the community in a specific day and a social
worker went there with a printer and a copier to fill in the applications. The Director declared that
the social worker could not find the Roma representative in the community in that day and the
people were not informed and mobilized to bring the documents in order to receive the money.
D. Residents interaction with institutions
There is a general feeling of mistrust in the local authorities among the residents from KM 10. They
feel that were abandoned there and there is no interest from the authorities to solve their problems.
The interactions are mainly with the social assistance department. The relation is characterized as
being good, even though they do not receive all the time what they ask for. When they have
audiences with the mayor the feeling is that they are not really listened and there is no interest in
finding solutions for their problems.
The community members consider that the municipality representatives know very well what they
are confronted with in the area, but have no hope that the situation will improve in the near future.


88
Catanga zone
Poor area, medium size (about 500 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
Catanga is a disadvantaged area very similar with Lacu Dulce, only smaller in size and population: a
poor area of houses, many built with poor quality materials, with no infrastructure. It represents the
poor part of the Chercea neighborhood and it is dated in the early 60s when people from rural areas
moved in Brila. The area has good access to the public and private services and institutions and it is
well connected to the city through the public transportation.
B. Key problems
The main problems of Catanga residents refer to: (1) poor housing, (2) low incomes, (3) lack of
infrastructure and (3) lack of identity papers (especially the case of those who do not have property
papers for their dwellings).
C. Types of interventions
The entire Chercea neighborhood had, until few years ago, poor access to infrastructure. The
municipality built the infrastructure there (water, sewage, gas systems and asphalted roads) except
for Catanga area. At the present, in Catanga there are interventions of infrastructure building, as we
could see during our visit in the neighborhood.

89
Arcadiei zone
Small marginalized area (about 100 inhabitants)
A. Area history and general description
The Arcadiei area is represented by two blocks of apartments located in the Historical Centre of the
city. The apartments are owned by the municipality and the residents living there pay about 80 lei
per month rent. The buildings were built in the nineteen century by members of the Greek
community from Brila and are in an advanced state of degradation.
The area has good access to the public and private services and institutions, as it is located very close
to the city centre.
B. Key problems
The main problems of the residents living in Arcadiei area refer to: (1) poor housing conditions, (2)
poverty, (3) lack of identity papers (the case of children whose parents went abroad and live now
with other relatives; without the presence of the minors legal representatives, namely the parents,
the identity cards cannot be issued).
The apartments have one, two or three rooms and they satisfy the household needs in terms of size.
But there are no utilities inside the apartments: not water, sewage or gas. The residents have to
share common bathrooms which are minimal equipped and are unsanitary. The buildings roofs are
leaking and there are infiltrations of water on the apartments walls.
Some residents risk evacuation from the buildings because they did not pay the rents for months.
There are also families with no electricity due to the debts to the electricity company.
C. Types of interventions
In 2010 the municipality did some minimal reparations in one of the buildings. Because the block
was flooded and it became totally improper for a dwelling, the residents were moved out in a
temporary emergency centre. However, it was not a big intervention, although it was needed; only
minimal renovation to remove the damages caused by the flood and the residents were moved back
in their apartments.

90


Historical Centre zone
Large area with large numbers of poor and disadvantaged people
The Historical Centre as a whole is not a disadvantaged area, but it has an important number of poor
and disadvantaged people. Most of them live in old deteriorated houses, former nationalized houses
owned now by the mayoralty. Within the municipality strategy regarding the inclusion of vulnerable
groups (strategy presented in the next chapter) the Historical Centre is identified as a disadvantaged
area that needs interventions.
NATO block zone
Small marginalized area
We found about the NATO block form a participant to the focus group discussions. When asked
about poor areas in the city, the participant said that it is a ghetto in the Hipodrom neighborhood.
Some of the municipality representatives could not offer much information about it. Others consider
that its inhabitants are not disadvantaged; and if the building is deteriorated or with no
infrastructure, it is the owners responsibility to take care of it. The visit in the area revealed that the
block has 145 apartments out of which 30 are owned by the municipality and used as social housing
(no rent paid by the beneficiaries); the other flats are private properties. The apartments are very
small, one room of 12 m
2
, and the residents share common bathrooms. Among the problems the
residents talked about (low incomes, problems with the roof, basement) the biggest one is the lack
of tap water in the building. There is only one source of water, next to the building, used by all
people living there. The problem is old and the residents have no hope that it will be solved in the
near future.
91
Crosscutting issues
Community participation
The potential for community participation is quite low in Brila. This does not refer only to the
residents from the poor areas, but to the majority of the city citizens. Only four or five citizens
attend the public consultations for the General Urban Plan and Zonal Urban Plans. This can be a
result of the lack of interest in the municipality projects regarding urban development. But also can
be a result of insufficient tools the municipality use to inform and raise the interest among the city
residents.
The residents from Lacu Dulce and KM 10 did not relate any actions taken in their communities on
which they were involved. The participants to the focus group discussions from Lacu Dulce consider
that very few of their neighbors would take part in any actions, if asked. Those from KM 10 declared
that they are willing to participate in any actions meant to improve their living conditions. However,
the authorities representatives related cases in which the community was asked to participate, but
very few members attended.
In the interventions regarding the neighborhood cleaning and tree planting, from KM 10, the
relation with the authorities was mediated through a facilitator, who is member of the community
(the medical mediator). The authorities representatives consider that working with a community
facilitator was not a fully successful exercise. The facilitator could not mobilize the community to
participate in large numbers to the project activities, nor raise the awareness among its members
that all actions implemented are meant to improve their living conditions. More, the facilitator felt
that is somehow above the other members of the community and began behaving more as a leader
and less as a facilitator.
The municipality representatives consider that it is difficult to include eligible participatory activities
in projects with European funds. For example, the law of public acquisitions does not allow the
community members to work in buildings or infrastructure construction/ renovations. The activities
are contracted to specialized firms which cannot be obliged to employ residents from the respective
areas.
Local development strategy/ plans
Brila municipality is implementing an Integrated Plan for the Inclusion of Disadvantaged Groups,
including Roma Ethnics. The Plan aims to address the problems of vulnerable groups on more
dimensions: housing, education, health and employment. More, the strategy refers not only to
vulnerable groups, but to disadvantaged areas that concentrate large numbers of disadvantaged
people. The areas identified and included in the Integrated Plan are: Lacu Dulce, Catanga, KM 10 and
Historical Centre (that includes the buildings form Arcadiei Street).
The municipality has submitted three projects for European funding (2007-2013):
Building expansion for the multifunctional social centre in Lacu Dulce the centre will no
longer have activities only with children, but with the parents as well. The adults will benefit
from qualification courses and counseling in finding a job. The project also includes courses
for socio-medical education and the acquisition of washing machines for the use of the
community members.
Renovation of the building located in Ancorei Street no 12 the building is going to be
completed renovated and reorganized in apartments with own kitchen and bathroom and all
utilities. In the newly renovated apartments will live the same families that live now.
92
Setting up a community centre (Grandparents and Grandchildren) in Anghel Saligny Street
no. 17 (located in the Historical Centre) this centre will include activities for pre-school
children (done together with their grandparents), afterschool activities for school aged
children and qualification courses for adults.
Part of the same strategy there is another project which is to be submitted in June 2013: renovation
of the building located in Rmnicu Srat Street no. 115 (Lacu Dulce area). After renovation, the
building will have 35 apartments where families who live now in improper houses will be moved.
The authorities have in mind few families who live in the Historical Centre in very old and
deteriorated houses, which cannot be renovated; also families from the outer boundaries of Lacu
Dulce area, who live in improper and illegally built houses.
The future plans for Lacu Dulce area also include the building of multi-family houses with gardens,
on the site of the present improper and illegally built houses. These houses will be lend to families
with low incomes and poor housing conditions, most likely that live now in Lacu Dulce area.
Using 2014-2020 European funding, the municipality intends to implement various projects in KM 10
area: total renovation and consolidation of the blocks; construction of small heating systems for
each block; building of a medical centre, kindergarten and school.
When the municipality elaborated these ambitious plans for integrating disadvantaged areas, the
members of the respective communities were not consulted or informed. The only community
representatives that took part to the consultations were the representatives of the Party of the
Roma, of the Alliance for Roma Unity, medical and school mediators. The process did not include
specific activities though which the communities to be informed about the future projects of the
mayoralty. The authorities representatives are convinced that those who participated to the
meetings will go anyway in the communities and will inform somehow their members about the
planned interventions.
The collaboration between the local authorities and Roma organizations, in elaborating
interventions plans, is not all the time a smooth one. The municipality representatives consider that
Roma organizations expect the authorities to do much of the work and their main role is to evaluate
and make comments on the proposed actions.


93

6.5 Field Report: Dorohoi
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 05-07 June 2013 by Georgiana Neculau and Simona
Anton. The data collection activities included three interviews with institutional representatives
(mayor, urban planner and director of the Public Social Assistance Service), two focus groups
discussions with residents of disadvantaged communities (with 13 participants), and field visits in
three poor zones.
42
The participants to the focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-ethnic
categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 0 1 1 0 8 0
Roma 0 0 0 1 2 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (Drochia and Dumbrava Roie) and cover a
variety of social situations. Thus, out of the 13 participants: (a) 8 persons come from households
with 1-4 members, while the others have 5-7 members; (b) 10 live in households including 1 to 5
children (0-14 years); (c) in 7 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers of a handicap
or disability; (d) 5 have no formal education and another 6 have completed gymnasium at most; (e)
none is employees, 2 are daily workers, 2 are pensioners, 7 are housewives and 2 are other types of
inactive persons; (f) consequently, only 2 households benefit of a pension (low level but regular); (g)
92% of participants arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with 1954) and all of them moved to the
poor zone after 2005; (h) all live in houses; (i) 12 rented their houses the mayoralty, 1 is owner (j)
the participants occupy dwellings between 23 and 53 m2; (k) all have electricity, water and sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

42
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (70 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
94
City profile


An economically
disadvantaged city.



Dorohoi is the second town of Botoani county in terms of size and population, after the capital-city
of the county, also called Botoani. In terms of urban disadvantaged areas typology, Dorohoi as a
whole represents an economically disadvantaged area, namely it is a small former almost mono-
industrial town, dependent on few large state enterprises and on agricultural cooperatives. A
significant part of its neighborhoods are, in fact, rural areas that administratively were and are going
to be included in the town area. The town is poorly endowed with urban utilities. The own revenues
to the local budget are rather low, the town being dependent on the redistribution mechanism from
the central budget. Employment opportunities are limited, the official registered unemployment
rate not accurately reflecting this lack of opportunity for various measuring reasons.
Geographically, Dorohoi is situated in the extreme north-east part of Romania, on the right bank of
the Jijia River, close to the Romanian border with Ukraine, to the north and with the Republic of
Moldova, to the east. In terms of closeness/ remoteness to other administrative and/ or economic
centers, Dorohoi is 36 km away from the county capital, 46 km from Suceava, 159 km from Iai and
493 km away from Bucharest.
The city is surrounded by the following communes/ rural areas: Ilbneti to the north, Hilieu to the
north-west, endriceni to the west, Vculeti to the south, Broscui to the east and George Enescu
to the north-east.
The administrative territory of Dorohoi includes the town itself and three other satellite areas to be
included in the city as neighborhoods in the near future: (1) Loturi Enescu to the north, (2) Progresul
to the east and (3) Dealu Mare to the south. Additional two satellite areas of Trestiana and Satu Nou
have already been included in the administrative area of the city during the 1980s.
Dorohoi is located in a medium height hilly area with large valleys and frequent landslides due to the
existing geological structure, close to the surface water table and rivers with irregular flows that
generate seasonal floods. Such floods have been responsible for dwellings collapse during the recent
years and have required significant local and central government interventions.
Botoani
County
Romania map
95
With an ageing, decreasing and poorly educated population, Dorohoi currently lacks the human
capital necessary for its future development. In January 2012, according to the National Institute of
Statistics
43
, Dorohoi counted 29,384 inhabitants, of which 48% were men and 52% women. The 0-14
year old bracket represented 15% of the population, the 15-59 years old 71% and the 60+ years old
14%. With below unit birth/mortality rate, migration outflows towards other towns in the country,
rural areas and abroad, towards Italy, France and Spain, the population of Dorohoi decreased by 5%
between the 2002 and 2012 censuses and by almost 13% since 1992. Although low levels of
unemployment in the town are explained by seasonal international migration outflows, local
authorities also identified the same process as a source other social problems: many children are
technically abandoned by their parents in the care of grandparents, other relatives and neighbors.
The 2002 census data indicated that 1.5% of the 30,949 inhabitants were Roma ethnics, which were
identified by the local authorities during the interviews as a constant source of social unrest.
The second ethnicity in terms of size being represented by the Jewish community that used to
represent more than 35% during the 1930s.
Rather limited natural mineral resources of the area include high quality quartz sands, located some
25 km away from Dorohoi, in the Hudeti commune, shale and clay rocks used as raw materials by
glass manufacturing industry and for construction materials, respectively. These represented the
base for the town industrialization policy promoted before the 1990s.
Until 1989 the economy of the town used to have an industrial profile, with large economic units
operating in glass and ceramics industry, heavy machinery manufacturing, textile and apparel
industry and food/ dairy processing industry, around 12,500 jobs being created during the
industrialization period. The industrialization policy promoted in the past was complemented by
specific demographic policies, large labor force inflows coming into the town from industry
specialized regions across the country and from the neighboring rural areas, such as Dealu Mare,
Satu Nou or endriceni. Neighborhoods of low height blocks of flats, such as Plevna, were developed
for the workers demanded by and in the surrounding the areas of the large production units that
were being built.
During the transition period of the 1990s, all large production units that represented the base of the
local economy, underwent a poorly conducted privatization process that in the end resulted in
closing down of all major production units built during the communist regime. As one representative
of the local authority mentioned:
Former production plants across Dorohoi resemble Cernobil ruins.
Nowadays, the majority of the companies operating in Dorohoi are small and medium-sized
enterprises. The main economic activities they perform include agriculture, processing of the
agricultural products, textile manufacturing and various services. Small manufacturing or handicrafts
workshops or general stores have sprung to replace former industrial units.
Workers were laid off after closing down of the industrial units and were forced to migrate in search
for job opportunities either to other towns across the country, or abroad or back to their rural roots.
Although property rights on agricultural lands have been restored to the rightful owners or to their
heirs, many of them are old or lack skills, required capital and willingness to associate in order to
efficiently exploit the land. Thus, a potential alternative solution for the low employment
opportunities that the town currently offers remains just theoretical, intangible and wishful thinking
for many of the inhabitants. With few exceptions to be separately treated in the following sections,
current town neighborhoods tend to be homogeneous in terms of wealth of population and living
conditions, e.g. are more or less uniformly economically disadvantaged.

43
TEMPO Online, Population at the beginning of the year http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/
96
In terms of infrastructure the main still to be resolved problem refers to the poor quality of the
roads: both those connecting Dorohoi to the neighboring towns and the internal ones. Sewage and
water collection, transport and treatment infrastructure is obsolete and does not cover all the
neighborhoods in the town.
In respect of public services, local public transportation is underdeveloped and does not serve the
most disadvantaged and marginalized communities; the education services are provided in 7
kindergartens, 11 schools and 3 high schools. Health conditions of the population are treated in 1
municipal hospital, including out and in patient and 11 family medical doctors; health emergencies
are addressed by the local ambulance service and the town has 8 pharmacies. Dorohoi also has 1
museum (George Enescu Memorial Museum), 1 stadium and 5 bank offices.
Currently, housing facilities are mainly held by the inhabitants in private property and some have
been built as social housing facilities, especially for those affected by the floods, and the Roma
ethnic population that the local authority wanted to relocate from the center to the outskirts of the
town.
Dwellings generally consist blocks of flats built under a low height regime (maximum 5 storeys,
including ground floor) due to ground conditions, but due to the same reason Dorohoi has many
individual or duplex houses, including social housing facilities. Many of the apartments in the
neighborhoods where blocks of flats were built around the main industrial facilities are currently not
inhabited and physically degrading.
The urban disadvantaged areas
The main neighborhoods of Dorohoi include:
(1) The city center, where the city hall is located, which is the most developed neighborhood of the
city. Former commercial area with wagon stile dwellings, inhabited by the Jewish community in the
1930s was later on nationalized and housing facilities were rented to the incoming workers, many of
them belonging to the Roma population; in the recent years the local authorities tried to revive the
area and decided to relocate the Roma residents outside the city center. Some of the old Jewish
dwellings were demolished, a park has been put in place but some of the old insalubrious housing
units are still standing due to property rights complications. Although the city center is better
endowed in terms of infrastructure and utilities, many poor families refrain from actually using the
available utilities (electricity, gas heating etc.) fearing that they would not be able to pay the
correspondent invoices.
(2) Spiru Haret area is a neighborhood situated on the south-western hill of the town and not very
different from the rest of town areas in terms of living conditions and opportunities.
(3) Victoria area, a small neighborhood located on the southern hill of the town, developed for the
workers in the glass industry before the 1990s. From 1278 citizens registered on the voting list in
2012 only 400 citizens voted, the number of citizens actually residing in the area being estimated at
600. The rest of the inhabitants supposedly migrated abroad. The dwellings stock consists of small
blocks of flats
(4) Plevna is a small neighborhood of 3,000-4,000 blocks of flats, built during the period when glass
manufacturing flourished in town. Workers from rural areas were forced to leave their countryside
households, agricultural occupations and to move in communist matchbox shape blocks, in the
words the town planning responsible person. Inhabitants are currently retired, generally poor and
suffering various health conditions related to their former profession (silicosis). Some of the
inhabitants still of working age migrated abroad in search of job opportunities. The elderly and their
grandchildren remained in the neighborhood and live on small pensions, children allowances and
97
remittances from abroad. However, some better-off families of former engineers are also located in
the areas.
(5) Trestiana, initially satellite area, situated in the eastern hill of the town, where the railway
station is located. The area has been formally integrated into the administrative area of Dorohoi and
currently inhabitants from more urban areas of the town started selling their apartments and
construct their own houses on small plots of land (500 sqm).
(6) Satu Nou, (7) Progresul, (8) Loturi Enescu, and (9) Dealu Mare neighborhoods were and some
still are satellite areas of Dorohoi, with rural characteristics. When industrial activity declined in the
town, families of the agricultural land managers first located in these areas and gradually more
families were attracted even from neighboring Suceava and started building their homes closer and
closer to the town. These rather remote neighborhoods are connected with the city via national
roads. All areas are endowed with cable TV, Wi-Fi Internet, mobile phone and electricity
infrastructure but generally lack gas, running water or sewage infrastructure since local
administration cannot financially support the relatively high costs of endowment. Poor inhabitants,
with low levels of education are mainly old, retired employees of former agriculture production
cooperatives (CAP) with symbolic pensions as their main income source. However, compared to
other more urban neighborhoods of the town, inhabitants of these areas have the advantage of
owning small plots of land (1,000-2,000 sqm) that they generally use for subsistence agriculture
purposes. Many inhabitants of these areas also seasonally migrate abroad in search of job
opportunities.
(10) Drochia and (11) Dumbrava Roie are the most disadvantaged areas of Dorohoi the first being
built with the purpose to relocate the Roma ethnics from the center of Dorohoi and the later for the
inhabitants that remained without homes during the 2010 floods. These areas are to separately
treated in the following sections as more in depth information regarding their characteristics were
collected during focus groups discussions held in the field.
Drochia zone
Marginalized poor area of medium size

A. Area history and general description
Whereas the town of Dorohoi on the whole can be considered as an economically disadvantaged
area, Drochia neighborhood presents features that would allow, at least partially, its inclusion in any
of the theoretical categories used for the classification purposes in the present report: although
living in relatively newly built dwellings, its inhabitants have poor access to road infrastructure,
health, education and food supply services, rely mostly on social revenues and having even less
employment opportunities than the rest of their fellow Dorohoi inhabitants are more economically
disadvantaged.
However, most of the characteristics found in the area suggest that Drochia is, in fact, an isolated,
poor zone, meaning it is a small area of social housing buildings located at the city periphery, next to
a waste water treatment station. Its residents have limited access to infrastructure, are mostly
unemployed and do not have easy access to education and health centers. The community is almost
entirely constituted by Roma population.
Drochia, also named Catanga by its inhabitants, is a Roma populated neighborhood located in the
eastern outskirts of Dorohoi, close to Boscui rural area, near a former glass manufacturing unit and
next to the city waste water treatment facility.
98

Source: Google maps.

99
The land where the neighborhood was established used to be a pasture held in private property by
the local authorities. The creation of the neighborhood starting with 2005 was the result of a PHARE
funded priority project titled Improving the Living Conditions of the Roma Community Members in
the Town of Dorohoi, promoted by the citys mayoralty under the National Strategy for Improving
the Condition of the Roma Population. Under the same strategic umbrella, similar initiatives were
developed in Piatra Neam.
The aim of the project, as declared by the city hall representatives, was twofold: (1) to revive the
center of the town by closing down then unsafe and insalubrious housing facilities that were
inhabited by Roma ethnic tenants who allowed for the degradation of the buildings and (2) to offer
safer and healthier living conditions to the same ethnicity in a dedicated neighborhood.
The social assistance department within the local authorities complemented the building project
with information, educational and advisory services dedicated to the newly moved in families
regarding: (1) parents rights and obligations and children rights, (2) public services, (3) specialized
institutions and NGOs available locally, (4) personal and household hygiene, (5) job finding
instruments. Volunteers were also involved in educational activities and psychological counseling for
the prevention of school dropouts in Roma ethnic families and social inclusion.
The initially approved urban plan was designed to include 37 social housing units but the
neighborhood has been developed to include 52, than 60 and currently 68 social housing units with
more than 400 Roma ethnic inhabitants. The dwellings were built as single family and duplex houses,
with 2 or 3 rooms, individual or shared/ central heating, sewage, and town water and access
causeway.
B. Key problems
The key problems of the neighborhood, as repeatedly asserted by their inhabitants refer to their
segregation from the rest of the town, lower earnings and employment opportunities, One elderly
member of the community declared: One should see how we live in this concentration camp. I was
concentrated and I know what it means because I am an old man. We live precisely in a
concentration camp here.
The air is heavily polluted by the water treatment facility in the neighborhood, as close as 20 meters
from some of their dwellings and the absence of a drainage system in a swampy area permanently
threats the community with the perspective of floods.
Many of the inhabiting families are disorganized, single parent or de facto families with low
revenues poorly educated members, numerous children in care and various health conditions
affecting family providers. TBC cases occurred in the community. Domestic violence, theft and petty
crime events occur rather frequently in the neighborhood.
Most of the Roma ethnic inhabitants are either employed by the local public cleaning up department
or live on small pensions or various social allowances, including their children allowances or food
supplied by the social canteen. Social services provided by the local authorities require the
beneficiaries to work a specific number of hours each month for their communities and Drochia
inhabitants are generally involved in town cleaning up actions. However, as authorities declare, due
to excessive alcohol consumption some of the social allowances beneficiaries are not even able to
wake up early in the morning when their presence is required for cleaning up tasks and thus risk
losing their sole income source.
Social dwellings are rented from local authorities by the Roma ethnic families for which monthly rent
is owed. Town water, electricity and gas heating utilities have to be covered by tenants as well.
With income levels of around 350 lei, many of the inhabitants complain that their cost of living,
including just the rent and the invoiced utilities sum up to more than double, 700-800 lei monthly. In
this context, the most important obstacle for the Drochia residents cash flows is related to the in and
100
out cash flows scheduling. Social allowances and pensions payments are due on the 25
th
whereas
their rent and utility invoices are due on the 10
th
of each month. Since most of the residents don not
have sufficient incomes they cannot save from one month to the other and from the 10
th
of the
month when their rents are due until the 25
th
when they receive the social allowance from the same
local authorities that own their homes, interest and penalties accumulate worsening their already
hard financial condition.
Sometimes one parent or even both of them temporarily migrate abroad, leaving their children back
home with their grandparents. Most of the times, the migrants return to Romania and to their
neighborhood when they are expelled by the country of destination.
Most of the Drochia residents have lower levels of education, sometimes preventing them to qualify
even for the least qualified positions such as public cleaning up workers. Additionally, they feel
discriminated by employers not choosing to hire any person of their ethnicity.
Drochia neighborhood is remotely located from the city and is not serviced by any public
transportation means. The access causeways, without having a drainage system are frequently
flooded preventing workers to travel to the town to work or to look for a job and children to attend
school classes. The neighborhood is connected to the power grid.
However, most of the public and private and services are entirely absent from the community. No
kindergartens, schools or hospitals are located closer than 3 km away from the neighborhood and
residents more quickly reach the rural area of Broscui for necessary supplies than the closest shop
located in Dorohoi. A regular bus school has been servicing the community since 2012.
Residents don not wish to have such facilities in their neighborhood because they do not feel as
belonging to the neighborhood and declare that they only want to be treated as citizens of Dorohoi,
equal in rights and mingled with other ethnicities. Current inhabitants of Drochia Roma population
in their majority complained and still complain as in any other places where similar projects or
concepts have been developed that the authorities tried, in fact to isolate their community in a
remote, ghetto like environment.
C. Types of interventions
The main intervention on the local authorities side was the actual creation of Drochia social
residential area and relocation of the Roma community form the center of Dorohoi to the outskirts
of the town, into a newly built dormitory neighborhood without basic urban functionalities readily
available for the inhabitants. As already mentioned, the authorities wanted to revive the city center
but Drochia community would have preferred to be relocated across Dorohoi, in normal
neighborhoods with Romanian inhabitants. Authorities tried to educate the relocated residents and
enrolled them in an educational program jointly developed with NGOs in order to better help them
integrate and preserve their new neighborhood. However, authorities at least some of them
perceived the educational initiative as theoretically useful but without sustainable results as Roma
population are generally perceived as being difficult to educate. Others claim that positive results
are still visible and that the situation would have been worse, anyway, in the absence of the
educational initiative.
The community itself actively opposed to the relocation initiative and still claims that better
solutions could have been found. Initially better living conditions have deteriorated fast since the
community itself, lacking the sense of belonging to has not involved in the neighborhood
maintenance. Moreover, since the neighborhood was built on a high humidity ground and without
any proper drainage system, the dwellings were naturally eroded by systematic floods.
101



102
During 2010 when most of the town was affected by massive floods, Drochia area was affected as
well although the neighborhood was fairly recently constructed and supposedly on a safer ground
than most of the older dwellings in Dorohoi. Local authorities intervened to support the community
in removing the water from the homes and various NGOs, local and form other regions of the
country organized transports of clothes and food for the inhabitants. Some NGOs are still active in
the neighborhood but the intensity levels of intervention have decreased.
D. Community organization and cohesion
The Drochia inhabitants tend to have low levels of trust in each other, week organizational abilities
and/ or willingness for cooperation and do not have informal or formal community leaders,
identified from within and recognized by the community to coordinate them towards achieving
common goals or to help them interact with local authorities in the name and on behalf of the
community as a whole.
Social housing facilities in the neighborhood are currently managed on a usual working framework
by an outside community member, especially appointed by the local authorities. The authority
invested in the property manager is recognized by the members of the community and this helps the
manager organize the community to perform activities in the interest of the community as a whole.
Volunteers from the community under the coordination of the property manager were involved in
improving the general living conditions in the area. A protection row of trees was planted around the
waste water treatment station in order to diminish the air pollution effects generated by the facility.
However, most of the planted trees were stolen shortly after being planted.
The property manager also interacts with local authorities on behalf of the community, persistently
asking for interventions to build a drainage system in the neighborhood.
Other Dorohoi residents are less willing to interact and get involved in solving the problems of the
Drochia community.
The community members themselves declare that they would be willing to support and participate
in any initiative of the authorities meant to improve their living conditions provided that all citizens
of Dorohoi town proceed in a similar manner when the authorities intervene to improve their
respective living conditions. Apparently, the already mentioned perception of ongoing discrimination
prevents the members of the community to actively to involve in finding solutions to their problems.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
Drochia residents do not trust local authorities or service providers, considering that politicians only
use them as a voting mass every four years. They complain that promises are the most frequent
service they receive from the authorities and expect public institutions to solve all their living
problems.
Personal interaction with local authorities representatives is limited due to the low levels of
education of the community members but, as mentioned is facilitated the residential area manager.
Thus, the best suiting instrument of communication with the authorities seems to be the external
social mediator in the case of Drochia community.
Sometimes, when calamities like the one that hit the neighborhood in 2010 do occur, local
authorities representatives visit the neighborhood and intervene but most of the times, as the
residents declare, they mainly register the situation without any actions following-up.
Drochia residents consider that local authorities can and should intervene to address their needs.



103
Dumbrava Roie zone
Marginalized poor area of small size

A. Area history and general description
As already mentioned, the town of Dorohoi is an economically disadvantaged area. Dumbrava Roie
neighborhood presents close resemblances to Drochia neighborhood, and is an isolated, poor zone,
a small area of mainly social housing buildings. Its residents have limited access to infrastructure, are
mostly unemployed and do not have easy access to education and health centers.
Dumbrava Roie residential area is located near Plevna neighborhood on a more highly situated plot
of 16-17 hectares previously owned by the National Agency for Land Improvements (RAIF, state
entity that managed the irrigation systems of the agricultural land) and consists only of houses and
blocks of flats. The main difference from the Drochia community is that the social residential area
was not established for the Roma population but for Dorohoi citizens from various areas of the
town, soon after their homes were demolished by the 2010 floods, when approximately one quarter
of the housing facilities in Dorohoi were affected. The most affected dwellings were old ones,
erected with poor quality construction materials and belonged to the poorer population strata.
However, when the residential area was turned to key, some 10 well behaving Roma ethnic
families were relocated form Drochia neighborhood in order to meet certain nondiscrimination
standards as local authorities representatives put it. Due to high birth rates registered in Drochia
the neighborhood has become overpopulated over the years and authorities try to solve the newly
emerged situation by further relocation of the Roma residents.
B. Key problems
In terms of ownership, Dumbrava Rosie is one of the few remaining area of Dorohoi town where
mayoralty still has ownership over social dwellings consisting of houses. In the rest of the areas
inhabitants own their houses due to the national level legal initiative of the beginning of the 1990s
that allowed the tenant population to buy their dwellings built or previously confiscated by the
state. More new housing units built within programs developed by the National Housing Agency
(ANL) consisting of blocks of flats were or bought or rented by citizens that met certain criteria.
As for the available housing conditions and available infrastructure, all of the housing units are of a
single type of houses similar to the ones built in Drochia area: two rooms, one bathroom, and one
kitchen cover a surface of 60 sqm of living area, endowed with individual gas heating system access
to town water, sewage, electricity and gas. However, many households with historic debts to
electricity providers carried along from their former homes are not able to pay them and therefore
their new homes are not connected to the electricity grid by the utility provider. Their situation
seems desperate and without identifiable any solution.
The main problem of the area is represented by the road infrastructure of extremely poor condition.
The city hall has as top priority the improvement of the road conditions in the area. However some
of the inhabitants perceive the neighborhood as not being located in the close vicinity of
kindergartens, playgrounds, schools, hospitals and general stores whereas other do not seem to be
bothered by distances.
The housing project of Dumbrava Roie is intended to be extended with more dwellings built for the
younger generation of Dorohoi population.
The economic development level of the neighborhood is situated below the town average but above
that of the Drochia area. Employment opportunities are as scarce as in every other area of Dorohoi
town.
104
The population includes younger groups and elderly, as well. The same problems identified in
Drochia area are also present here: low levels of incomes consisting mainly of social allowances,
more single women than men, disorganized families, emigration and abandon of children with their
elderly relatives. Inhabitants perceive their neighborhood as including of both richer and poor
population. Since population was equally affected by the floods, all their belongings being carried
away by the floods their perception of wealth condition strictly refers to the levels of pension and
other social allowances.
Most of the inhabitants of Dumbrava Roie, not being owners of their dwellings have either pay
rents or lease rates to the local authorities that own the housing units and confront with similar
problems as the inhabitants of Drochia. Low social allowances and pensions, making the most
common source of low incomes in the area are usually paid later and sometimes with more than
two months delays as recently has been the case of child allowances than the rents or lease rates
that are owed by the inhabitants, fact that, in the end, makes them accumulate historic debts
(interest and overdue debt penalties).
In terms of crime events and public safety, authorities perceive Dumbrava Roie as a neighborhood
safer than Drochia although they mention one recent violent incident when a Roma ethnic woman
attacked and set on fire a Romanian one as a result of a preexisting sentimental conflict between the
two of them.
C. Types of interventions
The main intervention on the local authorities side was the actual creation of Dumbrava Roie in
response to the social dwelling needs created by the floods three years ago.
The approved urban, area and detailed plans were designed to include 100 housing units out of
which 47 have the destination of social housing units, the rest being constructed for former house
owners that were affected by the floods and that held a property title on the affected dwellings and
to which the mayoralty offered 200-300 sqm plots on which new houses were built.
The initial 47 social housing units have access to town water and sewage, electricity and gas owing
to central government budgetary allowances for construction materials, local government
contributions to construction labor force costs, corporate social responsibility initiatives of local
electricity and gas providers that facilitated the connection to the utilities infrastructures and various
other entities such as NGOs, the church etc. Army forces were also involved during the construction
phases.
Local authorities intervened to support the community relocate in Dumbrava Roie and various
NGOs, organized transports of food and clothes aids for the inhabitants. Some NGOs are still active
in the neighborhood but the intensity levels of intervention have decreased.
The mayoralty intends to further improve road infrastructure by accessing funds provided by town
council and the ministry for development. Funds are already available according to the authorities
and the next intervention of the mayoralty will consist in side walk and road infrastructure
improvements. Apparently, Drochia, the more disadvantaged community and longer expecting this
type of intervention has still to wait for better times.
105




106
D. Community organization and cohesion
As in the other visited disadvantaged community of Drochia, inhabitants tend to concentrate on
their own and their familys needs. Trust level within the community members is low and the
community seems more fragmented than Drochia since more diversity in terms of incomes,
education levels and ethnicity membership is present here. One informal community leader usually
involves in solving common problems with the authorities but the rest of the community members
tend to discredit such actions collective or in the name of the community actions. Lack of
involvement and trust from other members of the community, in turn frustrates the ad-hoc leader.
During the entire interview the community appeared as being more divided than that of Drochia.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
The residents perception on the local institutions and service providers is more fragmented than
that of Drochia inhabitants. Some of the residents tend to appreciate authorities initiatives and
sometimes even personal helping hand given by the mayor to the citizens in need while others tend
to discredit actions as being politically driven actions.
Personal interaction with the authorities is more frequent than in Drochia either because citizens
themselves contact authorities or because authorities representatives visit their neighborhood
more frequently. However lack of education and dialogue skills prevent many of the community
members to contact authorities and they also lack confidence in their fellow inhabitants to empower
them with common problems solving capacities.
Like in the case of Drochia, residents consider that local authorities can and should intervene to
address their needs.
Crosscutting issues
Community participation
Some of the community members of the most disadvantaged areas especially those from Drochia
were personally involved in and contributed with their labor force to the actual construction of
their future housing units. Some but not all of them are still involved in neighborhood in occasional
cleaning-up activities. However, social assistance and property management interventions are still
needed for coordination purposes the community members lacking this type of initiatives. During
the construction phase of the Drochia neighborhood around 600 people that were to be relocated in
Drochia lived in more than 100 modular transitory housing units managed by the social assistance
department. Although this preparatory phase may have helped community integration, not all of the
local authorities representatives were optimistic about the success of such approaches.
Residents of disadvantaged communities tend to be less implicated in consultations and discussions
on the improvement of living conditions in their neighborhoods. A minimum level of education or
the presence of an outside but community accepted social mediator seems to be essential for a
decent way of interaction of such citizens with their authorities.
Despite the fact that residents of disadvantaged communities are probably aware of the potential
positive results of their community actions, they tend to mistrust each other and to be reluctant in
entrusting some of their fellow community members with leading powers.
Therefore, as mentioned before, from the residents perspective, the main limitations to self-help
actions within disadvantaged communities may include (1) lack of trust in state institutions and
their fellow community members, (2) decreased sense of belongingness to the community and
willingness to cooperate, (3) an exacerbated individualism and concentration towards the family
107
needs, probably perceived as the only available surviving strategy in a non-inclusive society (4) low
existing education levels, (5) poor organizational skills.
From the institutional representatives perspectives self-help actions tend to be limited by: (1) low
confidence in the organizational willingness and capacities of the communities, that partially may be
the result of a paternalist attitude towards such communities reflected in sometimes well intended
but from outside interventions, (2) unwillingness to create enabling conditions for such self-help
actions, (2) lack of interest in the needs of the most disadvantaged communities that cannot
generate significant political gains during elections or even worse, that may attract political losses.
Dependent relationships develop between the authorities and the most disadvantaged communities
whose members, overwhelmed by daily life burdens do not project any role their community could
play in the improvement of their living conditions.
In terms of residents willingness to participate in projects for improving living condition, as already
mentioned, the presence of the outside authority generally generates good results if actions are well
targeted. Frequently, the sole participation type the members of the most disadvantaged
communities can afford is the labor contribution. The disadvantaged communities members could
take part in policy consultations but they lack the required dialogue skills and do not have
confidence that such procedures would help them improve their living conditions; contribution with
money are less likely due to extremely low income levels; as far as plan design and implementation
phases are concerned, investigated communities lack necessary skills to perform such tasks.
Participatory approaches have been employed by the local authorities in the investigated
communities, are desired but are perceived as generating mixed results.
Local development strategy/ plans
Following an initiative implemented at the national level, local authorities have adopted a
sustainable development strategy of Dorohoi for the period 2007-2013, aiming at identifying future
economic and social development directions for and promoting sustainable urban development of
the town.
Fostering social cohesion and solidarity among the town inhabitants and the promotion of
collaboration between towns ethnicities are present among the demographic objectives declared in
the strategic planning document.
Drochia neighborhood especially is nominated as a disadvantaged community for which the local
authorities already implemented at the time of the strategy design the intervention initiative meant
to ensure decent living conditions for part of the Roma population of the town. Further action needs
for the development of infrastructure were identified in the newly built neighborhood.
Awareness of other disadvantaged social groups and assessment of intervention needs are present
both in the strategic documents and also appeared during the discussions with the local authorities.
However, the needs and action priorities identified generally refer to the town as a whole and are
not specifically tailored to the actual communities needs, with the notable exception of the Drochia
community for which the already developed initiative has had a segregating from the rest of the
town effect, at least in the community members perception.
108

6.6 Field Report: Clan
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 10-11 June 2013 by Ctlina Iamandi-Cioinaru and
Andreea Trocea. The data collection activities included three interviews with institutional
representatives (deputy-mayor, urban planner and representative of the Public Social Assistance
Service), two focus groups discussions with residents of disadvantaged communities (with 8
participants), and field visits in three poor zones.
44
The participants to the focus group discussions
distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 0 1 0 2 3 0
Roma 0 0 0 0 2 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (1Mai and Fostul Hotel) and cover a variety
of social situations. Thus, out of the 8 participants: (a) 3 persons come from households with 1-4
members, while the others have 5-9 members; (b) all live in households including 2 to 6 children (0-
14 years); (c) in 3 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers of a handicap or disability;
(d) 6 have completed gymnasium at most; (e) only 1 is employees, 3 are housewives and 4 are
jobless actively looking for a job (informal, by the day); (f) consequently, in only 1 household there is
a wage earner and only 1 household benefit of a pension (low level but regular); (g) 3 participants
arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with 1976), and 2 of them moved to the poor zone before
1989; (h) 4 live in weak houses, 4 inhabit an apartment in a block of flats; (i) 4 rented their flat from
the mayoralty, 4 are owners (j) the participants occupy dwellings between 10 and 37 m2; (k) 6 have
electricity, 4 have water and 5 have sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

44
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (44 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
109
City profile


Former siderurgical
city, which currently is
a bedroom city.

An economically
disadvantaged city.



Clan is a small town in Hunedoara County, on the Strei River valley. It is situated in the center part
of Romania at about 400 km of Bucharest.
Clan counts for 12,723 inhabitants in January 2012, accordingly to the National Institute of
Statistics,
45
with 48.6% represented by men and 51.4% by women. Children (0-14 years) represent
13.2% of the population, the 15-59 years age category account for 66.6% of total population, and the
60+ years old make 20.2%. The 2002 census data indicated that 7% of the population was Hungarian
and 0.5% was Roma.
Clan is the victim of the industrial sector collapse in Romania after 1990. The towns tradition in
terms of siderurgical and metallurgical industry goes back in the middle of the nineteen century.
Clan represented an important industrial center in the country until 1990.
The steel mill (combinat siderurgic) was recognized for the production of cast iron, metallurgical
coke and model parts. The city gathered around people from all over the country. In this context, in
1960 began the construction of the New Town, and in 1961 it was administratively declared as city.
Until 1989, Clan 'produced as much as three counties from Moldova region'. The huge steel plant
used to have around 10,000 employees (of which about 7,000 living in the city) and it was
recognized as the densest steel mill in Europe because of its small territory and the large number of
machinery and equipments. Nowadays, the steel mill is closed and in an advanced state of
degradation.
The National Road 66, which connects Haeg to Petrosani divides the city in two parts: New Town
and Old Town Clan. The city includes also 11 villages: Batiz, Clanu Mic, Sncrai, Sntmria de
Piatr, Valea Sngeorgiului, Grig, Ohaba-Strei, Streisngeorgiu, Strei-Scel, Ndtia de Sus, and
Ndtia de Jos.

45
TEMPO Online, Population at the beginning of the year http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/

Hunedoara
County
Romania map
110
The results of the economic downturn of the city Calan are aging population, labor migration,
increasing unemployment, and ruining housing infrastructure along with decreasing standard of
living of the population. Most people are working in neighboring towns Hunedoara, Ortie and
Deva, returning home only in the evening, which is why Clan is called the "bedroom town".
Now, the main economic activities in the town are: agriculture, processing of agricultural products
and light industry. The largest economic operator is a construction firm of roads and bridges. Thus, in
terms of urban disadvantaged areas typology, the entire city of Clan represents an economically
disadvantaged area.
In the education sector the city has 6 kindergartens, 9 schools and 1 high school. In health sector
there are 1 hospital, including out and in patient services and ambulance, 5 family medical doctors
and 4 pharmacies.
The urban disadvantaged areas
Source: Google maps.
111
Three disadvantaged areas were identified in Clan, namely 1 Mai, Fostul Hotel (former hotel), and
Aleea Romanilor (Roman Alley). According to the typology proposed in this project, the three areas
are marginalized communities, disadvantaged in terms of all three criteria - human capital,
employment and housing. Regarding ethnicity, these communities are inhabited by Roma in a
proportion of 80%, according to the hetero-identification done by the institutional representatives.
1 Mai zone
Marginalized poor area of small size

A. Area history and general description
It is an area of old houses called workers' colonies, built in the '40 and located in the Old Town Clan.
In 1960, the New Town was built on a terrace of the Strei River because of the pollution from
Victoria Steel Mill. After that, people left the colonies in favor of apartments in the New Town. The
old houses were kept for a period for their gardens or as storage places. After a while, they were
deserted and ruined. After 1990, the ruined colonies were occupied by Roma with no other
alternatives. 'Instead of demolishing the ruin, the municipality considered the social problem of
Roma residents and left them there, even concluded renting contracts' (vice mayor). So, most of
these ruined houses are owned by the municipality, only a few of them being private property.
The population is predominantly young, stable, most of them living in the area since they were born
or moved here after marriage. Most of them live in consensual unions and their families are very
numerous.
B. Key problems
Living conditions in this area are poor. Houses are overcrowded, generally having two rooms
(bedroom and kitchen, both being used for sleeping), approximately 12 m2 each, in which live
between six and twelve persons. Because they are very old and have never been renovated, the
'barracks', as they are called, are very damaged, the bricks are falling from the walls, the roofs have
cracks and it rains in the house, hence the walls are damp. Due to the very poor housing conditions
(humidity, dampness, cold, dirt, bugs), the health of most inhabitants of this area is at risk.
The infrastructure and the access to utilities is a problem. Streets are not even paved. There is no
running water. The single source of potable water for the whole neighborhood is a hydrant. So
access to water is limited but also the water consumption is high and all costs are borne by the
municipality.
In terms of access to electricity are two problematic situations. On the one hand, some households
could not pay connection. As a solution did all sort of improvisations to connect to the neighbors,
they were caught and consequently they have to pay large fines. On the other hand, other
households have no electricity because they could not pay the monthly subscription and they were
disconnected.
Like most of Clan's population, the residents of 1 Mai area lack jobs. Their situation is however
more vulnerable as their formal education is extremely low. Consequently, they make a living from
scrap metal and social benefits. Men, women and even children collect scrap refundable metal from
the former steel mill premises, earning per day mere 10-20 lei (4-5 euro). Currently, their livelihood
is seriously endangered by the modernization project of the steel mill. A company is greening the
former steel mill and does not allow them anymore to carry on this activity. Consequently, many of
them were fined, beaten or put in jail for 'stealing' metal from the industrial platform.
112
Housing problems are accompanied by poverty ("we need Clan Days and we do not have what to
eat"). The main sources of income in the area are income from informal casual work and social
benefits, especially child allowance, family benefit, or single parent benefits. When they are caught
collecting scrap metal, the Minimum Guaranteed Income is ceased, the municipality considering that
they would have a source of income. So, people feel trapped in a vicious circle, if they work they are
punished, if they don't work they are called 'lazy', and anyhow incomes are insufficiently for covering
the bare necessities.
Being a small city, from any point, one can reach any public institution or service, hospital, college,
school, kindergarten, etc. within a 10 minutes walk.
Although are living in extremely poor conditions, the inhabitants of 1 Mai area are not willing to
move elsewhere.


113


114
Aleea Romanilor zone
Marginalized poor area, a former hostel for single workers, small size (about 180 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
The block of flats from Aleea Romanilor, located in Oraul Nou Clan (New Clan Town) is a former
hostel for single workers. At the time when the Iron and Steel Factory was still in operation, it had
two hostels for the technical staff and for the engineers. After the factory was shut down, the
hostels were sold to a company, which in turn sold the apartments to part of the present owners.
Meanwhile, one of the hostels was renovated by the owner who had bought it, but the other
remained in the same situation.
B. Key problems
The block of flats is characterised by massive agglomeration, harbouring about 180 people. Each
family lives in a single small room.
The lack of access to utilities is one of the key problems of the inhabitants dwelling in the block of
flats from Aleea Romanilor. Just a handful of families have electric power and the other inhabitants
take electric power from them using improvised installations, which are a real danger for the
children. The dwellers ruined all utilities, so that now they dont have running water of sewage. The
source of water for all inhabitants of the block is a public hydrant from where they take water in
plastic cans.
The dwellers have built improvised stoves to heat during the winter and to cook. When they run out
of wood, they burn old clothes or clothes bought from second-hand stores. Because of the fume of
the stoves the building is tarnished, having thus a bleak appearance.
Same as the utilities, the common bathrooms on each floor have been ruined. Presently, the block
has no public toilet, and the rooms where the toilets were once have been transformed in garbage
dump areas. The area around the block of flats has been transformed into public toilet, which makes
the air unbreathable.
This area is a source of infections that endanger both the life of the dwellers and of their children
who are playing next to the places full of filth and garbage, and of their neighbours, more so as a
kindergarten with nursery is located near the block of flats and the people are hanging their clothes
to dry on the fence of the kindergarten.
Many windows no longer have wooden frames because they were removed and used to make fire,
while others are improvised.
The block is in an advanced state of degradation because the incomes of the dwellers are very low
and therefore, they have no means to renovate their dwellings. The outer walls seem to start falling
any second, the inner walls are full of dampness and the basement is flooded and full of dirt.
C. Types of interventions
The local authorities arranged a playground for children near this block of flats, but because of the
bad smell and filthiness, the children from the neighbouring blocks of flats dont come to play here.
The Local Council appointed a Commission of mediation to solve the problem of the garbage from
the block and from the surrounding area. This commission organised meetings with the dwellers of
the block and appointed a leader for each floor; this person must keep the order, must see that the
floor remains clean and must mediate the relation with the town hall. The town hall supplied trucks
to take the garbage away and paid some of the dwellers who participated in the cleaning activities;
115
however, not so long time after the cleaning operation, the common areas of the block turned back
into garbage dumps.


116
'Fostul Hotel' zone
Marginalized poor area of small size

A. Area history and general description
This block of flats is located in Oraul Nou Clan (New Clan Town), very near to the block of flats
from Aleea Romanilor; it is a former hotel which was used as sanatorium, where a doctor specialist
in acupuncture was treating people coming from all over the country.
After it was no longer used as sanatorium, the rooms were sold as apartments; however, the initial
buyers moved away later because the rooms were very small and sold them to poor people. In time,
this block ended to be inhabited mostly by Roma people.
B. Key problems
Unlike the other block of flats, this one has running water and electric power. Cooking gas pipes
were brought next to the block, using money from a project, but the dwellers had no money to get
connected to the gas pipe. Even so, their incomes are not enough to pay for the utilities, so that they
have a lot of debts and some have already been disconnected.
The dwelling conditions are precarious. The dwelling area is represented by a room, which is used as
sleeping room, dining room, office and kitchen by large families. In winter, the inhabitants of the
Fostul Hotel get warmed with stoves and, because they have no money for fire wood, they burn
cloths and second-hand clothes (they are called Clan Talibans, Urbanism representative). In
summer, many of them dont have the money to buy a gas cylinder to cook, and the town hall
forbids them to make fire in stoves.
The dwelling problems confronting the people from the Fostul Hotel block of flats are the
degraded outer walls (no plaster coating), the inner walls full of holes, the water infiltrations through
the top ceiling, the damp rooms, wall dampness, the cracks in the ceiling of rooms, the deteriorated
flights of stairs and the lack of windows in the stair case.
The situation is more so difficult as most of the dwellers are people with low educational level and
low professional training, unemployed people, unoccupied adult people and workers (by the day or
hired hands) in the informal sector of the economy. Some of them dont have the money to send
their children to school, to buy clothes and footwear and something to eat at school. For many of
them, the main reason to go to school is to get the money from the state allocation.
Taking into account that most of these people are collecting scrap iron to sell, they are very
dissatisfied by the fact that the local authorities no longer allow them to take scrap iron from the
premises of the former iron and steel factory and even fine them. The mothers would go abroad to
work, but they have small children and there is nobody they can entrust the children to while they
are abroad.
Dwelling in miserable conditions, poverty and hunger lead to the significant deterioration of the
health state. In such disadvantaged areas, with extremely small dwelling area, there is dampness of
the walls, humidity, and the people have health problems.
117


118
Crosscutting issues
Community participation
In these disadvantaged communities, the capacity of collective action is low and the people are
generally trying to solve their problems individually. In 1 Mai there was a leader from the Roma
Party, who went abroad later, and the town hall has a mediator for Roma problems. The people
dont trust such leaders because they are aim their individual interests and do not represent the rest
of the people.
The local authorities consider that the inhabitants of these marginalized areas are not aware of their
situation and many of them are not interested to keep the place clean, while their leaders do not
take action to solve problems (They didnt quite understand that they have to clean up by
themselves. They also are somehow slow-minded, but would they had some leaders to come to the
Town hall, be insistent, the Town hall would have probably helped them more with the renovation of
the building but they didnt manifest anything at all, just ruined everything. By all means, without
their participation we cannot integrate them. Anyhow, we are fighting the wind mills. If there is no
collaboration from them Representatives of the local authorities). The collective capacity of action
to improve the living conditions is also affected by the financial resources available to the dwellers.
The authorities think that the community needs projects which to make the people aware of and
responsible for their role in maintaining the state of order and cleanness.
The general perception of the local authorities is that the dwellers of the disadvantaged areas do
nothing to improve their conditions of living; they are just waiting the help of the local authorities
(Usually, all they do is to come and collect social benefits. I can tell you this from my experience! This
is just about all they are concerned about, incomes, allocations to support the family, etc Social
Work representative).
On the other hand, the people living in these areas are discontented about their interaction with the
local institutions, because they consider that although the local authorities know their problems and
have the capacity to solve these problems, they dont do it. This decreases their trust in the
authorities, much more so as the perception among the population is that the authorities make
promises which they do not keep, just to get some votes.
Generally, at least declaratively, the members of the community are interested to participate in
meetings and discussions with the local authorities on issues regarding the manner in which their
conditions of living might be improved. They stated their availability to participate in public meetings
and would even contribute with physical work, if the local authorities would come up with a plan for
the improvement of their life conditions.
Local development strategy/ plans
The authorities didnt find any solution to solve the problems of these disadvantaged areas (What
did we do for them? We help them with cleaning, water stuff like this, utilities emergency aid,
what everybody does Deputy Mayor). The reason which he raised for not being able to get involved,
is the problem of the property. Because the dwellings from the two blocks of flats do not belong to
the town hall, the town hall cannot get involved. Although they submitted several PHARE project
proposals for the renovation of the utilities networks and of the public toilets/bathrooms from the
block of flats located on Aleea Romanilor, they didnt get funds. The legislative barriers limit the
possibilities of intervention in these areas; hence, the need for programs that allow investments in
private-owned dwellings, while the European lines of financing should have more directions of
action for the disadvantaged areas.
119
A possible solution would be to isolate the block of flats located on Aleea Romanilor from the rest of
the neighbourhood by building a wall.
Same as in other small towns, in Clan too, there is no NGO which to get involved in solving the
problems from the marginal areas. There is just one NGO, receiving funds from Germany, which set
up a social canteen in an area which the town hall put at their disposal, and which provides 3 times a
day, Monday through Friday, meals for about 100 poor people. On holidays it also organises
celebrations for the Roma children and gives them clothes as gift. Despite these benefits, the people
are suspicious even about the activity of this NGO, showing thus how little they trust any kind of
institution (They did some kind of strike a mutiny that the town hall gives her money and that the
food is bad but it is not bad at all Deputy Mayor).
Clan town has a strategy for urban development, but this strategy doesnt focuses on the problems
of the disadvantaged areas, but rather in the policy for economic development of the town.
Presently, an 80 million Euros project for the ecologization of the industrial platform (about 40 ha of
area) is implemented through the Regional Operational Plan: Rehabilitation of the industrial site
from the former industrial platform Clan and making it ready for new activities. An industrial park
will be established and 40 plots will be arranged and fitted with all utilities (running water, sewage,
gas, electric power, roads, access to the main road), where the investors can develop businesses.
About 1,000 jobs might be created.
In the future, the town hall intends to write a project for the Sectoral Operational Program
Improvement of the Economic Competitiveness (POSCCE), with the purpose to run training courses.
Regarding the disfavoured communities, the authorities from Clan need financial support because
the town hall has a limited financial capacity; it needs partners for collaboration and for the
development of joint projects. It also needs the involvement of the community members, translated
into awareness of the problems, responsibility and collaboration. A successful project would be that
one which would renovate the dwellings and would set up training courses and awareness-rising
activities among the adult population and among the children in order to integrate them (these
courses should teach them how to integrate and to become aware that going to school is good
good for their future in a word, change of mentality. They are expecting help from the state they
dont even want to work the compulsory hours in exchange for the social benefits they receive. We
always have problems. Social Work representative).
120

6.7 Field Report: Oltenia
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out on the 29
th
of April and 9
th
of May 2013. Oltenia was the pilot of the
qualitative assessment and the entire research team took part in the fieldwork. The data collection
activities included three interviews with institutional representatives (mayor, urban planner,
representative of the Public Social Assistance Service), two focus groups discussions with residents
of disadvantaged communities (with 14 participants), and field visits in four poor zones.
46
The
participants to the focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 1 5 0 3 3 0
Roma 0 2 0 0 0 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (Lotizri and Turol) and cover a variety of
social situations. Thus, out of the 14 participants: (a) 9 persons come from households with 1-4
members, while the others come from households with 5-10 members; (b) 4 live in households with
no children (0-14 years); (c) in 4 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers of a
handicap or chronic disease; (d) 8 participants completed gymnasium at most, 5 graduated
vocational schools and 1 graduated high school; (e) 3 are employees, 1 is daily worker, 3 are jobless
actively looking for a job, 2 are pensioners (due to age), 1 is student, 3 are housewives and 1 is
person unable to work (due to a health problem); (f) consequently, in only 3 households there is a
wage earner and only 2 households benefit of a pension; (g) 79% of participants arrived in the city
before 1989 (starting with 1954) and half of them moved to the poor zone before 1990; (h) 9 live in
houses, 4 inhabit an apartment in a block of flats and 1 lives in an improvised shelter; (i) 13 are
owners and 1 lives in a rented house (j) the participants occupy dwellings between 5 and 176 m2; (k)
9 have electricity, all have water and 7 have sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

46
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (48 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
121
City profile


Former industrial
and harbor city in
economic collapse.

An economically
disadvantaged city.



Oltenia is the second city of Clrai county in terms of size and population after the capital-city of
the county called also Clrai. It is situated in the south part of Romania, at the confluence of Arge
River with the Danube. Once the second economic centre of the county, Oltenia local economy
collapsed after years of hectic economic strategy, uneven or vicious privatization of the industrial
sector, lack of vision in relation to agricultural development and, generally, of a wider degradation of
the national economy as a whole.
Despite the 64% of arable land of the city, there is no significant agricultural production besides self-
consumption of the households. The tertiary sector is the only functional one, but for instance, the
tourism is quasi-missing, in a city opening to the biggest river of the country (and implicitly with high
potential of aquatic and nautical sports) and at only 130 km from Bucharest.
Oltenia counts for 26,858 inhabitants in January 2012, accordingly to the National Institute of
Statistics
47
(NIS), with 47.7% represented by men and 52.3% by women. The 0-14 year old bracket
represents 13.4% of the population, the 15-59 years old 67% and the 60+ years old 19.6%. The 2002
census data indicated that 7.28% of the population was Roma which is double than the national
average.
The city General Urban Plan
48
(GUP) is under final revision and submitted to public debate.
According to GUP, in the nineties, Oltenia accounted for over 40% of the county employment in
industry. The official data for 1989 indicated: 4,582 employees at the ship-yard, 3,057 employees at
the spinning-mill factory, 1,857 employees at the foundry factory and 1,526 employees at the fruit
and vegetables process-sing factory. The above were totalizing for over 11,000 employees, and the
other smaller enterprises or the agriculture are not counted within. Unfortunately all these big
employers are now closed and engender tremendous economic and social challenges.

47
TEMPO Online, Population at the beginning of the year http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/
48
Plan Urbanistic General al http://www.primariaoltenita.ro/
Clrai
County
Romania map
122
In conclusion, in terms of urban disadvantaged areas typology, the entire city of Oltenia represents
an economically disadvantaged area.
In the education sector, the city has 6 kindergartens, 6 schools and 3 high schools. In health sector,
there is a municipal hospital, including out and in patient and ambulance, 2 dozens of family medical
doctors and 13 pharmacies. Other relevant structures mentioned by the GUP: 1 museum, 1 stadium,
and 8 bank offices.
The urban disadvantaged areas
Besides the economic disadvantage that is characteristic for the city as a whole, some distinct areas
were identified that fall in the category of disadvantage, with different degrees of problems that
need to be addressed:
(1) Lotizri a new built area in the southern part of the city.
(2) Turol block of flats, former hostel for workers at the Turol factory
(3) Olfil block of flats, former hostel for workers at the Olfil factory
(4) 9 Mai small area of houses located in the northern part of the city.














Source: Google maps.
123
Lotizri zone
New area with poor access to infrastructure

A. Area history and general description
Lotizri is a new area of the city, with only partial access to infrastructure. The area appeared 6-7
years ago as part of the local authorities plan to aid young families that had difficulties in acquiring a
dwelling. The land was given in concession to young families (age below 35) who never owned a
property, after a previous social inquiry made by Social Services, with the sole condition of building a
house in the next following year. This being the only criteria, the program attracted in time
heterogeneous population by income, education or ethnicity.
All dwellings in the area are new, with different housing conditions and quality determined by the
households income. To some extent, additional quality shortage was imposed by the mandatory
rule of finishing the house in the first year. Residents have ownership over the dwellings, but not of
the land that the house is built on. There are only 4 houses built on private land in the area, due to
the fact that local authorities used some parts of the spare land to indemnity the persons which lost
their dwellings by abusive measures of communist regime.
In terms of livelihoods, the area is similarly affected by the difficult economic situation as the rest of
the city, with no segregation of richer or poorer households. As part of a relatively small city, access
to public or private services is not considered to be difficult.
B. Key problems
The hey problem of the Lotizri area is the incomplete acces to infrastrucure provided, even thou
the development of the area as a residential one was not a spontaneous movement, but a planned
program of the local authorities. The main problems are the lack of a sewage system and poor road
conditions. In the first 2 years not even electricity was provided for the area, making very difficult
everyday living, and even more, the mandatory construction of houses.
In the last 5 years, besides the electrification of the area, recent interventions addressed the
problem of water supply for the area and provided sewage system for only two streets. Local
authorities included the area in a broader project for infrastructure development and improvement.
However, because at the time the project was implemented the area was smaller in size and the
residents that moved there later do not benefit today of the utilities provided by the project.
Even if there is a water supply in the area, access to water is still an issue for many households in
area, because house connection to the supply has to be made individually. The interaction of
residents with the water provider workers has been so far mostly inefficient, the latter being
accused of either lack of interest, sloppy completion of job, or personal interest. On account of this
mistrust, many residents choose to make the connection by themselves, thus resulting in potential
improper water infrastructure work in the area.
Another key problem of the area is the road infrastructure, the streets lacking even rock or pebble
pavements. However, is a general consent among residents and local authorities that this issue has
to be postponed, and addressed only after the completion of the sewage system in the area.
The area of Lotizri lacks also gas provision. However, this is not defined by the residents as a utility
problem, because most of them dont afford this type of service. Moreover, all of the heating
systems of the households are already made to function on wood supply.
The absence of a playground in the area is another issue raised by the residents of Lotizri, the
closest one beeing remote for small children.
124


C. Community organization and cohesion
The Lotizri area lacks community cohesion and organization as highlighted by the residents
themselves. This behavior can be to some extent accounted by the relatively new formed
neighborhood, were personal ties among neighbors are still developing. Even if they have the same
problems they act each on their own. Moreover, they feel like if they would form an organized group
to pressure the institution responsible of addressing the issue, this could be translated in the future
in repercussions on a personal level.
D. Residents interaction with institutions
There is a communication and trust gap between the residents and the local authorities and service
providers, especially after the difficulties encountered in obtaining a minimum well-being in the
area. The perception of the residents is that issues are addressed by the responsible institutions only
if they are persistent enough in their demands, or if election periods are near.
Turol zone
Marginalized poor area of small size

A. Area history and general description
Turol building is one of the marginalized urban areas, in accordance with the methodology of the
project, with very poor housing conditions and little employment among the residents.
Similar to Olfil building, Turol is a former factory own building, which offered accommodation to its
workers. As the local industry was reduced significantly in time, the building was taken over by the
municipality which sold the flats to its occupants.
125
Beginning with the closing of the factory, which meant for many families the loss of their primary
source of income, and with few employment opportunities in the area, the well-being of the
residents was reduced significantly. In time, the lack of financial resources influenced directly the
quality of housing, which added to the predefined conditions (one room flats with small improvised
kitchen and shared bathrooms) resulted in precarious housing conditions.
The majority of residents are unemployed, relying mostly on social benefits - Minimum Guaranteed
Income, child allowances, pensions, etc. To cover the household minimal needs, most of them seek
jobs in the informal sector, working as daily workers in unskilled, low paid, manual jobs.
B. Key problems
One of the key problems of the building is the access to electricity. Because there are no individual
contracts made with the provider, even thou the flats are in private ownership, the building has only
one official meter and receives one bill based upon the entire electricity consumption. In addition,
each flat has its own meter (installed with no authorization from the provider) in order to know the
exact consumption made and contribute with the necessary amount to the overall bill. However,
due to the lack of financial resources, some flats remained behind with the payments. Due to the
accumulation of debts and penalties the provider stopped providing electricity to the building in
March. More, the electricity company started the procedure of debt recovery (with a debt recovery
firm), which could result in goods loss for the residents that failed to pay their consumption. Being as
it is a poor community, for some this could mean the loss of their dwelling.
The residents tried in time to solve this issue of overall contract and payment, but they had to stop
pursuing this idea due to the high amount requested by the provider in order to make individual
connections and contracts.
Another key problem that distinguishes Turol building as an urban disadvantaged area are the poor
housing condition, partially due to the low maintenance capacity of the dwellers, directly influenced
by their income. The roof of the building needs to be repaired as water infiltration affects the last
level flats, while the sewage system is partially destroyed with large spilling in the basement of the
building that in time can seriously affect the main structure of the construction. Besides these issues,
other additional esthetic work needs to be done to the interior and exterior of the building.
C. Types of interventions
Because of the private status of the building, the municipality has little to no mechanisms of
intervention, even more because the building has no juridical form of organization as in the form of
owners association. More, for a program of building renovation to be implemented
49
, the residents
have to cover part of the costs; the municipality representatives consider that the people living in
Turol have no financial resources to contribute with in such of program. The residents are seen by
the local authorities the only responsible for the state of degradation the building is in, therefore
they are the ones who have to find a solution for this problem.
The situation of interruption of the electricity supply is a recurrent event and different solutions
have been found in time: mobilization of residents to pay the debts, with some paying part of other
neighbors debts and informal interventions of the municipality representatives (mayor) to the
electricity provider for the residents not to pay the reconnection fee. However, none of these are
consistent with a long term solution for this problem.
The municipality intervened as well in the case of water supply interruptions, caused by the debts
accumulation. The local authority own part of the water supply company and could erase part of the
residents large debts, so the block was not disconnected. The access to water is seen as crucial and

49
A program of thermal rehabilitation of residential buildings using partially European funds, partially funds from the local budgets and
partially contribution from the apartments owners.
126
the municipality tried to prevent a more difficult situation caused by the interruption of the water
supply.


D. Community organization and cohesion
The Turol residents used to be organized in an owner association. The association is no longer
functional due to various reasons: the official papers expired and have not been renewed; the
residents did not contribute anymore with money for the association administrator salary (the last
administrator made all the work voluntarily); and due to the tensions among neighbors caused by
the non-payment of electric bills, nobody wanted to be responsible with the association
administration.
In order to overcome the difficulties that they are facing, the residents of Turol consider that an
external authority would be the best solution, to organize and help them to solve the problems.
Again, as in many other cases we see the lack of power of self-determination and poor leadership
capacity that can enable communities to act together in their own benefit.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
The Turol residents feel that the local authorities remember them only during the electoral
campaigns when they receive lots of promises. When the campaigns are over, nobody pay attention
to them and shows any interest in finding solutions to their problems.

127
Olfil zone
Marginalized poor area of small size

Olfil is a block of flats designed to accommodate workers of the local spinning mill factory. After the
privatization of the factory, the building was bought by the municipality and used to accommodate
low income families/ persons that lacked other housing options, in return of a relatively low rent.
The key problem of this building are the poor housing conditions offered, especially in terms of
overcrowding: one room flats, of no more than 9m
2
, with no kitchen or bathroom, that
accommodate families with 2-3 children and even more. The bathrooms are shared and lack
functional showers. Due to the full occupancy of the building, little or no intervention could be made
by the municipality to address this issue.
Except the poor housing conditions (overcrowding and low maintenance) the building offers
however access to water, electricity and heating system.
The communication with the local authorities is somewhat better than in other disadvantaged areas
of the city, due to the fact that the building is a municipality good and thus has a person designated
to handle all matters regarding it.

128
9 Mai zone
Poor marginalized area of small size

9 May is a small area of houses located in the northern part of Oltenia, with partial access to
infrastructure and economically disadvantaged residents.
The neighborhood is inhabited by a Roma population, with little or no education, which makes even
harder for them to find employment in area. To ensure livelihood, most of them sell used plastic
bottles and scrap-iron. Some members of the community have migrated abroad, in western
European countries.
Most of them dont have any form of social benefits, which is a measure of the inefficient interaction
they have with the local authorities, accountable on both sides. Children are confronted with very
early school dropout (2-3 classes), either of lack of financial resources, either of the little importance
placed on education by parents. This makes very difficult for the children to have a real chance at a
better life than their parents.
The interventions made so far by the local authorities in the area, are the ones that provided the
partial coverage with water supply (only on the main street) and a minimum road infrastructure.
However, the rainy periods, hamper access in the area. Some households, living at the edge of the
area, have no electricity. For them to be connected a pole needs to be installed, operation for which
the electricity provider does cover the costs.
Housing conditions are in some cases really poor, as dwellings are made out of improvised
unconventional materials. Also there are some issues regarding ownership; as stated by the local
representatives, some dont have legal papers for their dwellings.

129
Crosscutting issues
Community participation
Community participation in development projects is considered by the local authorities to be a
difficult and a potentially unsuccessful approach, as the biggest part of the population lacks
community spirit, and in some cases even education. As they see the situation portrayed in their
day-to-day interaction with the population, even if the people have the same problem and know
that they are not the only ones dealing with this problem, still take action individually.
In Oltenia there are no formal owners associations established (in the residential buildings). The
lack of these forms of organization makes it difficult for the municipality to undertake development
actions in private owned areas.
Successful community participation is to some extent questionable on behalf of the community
itself, as many times the residents have the tendency to attribute the main responsibility of
improving living conditions to exterior factors. The actions they are mostly willing to do is
contribution with labor, which in some cases should be translated into a direct impact on ones living
conditions. For example, in Lotizri area the municipality provided building curbs and asked the
community to make the needed work; participation was very low (3-4 persons) and only on behalf of
those the directly beneficed of the new curbs.
Local development strategy/ plans
Due to the limited financial resources of the local budget, the local authority has to priorities and
decides what interventions can be implemented. The city municipality intends to continue the
programs regarding the infrastructure (water, sewage and roads) and the Lotizri area is considered
a priority. Regarding other disadvantaged areas, the municpality has no intervention plans.
130

6.8 Field Report: Slobozia
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out on the 28
th
of June 2013 by Manuela Sofia Stnculescu, Simona Anton
and Bogdan Corad.
50
The data collection activities included three interviews with institutional
representatives (mayor and deputy-mayor; urban planner; director of the Public Social Assistance
Service), two focus groups discussions with residents of disadvantaged communities (with 15
participants), and field visits in five poor zones.
51
The participants to the focus group discussions
distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 1 8 0 0 6 0
Roma 0 0 0 0 0 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (Ugira and Tineretului) and cover a variety
of social situations. Thus, out of the 15 participants: (a) 14 persons come from households with 1-4
members and one comes from a household with 5 members; (b) 9 live in households with no
children (0-14 years); (c) in 2 households at least one member (child or adult) suffers of a handicap
or disability; (d) 5 graduated high school and 6 accomplished tertiary education; (e) 10 are
employees, 1 is pensioner, 2 are housewives and 2 are jobless actively looking for a job; (f) in 11
households there is at least one wage earner and 1 household benefit of a pension; (g) 73% of
participants arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with 1960), and all of them moved to the poor
zone after 1990; (h) 7 live in houses, 8 inhabit an apartment in a block of flats; (i) 14 are owners and
1 rented the flat from a private owner (j) the participants occupy dwellings between 20 and 200 m2;
(k) 8 have electricity, all have water and 8 have sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

50
The team leader Rob Swinkels and Florin Botonogu accompanied the research team.
51
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (108 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
131
City profile





A historic Romanian city
with a modern twist.
The Dallas of Romania.





Slobozia is the capital city of Ialomia County being the largest both in terms of size and population.
The city is situated in the south of Romania, on the banks of Ialomia River, being 120 km east of
Bucharest and 150 km west of Constana (the home of the largest Romanian harbor).
Ialomia County presents a total population of 258,700 (Population and Residence Census, 2011),
out of which approximately 51,745 reside in Slobozia (National Institute for Statistics, January 2012).
The gender structure of Slobozia is 49.8% men and 50.2% women (County Institute for Statistics,
2002). Out of total population, the age structure of the city goes as follows: 0-14 year old represent
13.3%, 15-59 years old represent 72.1% and 60+ years old represent 14.6%. According to the 2002
census data, 2.4% of population was Roma ethnics.
Given the geographical location of Slobozia (Brgan plain), the city is focused primarily on
agriculture and the processing of agricultural products. Overall, the economic structure for Slobozia
is characterized by manufacturing units for chemical, plastic, food, wood, furniture, textile and
telecommunication industries, construction companies and agriculture.
In terms of employment structure, most of them work in public administration, followed by
medicine, education and emergency services (i.e. police, firefighters). The number of persons who
work in private sector is less than those in public sector. Nonetheless, those that work in private are
mainly sales representatives at local shops. According to the mayor of Slobozia, Alexandru Stoica,
the city is in dire need of jobs as poverty is not the main problem, but the lack of employment. He
estimates that approximately 2000 jobs would help the city be on the floating line. As part of the
solution, they recently implemented a project regarding small and medium companies for an
industrial platform, through European funds, which offers land equipped with utilities to foreign
investors. The local budget is deemed to be relatively sufficient, although it sustains itself mainly on
taxes, as poor people always pay their debts (vice-mayor).
Slobozia is the educational, cultural and health center of Ialomia County. The city presents libraries,
schools, kindergartners, high schools, universities, museums (The National Museum of Agriculture
Ialomia
County
SLOBOZIA
Romania
132
and The County Museum of History). Slobozia is the home of the county hospital, equipped with an
emergency section and ambulances. In addition, the city is the shopping center of the county with its
Ialomia Shopping Center, hypermarkets, peasant fairs and markets.
Lastly, Slobozia is well known in Romania as being the place where Dallas (the popular American TV
series from the 70s) comes to life, where a replica of the Eiffel tower stands tall and where very rich
people reside in fabulous mansions. Yet, our city is practically economically disadvantaged (focus
group Tineretului).
The urban disadvantaged areas
As result of the interviews and focus groups, we identified the following vulnerable areas in Slobozia:
1. Bora, located in the historical center of the city with a community of approximately 2000
residents. The least happy place in Slobozia (mayor) or Bora is the most disadvantaged area
because the majority is Roma ethnic. Then comes the infrastructure issues (representative of the
Urban Planning Department).
2. Slobozia Nou, located 4 kilometers away from the city with a community of approximately 3840
residents. An old establishment recognized for its farms, farmers and animal breeders. However, the
area is yet to be fully equipped with utilities, having water, electricity and gas while the sewerage
system is still under construction and the roads are unpaved. In terms of amenities, the locality has a
kindergartner, school and an under-construction sports hall.
3. Tineretului (Lotizrii), located in the suburban area of Slobozia (North-West). The area presents
242 construction plots all reserved for and owned by young persons with possibilities. It is a
disadvantaged area in the sense that it lacks infrastructure, and not in the sense of underprivileged
persons, it is the diagonally opposite of Bora (mayor).
4. Lactirom, located in the suburban area of Slobozia (South). In the 90s vast amounts of land were
restituted to their righteous owners. As a result, the houses which were build on that land, were
approximately 80% of them brand new mansions. However, a part of these houses were built on
industrial land (as in accordance with the general urban planning strategy). So, they are crme de la
crme, and their only problem is lack of utilities and infrastructure (representative of the Urban
Planning Department).
5. Ugira, two blocks with 1-room flats located centrally in Slobozia and in the close proximity of the
county hospital. One of the blocks is owned by the City Hall, and is treated as social housing for
those who are deprived (vice-mayor). The other block is privately own, as residents purchased
their homes from the private company which initially owned and used it as dormitory for workers.
There, it looks like Beirut says the mayor. Overall, this area is the only ghetto in Slobozia.
6. G50 is located at the North-West of Slobozia in proximity of the local penitentiary. The block is
privately owned by the residents which struggle with infrastructure problems and social
marginalization. However, in a lesser degree than that in Ugira area, since they were able to put in
sewerage throughout the building since the neighboring industrial companies had the pipes
installed.
7. Zona 500 is located in the Eastern area of Slobozia city and it is a complex of social housing under
the jurisdiction of the Ialomia County Council. The area is known as 500s since at one point in time
there were 500 apartments and the entire area was build on the motto one week, one block as
part of the industrial communist boom (according to social welfare office representative). Unlike
most Romanian social housing, the apartments are large, but like most Romanian social housing they
lack most utilities (except for central heating which is very common for Slobozia).
133
All disadvantaged areas present stable populations. Following, we will present the representative
cases for Slobozia disadvantaged areas: Bora (the Roma ethnic community), Ugira (the ghetto) and
Tineretului (the infrastructure-challenged community).
Source: Google maps.

134
Bora zone
Poor marginalized area of large size (about 2,000 inhabitants)

A. Area history and general description
From Bora Bora jokes the mayor, and continues with I really do not know to say, but for sure it
predates Slobozia. So, before Slobozia was Slobozia it was Bora. Apparently, the current name of
the city carries out the meaning of freedom and liberation also relating to the emancipation of Roma
ethnics in the late 17
th
century.
B. Key problems
According to the social welfare representative, Bora is the place where women work more than
men, where men send women to work. Work without papers, only day-labor such as metal
collection, or as petty illegal merchants. Most children on the same premise are not allowed to go to
school. Consequently, she mentions the fact that 40% of all social work case files are for Bora area.
However, due to the lack of employment history spread throughout the population of Bora, their
access to social welfare is very limited - Because for welfare money you need to work and those
gentlemen do not wish to work (the social welfare representative). On the basis of the law, they are
not eligible for the welfare funds since they do not own any employment record. Nonetheless, there
is the exception of single parents (preponderantly mothers) which seek more often social welfare.
Another issue would be that of official documents such as identity cards and property acts. Since the
Roma ethnics reside in privately owned proprieties, it is very difficult for the authorities to sort
things out since the land cadastre and house mapping are inaccurate. The City Hall even registered a
case where 273 persons were registered to the same address.
Nevertheless, they are poor owners of poor houses. Since they have no money, the houses have a
modest aspect and the infrastructure lacks as - just the main road is paved while the others are
stone roads, as there are houses which have no electricity and as the sewerage system is insufficient.
C. Types of interventions
In Bora area the following projects have been carried out: (1) multifunctional center with capacity
for 30 beneficiaries (where children go directly from school, do their homework, play music or dance
and receive snacks); it is deemed insufficient given the large number of children in the area,
estimated as half of the total population; (2) medico-social office and (3) soup kitchen for children as
incentives for school participation. The latter, is a rather innovative approach where the City Hall and
a private company work together in order to make a difference by offering a warm meal to children.

135



136
D. Community organization and cohesion
All those who were interviewed agree that the cultural level in Bora is rather low in comparison
with the rest of Slobozia. Also, they do concur that most likely they help each other and interact
mostly among themselves. According to the vice-mayor, they seem to have an informal leader,
called Berechet (where Berechet is not his real name, but his nickname which literally translate in
enough) and who owns all Bora shops and some properties in the area. However, their leader is not
a traditional Roma leader, known as bulibaa.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
Regarding this matter we registered very few data. In one of the interviews it was pointed out that
although the local police force visits the area and gives out tickets for different offenses, the fines
are treated with indifference by the population and risk never being paid off (the social welfare
representative).

Ugira zone
Marginalized poor area of medium size

A. Area history and general description
According to the representative of the local urban planning department Ugira area has been always
(before and after 90s) a place where people with problems lived, with lots of children, without jobs
or with low paying jobs. Those 1-room blocks of flat, how can I say it, had public toilets at the end of
each floor which were never attended. There was lots of garbage; a lot of them were stealing
electricity. Initially, the Ugira blocks were reserved for single working class individuals. Also, initially,
the rooms were rental only. Once the former company had no longer use for the buildings, they sold
off one of the blocks to City Hall and the other to its residents. The block purchased by authorities
became social housing, while the other became the sole responsibility of the 1-room apartment
owners (purchasing rooms without any utilities such as gas, water, electricity).
The focus group participants talked about how they ended up in Ugira. Some came because it was
the only affordable options (they were already poor and children were on the way, and they needed
a roof over their heads), others because they wanted to live in the city (better opportunities and life
in the city than in the village) and others because they wanted to be independent (in the sense of
sharing life with their partners and getting some distance between them and other close family
members, such as parents or siblings).
Ugira, I believe, is the only area, the most trashy, the most ugly neighborhood ever and all are
ignoring us when we say Ugira, all are leaving us, all are running away from us, all are avoiding us
and I do not know, I do know why because we are humans the same as the rest (focus group Ugira).
When asked what do they mean by all, they define it as the residents of Slobozia.
B. Key problems
According to the residents of Ugira, the emphasis was on the exterior appearance of the buildings
(fresh coat of paint, mowing the grass, thermo-isolation of the building) and children utilities (a
playground where they can safely play). They believe that given their central location, in between
Slobozias maintained and pretty official buildings, it is a shame that Ugira neighborhood is in such
a poor state. For 23 years nobody did anything here (focus group Ugira).
The criminal activity revolves around petty thefts, street fights and noise pollution. The
neighborhood is well known for this trait, making difficult the interaction between the residents of
137
Ugira and the rest of Slobozia. People here are mostly ex-cons, majority always looking for a fight
tells a focus group participant. Due to this, some services became unavailable for the residents in the
area, such as taxis, since clients from Ugira rarely pay the transport fee. Furthermore, the area is
filthy (focus group Ugira) and packs of street dogs make sure to keep away any unknown person
(focus group Ugira).
Furthermore, there is the problematic of the different administrative treatments given to block of
flats. As the one which is officially recognized as social housing is better maintained than the other
block which is under the responsibility of its owners. The latter procured itself most of the utilities
(i.e. water, central heating, gas, electricity) while the sewerage was from a benefactor, who even
helped some of us, those who could afford, build their own toilets (focus group Ugira). In other
words, the social housing block theoretically has a safety net which takes care of their needs more or
less, while the vis--vis private owners block needs to handle everything on its own.
C. Types of interventions
The social housing block, before given out to beneficiaries, was totally renovated. It looked like
brand new. I kept visiting them 3-4 times a week *+ I cannot describe the degree of deterioration
tells the social welfare representative. Then she goes on saying they should hire a person for every
floor in that block to live and educate them 24/7.

138


139
D. Community organization and cohesion
The residents of Ugira are organized as one of the blocks has an active owners association and the
other block is under City Hall supervision. However, there is no cohesion between the blocks as
those in social housing blame the private owners block and vice versa. Their explanations are
emotional, based on envy or jealousy, on the principle of why do they have it and we dont? One of
the focus group participants mentions if they make it pretty, lets make both pretty, because both
are called Ugira. The other one looks way better than ours.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
When Ugira community mobilizes and appeals for help from institutions, they are dismissed or even
worse flat-out rejected without any explanation other than what would be the point of making a
park there since you would destroy it all in no time (focus group Ugira). Due to these types of
reactions, the communication and trust between both parties is insufficient and does not do
anything but maintain the undesirable situation.
Tineretului zone
New area with poor access to infrastructure

A. Area history and general description
In 2008, on the basis of the 15/2003 civil law, 242 building plots were offered through a contest (City
Hall housing project) for all young people with financial possibilities (<35 years of age). The
requirements of the contract were the construction in maximum two years of a ground floor+1
st

floor house in accordance with the specified building measurements. However, for all those who
stood to fail any of these conditions, the plot would be reassigned to the next on the list.
The population structure of the neighborhood is mainly Romanian, employed (most of them work in
the city), highly educated and from well off families.
B. Key problems
According to the focus group participants the entire housing project was all about unpleasant
surprises. Firstly, they mention the issue of access to the neighborhood, since the streets are
impracticable during cold seasons (they are neither paved or stoned roads, just plain old dirt roads).
Secondly, they lack utilities such as electricity (they all live on generators which of course adds to the
costs and slows down the building process), sewerage (those who could build septic tanks, those
who could not were obligated to make an outdoor toilets), water (there are water pipes only on the
main road) or gas (the pipes were installed, in the sense that they are in the ground, but none of the
houses are connected). Depending on the location of the plots, some of the plots managed to get all
utilities, since they linked to the old neighboring properties. Thirdly, the groundwater is close to the
surface (which makes any digging activity or positioning of the septic tank in desired area
impossible). Fourthly, the building measurements specified in the contract are hard to meet since if
you need to build something, you need to destroy something else (focus group Tineretului). Fifthly,
the appearance of the neighborhood is not that of a county capital neighborhood. Sixthly, since the
speed of population of the neighborhood is so slow, the theft of metal items or construction
materials is becoming a problem.
To sum it up, due to the lack of access and utilities, the newly build houses are still waiting for their
owners to come and move in. Currently, the majority are still residing in the city at relatives or in
rentals.

140
C. Types of interventions
There have been no interventions, since according to the agreed contract (between beneficiary and
City Hall) the local authorities offer the building requirements, terms & conditions and building plots
whilst offering nothing in return. Moreover, in accordance to the law, any type of connectivity to
utilities for Tineretului area needs to get the mayors and local council approvals. Thus, for example,
no resident or house owner from Tineretului can apply on his/her own for connection to electricity.
Regarding the contract, a focus group participant comments what contract It is just a minutes
through which the City Hall does not commit to anything.


141
D. Community organization and cohesion
The way things stand now for Tineretului residents and house owners, helps the community keep
organized and cohesive as they have more chances together than standing on their own. For us all
that matters is to obtain a type of collaboration of sorts. It is in our own interest to make something
of an association, to organize one way or the other and to actually do something about this. If City
Hall does not want to help, maybe we can do something (focus group Tineretului).
E. Residents interaction with institutions
Throughout the focus group, it was made obvious by the participants that the mayor, the local
council and any other local authority are only liars and that the current situation is a result of their
bad intentions. Four years ago, at the local council meeting, when members of Tineretului area
tried to carry out a discussion with the authorities regarding utilities they were treated in terms of if
you vote for me, maybe I will. People no longer trust the local authorities promises and consider
their reactions as lack of respect since they are lying to us, as if we were kids waiting for Santa
Clause (focus group Tineretului).
Crosscutting issues
Community participation
Slobozia city is low in community participation. The mayor mentions that in relation with
disadvantaged area that at some point we did a project with World Bank for Bora area, and Bora
was participative. We did the participative on paper and that was that. The social welfare
representative mentions that American movies Bora will definitely not be participative. The
urban planning department representative considers that To work together. It does not exist. Also
it does not exist in Slobozia. Furthermore, even if opportunities for community participation arise,
like in the case of Tineretului area, people soon stop participating since at one point, I just stood up
and left the meeting telling myself to never ever go and participate to another one of their meetings.
They are wasted words.
Nonetheless, once given a detailed description of the meaning of community participation and
what it would entice as part of development projects, they all agree it would possible to have
community participation. In addition, local authorities and institutions doubt the efficiency of NGOs
and deem all gold diggers.
Local development strategy/ plans
The local development strategy is not up to date. We have plans for integration and development.
We tried to update the strategies on European funds tells the vice-mayor. However, soon after we
find out that although they applied for European funds, they did not manage to assure any, as very
few funds were available to begin with and their projects just got stored in a database.
In terms of housing, Slobozia is one of the two cities in Romania (the other being Baia Mare), where
the majority of homes have central heating and is thermo-isolated. The mayor prides himself on the
modern attitude of Slobozia residents and their quick reactions for home improvement
opportunities. However, two recurrent problems popped out as a result of our fieldwork. Firstly, as
the urban planning department representative states, the main problem for all houses in Slobozia is
that of sewerage. Secondly, the laws regarding the connection to utilities as part of local housing
projects for young persons (i.e. electricity) place the individuals in a dependency relation, since only
the mayor or the city council can approve and contact the utilities suppliers.
142
In reference to social housing, the mayor emphasizes that there lots of problems since the laws are
inefficient and there are no governmental projects. This matter is further emphasized by the lack of
a centralized and updated population records.
The social welfare office of Slobozia presents very limited human resources (no active SPAS in
Slobozia), having just two employees for each relevant category (minimum guaranteed income,
allowances and handicap). Moreover, due to the lack of financial incentives for employees, the
department frequently experiences personnel fluctuations. The lack of human resources in the
department hinters the involvement in other development projects since they can barely manage
the now. Furthermore the welfare system is overly bureaucratic.
In addition, we identified the need for a Roma expert (social welfare representative) and younger
than 40 (focus group Tineretului) council members.
To sum it up, we in Romania, we do not lack smart people. We lack character, we have no
principles. This is the problem in Romania (focus group Tineretului).
143

6.9 Field Report: Alba Iulia
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The fieldwork was carried out in the period 27-29 May 2013 by Ctlina Iamandi-Cioinaru and
Andreea Trocea. The data collection activities included four interviews with institutional
representatives (deputy-mayor, architect, local NGO representative and representative of the Public
Social Assistance Service), two focus groups discussions with residents of disadvantaged
communities (with 15 participants), and field visits in three poor zones.
52
The participants to the
focus group discussions distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:
Men Women

Ethnicity
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Young
(15-29 years)
Middle-aged
(30-64 years)
Elderly
(65+ years)
Romanian 0 5 0 0 2 0
Roma 0 1 0 2 5 0

The participants to our study come from two poor zones (G2-Turturica and Lumea Nou) and cover a
variety of social situations. Thus, out of the 8 participants: (a) 12 persons come from households
with 1-4 members, while the others have 5-6 members; (b) 8 live in households with no children,
while the other live in households including 1 to 3 children (0-14 years); (c) in 6 households at least
one member (child or adult) suffers of a handicap or disability; (d) 11 have completed gymnasium at
most; (e) only 1 is employees, 1 is daily worker, 5 are housewives, 1 is pensioner (due to age) and 7
are jobless actively looking for a job; (f) in only 2 households there is a wage earner and only 1
household benefit of a pension; (g) 73% of participants arrived in the city before 1989 (starting with
1953), and almost half of them (47%) moved to the poor zone before 1989; (h) 8 live in weak houses,
7 inhabit an apartment in a block of flats; (i) 7 rented their flat from the mayoralty, 8 are owners (j)
the participants occupy dwellings between 9 and 32 m2; (k) 8 have electricity, 10 have water and all
have sewer.
We thank to the local representatives who participated with the study, helped us in organizing
fieldwork and provided valuable information about their city.

52
The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded. Verbatim transcripts in Romanian language (65 pages) are
available at request. During field visits, interviews with residents (including informal leaders) were also realized but could
not be recorded. However, the main information are included in the analysis presented in this report. Photographic
documentation was also carried out in all visited poor areas.
144
City profile




An important
cultural and
historic city.

A medium
economically
developed city.




Alba Iulia is the capital of Alba County, with a total population of approximately 60,000. The city is
situated in central Romania, in the heart of Transylvania region, on the banks of Mure River. It is
350 kilometers north of Bucharest and 100 kilometers of Cluj-Napoca (the largest city in terms of
population in Transylvania).
The city is a municipality, meaning that it the residence of Alba County authorities. It is a city of
national importance, given the historical background since it represents to all Romanians a place for
national unity (where at 1 December 1918 the Declaration of Unification was signed, and Romania
became Romania).
The gender structure of the city is 47.1% men and 52.9% women. Out of total population, the age
structure is as follows: 0-14 year old 13.4%, 15-59 years old 71% and 60+ years old 15.6%. The 2002
census data indicated that 3% of the population was Hungarian and 2% was Roma ethnic.
The main economic activities in the area are tourism, processing of the agricultural products, light
industry (i.e. leather, clothing, footwear, furniture, ceramics manufacturing), mechanical equipments
and cooper products. In the last years, the municipality has made important investments (some
using EU funds) in the conservation and restoration of the historical sites and buildings and in the
development of the tourist infrastructure.
Alba Iulia it is the cultural, economical, health and shopping center of the county. The education
sector presents 21 kindergartens, 10 schools, 9 high schools and 3 universities. The health sector
presents 6 hospitals, including the county hospital. In Alba Iulia can be found a Cultural Centre (Casa
de Cultur), five cinemas, one puppet theatre, one museum of international importance and 30
libraries from which the documentary library Batthyanaeum with over 60,000 books, that was set up
in 1794, and is a cultural institution internationally renowned.

Alba
County
Romania map
Alba Iulia
145
The urban disadvantaged areas
As result of the interviews and focus groups, we identified the following vulnerable areas in Alba
Iulia:
1. Lumea Nou is located in the central-west part of the city with a population of 3000. It is a
marginalized community as 98% are Roma ethnics. It is a house area with privately owned houses.
2. G2 Turturica is located in the area of the former collective homes, 1-room blocks of flats reserved
for single workers, called Cetatea. G2 is a single block of flats and it is social housing.
3. Ciocrliei Street (Brbani district) is located in the north-west side of Alba Iulia. It is an area
inhabited by Roma people, with precarious comfort and low access to utilities. However, once
visited, the area proved to be deserted and only 2-3 houses are inhabited.
According to NGO Paem representative, in social terms, the main problem is the Roma ethnic
community. However, throughout the entire city the population, more or less, is mixed in terms of
ethnicity and social strata. In areas 1 and 2 there are villas, in which individuals with highly paying
occupations and important social positions reside side-by-side with the poor individuals. In Alba Iulia
case, it is a matter of area size of the neighbourhood as only in the larger district, there are
marginalized areas.
Source: Google maps.
146
Lumea Nou zone
Marginalized poor area of medium size

A. Area history and general description
Residents of Lumea Nou came from various regions of the country. They were drawn to Alba Iulia
by the tolerance attitude of authorities and of population. Lumea Nou is entirely made out of
houses. When people migrate in the neighbourhood, they arrived bit by bit, making it a long term
process. In other words, Lumea Nou is the result of the past few decades of migration.
Lumea Nou evolved on the background of industrialization, when the massive need of work force
facilitated migration all over the country. The ethnic minorities came together with the majority. The
area actually has 3 worlds: first area, closer to the city centre, where the housing are of better
quality; second, an intermediate area where the quality of the housing is visibly lower; and third, an
area where the constructions are precarious, even presenting shacks. Some of them have been
demolished and the people were moved to modular houses modules.
This is an area with access to utilities and transportation means, with paved streets, with public
garbage bins and dumpsters, for about 100 households of Roma ethnics.
B. Key problems
The housing quality (exterior and interior) issue. Part of houses in are privately property and part are
illegal construction on public domain. For authorities it is impossible to intervene in case of those
houses which are private properties, while for those constructed illegally there is only the matter of
demolished.
Secondly, it is the matter of high unemployment rate in the area. Here, almost everyone in the
neighbourhood has no work says a focus group participant. According to the social welfare
representative 90% of Lumea Nou residents are welfare beneficiaries. The high unemployment rate
is in close connection with the populations low levels of education and their modest preoccupation
of education concerning both adults and children. The requirement for secondary level education in
reference to the procurement of an unqualified work position makes it more or less impossible for
residents to access employment, since majority are at best primary level graduated. Nonetheless,
the residents consider we are young and we want to work.
C. Types of interventions
In the area diverse and multiple actions were taken. In terms of infrastructure, roads which were not
paved were stoned so that access is possible and a children playground was build. Also, a
cooperative was formed to assure PET collection in the area. In terms of services, the City Hall
funded one of the most modern kindergartens in the city (at the entrance in Lumea Nou, from
Dedeman direction) where 108 Roma children attend. In addition, programs for old people are being
set up.
For adults, human resources development (training courses for crafts demanded by the labour
market from Alba Iulia), professional formation programs were carried out in the area. However,
according to residents these are few, and somewhat inefficient, since they are not serious or
there is no job afterwards, you just go for the participation money. In rest, nothing, nothing,
absolutely nothing, getting lower, getting worse and worse... and then came the crisis and I wish
for nothing else but a job, I have no other problems (focus group Lumea Nou).


147



148



149
D. Community organization and cohesion
The residents in the area consider themselves better than those in G2 block, since their homes are
bigger and unlike them, they are capable of maintaining the aspect of their homes. Moreover, they
seem to be willing to participate in any type of program or project, even volunteer, as long as they
have something to gain.
The urban planning department representative points out that the criminality level in the
neighborhood, and overall the city is very low. He states I consider Alba Iulia a city without dangers.
There is also the fact that it is a small community and they have leaders, leaders which keep them all
in check and away from crime. They take care of themselves in that sense. This is confirmed also by
the vice-mayor and the social welfare representative.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
When problems arise and residents of Lumea Nou approach authorities such as mayoralty, they
receive what? Did I ask you to make kids, to make 3 kids? One of the focus group participants
comments would it have been better if all Roma would not be allowed to have children. Overall,
their interaction with institutions are unpleasant and create distrust, as in the end, you are just
disappointed since they do not approve anything and you just give up.
Emergency funds (such as those fires damages) are scarce, work on winning the lottery system,
they are given out with delays and the City Hall does not assure the reconstruction process (they just
give out the money, and does not assure any professional support either as labor or materials).
When disaster strikes the neighborhood, the residents work together and do their best, although
they are not professional constructors or builders - giving way to future problems as housing
structures are not architecturally sound.
On one hand, Lumea Nou people do not trust their official leaders or representatives in the city
council. When elections come, they come here with mititei, only for the votes come and vote,
then they do not take you in consideration (focus group Lumea Nou. On the other hand, the
Paem NGO representative states that there is so much left to do and it is very difficult to work with
such a mentality and such traditional character.

G2 Turturica zone
Marginalized poor area of small size

A. Area history and general description
G2 was initially a building reserved for single workers. In the 90s the City Hall purchased the
property and transformed it in social housing. The block has 105 overcrowded 1-room apartments,
and residents with lots of debts to utilities suppliers. The majority of rooms are rented out, and only
2-3 rooms are private property reason which delayed evacuation. However, it is centrally
positioned, having access and infrastructure. Nonetheless, residents say I consider our block to be
poorest in town, there is none like it or we are some sort of pariah that is how the others see us.
B. Key problems
Firstly, there is the matter of condition of the building since it is not structurally sound and looks
deteriorated. Despite the fact that couple of years ago the City Hall carried out a sprucing up project
for the block, now, windows are broken, hallway lights are not functional, the roof leaks, the
basement is flooded and the stair railings are unsafe. Moreover, the building lacks thermo-isolation.
150
Secondly, the residents struggle with large bills and debts for the utilities in the block. Especially
electricity which is used for heating the water, cooking, heating your home (focus group G2).
Thirdly, there are problems such as unemployment and the large share of welfare beneficiaries,
until someone decide to make some training or courses with us since another specialization would
not do us any bad (focus group G2). The social welfare representative explains that there are
families in the block, which every year have another baby and the situation is overwhelming for
them.
Lastly, there is the matter of criminality in the shape of informal money trading. Rumors have it that
some residents up and left abroad, abandoning their homes, fearing that if they remain they will not
be safe. Regarding the issue, the vice-mayor states that unfortunately, there is no evidence and the
law cannot help otherwise.
C. Types of interventions
Between 2010 and 2012 a project which involved community participation was implemented in G2-
Turturica (part a municipality plan for urban regeneration of the Cetate district). Bellow there is a
short description of the project..
Bun, G2. ADIO TurtuRELE!
A sociological study conducted in 2009
53
showed that within the wider urban regeneration plan for
the Cetate district, the municipalitys intervention should focus on G2-Turturica, because it is "the
extreme case" among the other blocks from the neighborhood: with overcrowding, poor housing
conditions, a large number of children (here are concentrated about 10% of all children in the
Cetate), a high rate of unemployment among the adults. The study report stated that a complex
intervention on medium to long term is required, accompanied by facilitation and coaching, because
tenants cannot and do not know how to organize themselves.
The project Bun, G2. ADIO TurtuRELE! started in January 2010 at the initiative of the municipality
and a group of sociologists from the Research Institute for Quality of Life, Romanian Academy. The
project team consisted of: municipality representatives (the mayor included), the group of
volunteers from G2, representatives from the local police and local company for electric distribution,
teachers, independent experts (group of sociologists and group of UNICEF volunteers). The project
was based on the voluntary participation of those involved; the small budget available was meant to
cover repairs in the building and the materials for various activities carried out with the children.
The project was based on community participation, as the G2 residents expressed their wish to
participate in the activities aimed to improve the living conditions in the community. The residents
were involved from the beginning in the processes of identification of the problems they are
confronted with and of prioritization of the interventions area. Throughout the project the residents
were informed about all activities in public meetings and through printed materials (displayed in the
block or given to them). Also, the team of UNICEF volunteers monitored the activities and assisted
the residents during the entire period.
The project aimed to improve the quality of life of the residents by making repairs of the building,
but also by promoting positive behavioral patterns among both adults and young people. The adults
were actively involved in the repairs and cleaning activities. The children were motivated to attend
school and get good results in school and extra-curricular activities.
In terms of improving housing conditions the following activities were carried out: repairs and
painting of the staircase walls, windows and entrance door, building of a playground for children and

53
Stnculescu M. S. (coord.) (2010) Quality of life and level of satisfaction regarding the conditions of living in Cetate district, municipality
of Alba Iulia, project financed by the Intercommunity Association for Development, Alba Iulia, within the project Connections between
urban regeneration and spatial planning NODUS WG6, Operational Program for Territorial Cooperation URBACT.
151
of a special place laundry drying, basement cleaning, and repairs of the water pipes. All started with
a general cleaning day for collecting the large quantity of garbage surrounding the block. For the
cleanness to be maintained inside the block and in its surroundings, a cleaning program for each
apartment was set.
For promoting positive behavior patterns a set of rules was established; based on this rules, if the
residents did not participate in activities (such as cleaning), were involved in fights or scandals,
destroyed public property, did not sent their children to school, they received black points; on the
other hand, if the children had good school results, had a polity behavior, had clean and neat attires,
participated in extracurricular activities, they received white points. The team of the residents
volunteers had to assign the black points inside the block; the white points for the childrens
activities in schools were assigned by their teachers. The black points were assigned to the
apartments, and the white ones to each child. All the fiches with the points were collected monthly
from volunteers and teachers and monthly scores were displayed in the block. At the beginning of
the project residents were informed that those who accumulate a large number of black points
during the first six months risk evacuation, while the children knew that the top twenty in terms of
white points will go to a seaside camp (however, no family was evacuated from the block during the
project, but the children went to the seaside camp). Children were the focus of the project so, in
addition, there were a number of other activities in which they were involved: contests of drawings
and compositions, crafting of Halloween masks and of Christmas tree ornaments.
The projected lasted until 2012. The two year period was not enough for the project to reach all its
objectives. However positive results have been registered even after this short period: mobilization
of the residents in activities that concern their well being, childrens school attendance, cleanness
inside and outside the block. The experience has shown that, if the residents are not constantly
monitored and assisted during the activities, their organizational capacity decreases and some of the
achieved positive effects are lost.

152


D. Community organization and cohesion
The G2 community is not organized. All focus group participants agreed that they would be better if
someone from outside would come and help them out. There are no informal leaders.
Consequently, they seem to be cohesive only if the situation requires it or it is asked of them,
otherwise it is rather a non-cohesive community.
E. Residents interaction with institutions
On one hand, when asked about their interactions with the City Hall personnel, the residents of G2
consider that they treat us like we do not exist. We got no place there. On the other hand, the
authorities deem G2 residents as they indulge in their situation (vice-mayor), they have no
conditions, or well-intention (social welfare representative) and G2 is a special case *+ it
depreciates due to the residing population, which has no financial means, not even been capable of
maintain their own apartments (urban planning department representative).

153
Crosscutting issues
Community participation
Regarding the failures, demobilization of the Roma representatives, the problem is that of low social
involvement. The reasons for this, according to the Paem NGO representative, would be that the
leaders of the community manipulated the communities for their own personal gain overall,
maybe there is no openness towards working, towards getting integrated. He mentions that maybe,
to some degree, the authorities want these areas to be integrated in a larger extent than the actual
disadvantaged communities.
The success of G2 (white/black points evaluation system) of the Bun, G2. ADIO TurtuRELE! project
has shown that participation is possible and the NGO plans to replicated and apply it to other types
of projects for these disadvantaged areas.
As for the participation of Lumea Nou and G2residents, it is highly motivated on principle of what
do I have to gain. If the first disadvantaged area is more pro-active and participative, the latter
prefers to be organized and managed by an outsider. Neither would refuse to help (with manual
work), as long as they are not asked to invest their own money.
Local development strategy/ plans
At the moment when the field research was carried out, the local authorities were just drawing up
the strategy for urban development for 2014-2020 taking into account some expectations for the
2030s. The strategy will include all discussed disadvantaged area, trying to manage all the issued
which were no integrated in the actual plan for urban development. Two years ago, Alba Iulia
municipality, alongside with other two urban localities and 8 rural localities, put together a
development strategy regarding the necessary social services for all disadvantaged communities in
the regional area.
The main limitation is the civic legislation regarding housing or disadvantaged areas, as for example
those who are house owners in Lumea Nou are not the land owners (in other words, they could any
time be evicted since the land belongs to the municipality). Another problem would be the lack of
identity papers and property deeds.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Alba Iulia authorities have partnership contracts with 9 NGOs,
with which they work only in emergency cases since the NGO services are considered expensive.
154

6.10 Field Report: Bucharest Sector 5
Qualitative
Assessment
Integration Strategies for Urban Poor Areas and Disadvantaged
Communities
June 2013

Introduction
The residents from Uranus community are organized in an NGO. The association was established by
a group of three young artists in 2009 and from 2013 it was transferred to the inhabitants of Uranus
area. Below are presented extracts from the NGOs documents (includes description of the
association, activities carried out in the period 2006-2012, activities plan for 2013-2014, area
presentation).
La Bomba Studios Residents Association
1. Brief history of the association
Association La Bomba Studios (CUI 25545663) is a non-profit organisation, legal entity. Between
2009-2011, the activity of the association took place on Calea Rahovei no. 194, Sector 5, Bucharest.
As of 26 July 2011, the working point (Calea Rahovei no. 194) became unavailable as the owner of
this area (SC Eremia Activitati Productie SRL) was evicted because the building was restituted by
Bucharest Town Hall (PMB) to its rightful owners according to Law 10/2001.
Upon establishment, the association was formed and led by Draghici Maria (visual artist), Gidiuta
Irina (director), Rusu Octavian Andrei and Georgescu Bogdan (director). As of 26 February 2013, the
association was transferred to the inhabitants of Uranus area.
2. Activity carried out from 2009 (unofficial 2006) to 2012
The activity of the association from its establishment to the present time presumed exclusively the
involvement of the members of Rahova-Uranus community in various projects. The children and
their mothers (teenager girls and women have also participated) were particularly drawn in the
activities of the association.
From 2006, predating the association, Maria Draghici, Irina Gidiuta and Bogdan Georgescu were
carrying out educational-cultural-artistic activities with the members of the community. These
activities had impact on several actors, musicians, draftsmen, directors, professors, sociologists,
journalists which became participants, as voluntaries, in raising awareness for Rahova Uranus
community. These are some of the projects: Harta Sensibil (2006); Rahova Non Stop (2006);
Construiesteti comunitatea (2007); Biluna Jam Session (2007,2008,2009,2010); Flexible (2008);
Laborator Urban Mobil (2008,2009,2010); Parada femeilor evacuate (I) (2010); Improvisation on
generosity (2010,2011); Ziua cartierului (initiated by Chloe Salembier 2011); Fara sprijin (2011).
These were all projects, where artists and consumers of culture interacted and got involved.
In the same period, music concerts were performed by the local children in the building from Calea
Rahovei nr. 194: 2006-2012 at Green Hours 1, 2 (2006 -2012) and Street Delivery (2010, 2011, 2012).
155
Between 2006-2011, drama workshops, creative education, movement and body performance
(dance, choreography) workshops were organized along with drawing activities (including graffiti
art), community activities, public debates and so on.
The impact of these programs and projects which were achieved with the support of artists is
extremely noticeable for 2013. At the moment, the member of the community, be them children or
adults, developed a better understand and empathy, became more receptive and more solitary
within the spirit of the community.
3. Our Mission
The new leadership of the association will continue the artistic and cultural activities, promoting the
results obtained in this manner with Rahova-Uranus community. In this matter, they will consult
with the founding member Maria Draghici. Also, they will be consulted by Active Watch Association
(through Teo, Mircea and Radu) and by other NGOs, including in the form of partnerships. The
escalation of the social problems confronting the Rahova-Uranus community displays the great
danger of becoming a phenomenon.
The Board of Direction of La Bomba Studios is formed from Eremia Cristina,Voicu Radescu Udrea
Dan si Chloe Salembier. They will initiate activity on the basis of the following association principles:
1. Activities which promote human rights.
2. Activities to train and instruct future leaders.
3. Work-shops and educational programs.
4. Volunteer activities.
5. Offering prizes and diplomas for different activities.
6. Organizing camps.
The association identified many of the problems with which members of the Rahova-Uranus
community struggle. The problems were identified as Eremia Cristina has the double quality of
president of the association but also she is the leader of the community. The most urgent problems
for the community are:
1. Solving the housing problems for persons who are about to be evicted from their homes (where
they reside legally with their families), houses which the mayoralty restored to their righteous
owners in accordance with the 10/2001 Law.
2. Solving the social problems (high level of poverty + cases of members with disability certificate
which the authority ignores).
3. Solving the educational problems regarding the general education (school dropout, poor learning
results, illiteracy cases, night school, or courses with reduced attendance, training in different
crafts).
4. Solving the employment problem in the area.
5. Promoting women in different activities.
6. Fighting against racial discrimination.
7. Promoting the cultural-artistic activities that involve the community members.
8. Educational work with the children and adult people of the community.



156
3. Activity planning for May 2013 June 2014
Social activities
La Bomba studios association, in partnership with legal advisors (lawyers and legal consultants)
aims to approach the local and central authorities (Sector 5 City Hall and PMB) on behalf and in
support of the members of RahovaUranus community on matters pertaining to the legal
responsibility of authorities to provide social support for every existing social cases. The specialists
who will assist us will provide inputs for the analysis on the matter and will set the legal grounds on
which action should be taken.
Every social case notified to the authorities through our actions will be monitored and all necessary
interventions will be done until the case is favorably solved as stipulated in the Law and the
Constitution. We identified the following social issues in Rahova-Uranus community, for which as
mentioned earlier, the proper authorities will be notified:
1) Housing problems, since this year, 2013, more than 50% of the current residents of this area are
to be evicted from their current homes and thrown in the street. These houses have been restituted
by PMB to their righteous owners of Law 10/2001 (which restitutes all buildings that were
collectivized during the communist period).
2) The lack of proper residence permits for some of the community residents; although they have
been living in these houses for the past 10-15 years, they have no legal papers as proof of their
residency at that address. In these cases, provisional identity card was released with the notification
without address making it impossible for that person to find employment, access to medical care,
social welfare etc.
3) Problems regarding the lack social welfare and legal rights for owners of disability certificates.
4) Problems regarding the provision of monthly social benefits and of emergency social benefits to
members of the community, who have families with one or two employed persons and 5-6 children,
for which the Sector 5 City Hall ignores and fails to provide support.
The refusal to solve these problems in the period of time stipulated by the law, or the possible
unfavorable solutions in disagreement with the legal stipulations, will be forwarded to civil or penal
courts, asking the courts of law to settle these matters. We will concomitantly hold responsible the
persons who refuse to act in accordance with the laws.
Measures for the advertisement in the written and visual mass-media of the cases in which the
authorities did not respect human rights will be made public.
Meetings with the leaders of the local authorities (Sector 5 City Hall and PMB) where representatives
of the community and of the association, together with specialists in the field (sociologists,
psychologists, legal advisors, artists etc.) will represent the interests and legal rights of the
community.
Organization of protests and rallies every time the authorities refuse the dialogue, each time they do
not hold their promises and each time they do not respect the human rights.
Continuation of the protest actions until the problems is solved, as the law demands it from the
authorities.
Measures regarding temporary/occasional (paid) employment
The specific community members will be able to gain additional income by providing (paid)
occasional services at the home or on the premises of the paying client (natural or legal person),
such as: general cleaning services at the residence of the client (interior and exterior); washing and
ironing laundry at the residence of the client; temporary care for old people, sick people, school
157
children, pets (dogs, cats); occasional security services such as guarding of houses or company
headquarters, etc.
The association will publish these offers for services on the Internet, featuring the photo and
presentation of the persons available to provide these (paid) occasional services; the association
guarantees that they are serious and correct people who deliver the promised services.
Educational activities
1. Voluntary tutoring activities provided by teachers for the community children in primary and
secondary grade schools; these activities will take place in special designated area at Uranus Street
no. 109, ap. 1 (home of Eremia Cristina).
As of May 2013, and throughout the summer holiday (July-September 2013) and all along the school
year 2013-2014, we will organize tutoring hours according to a schedule set by the teachers.
2. Organization of literacy courses for a few adult persons, community residents, who do not know
to read and write.
3. Enrolment of community members (adult persons) in secondary school (up to 8
th
grade), in part-
time courses (grades 1-8) for the school year 2013-2014; they are to be assisted with tutoring
throughout the entire school year.
4. Enrolment of community members (adult persons) who already graduated from the 10
th
grade,
with different types of training courses: cosmeticians, hair dressers, manicure-pedicure, social
worker, babysitter etc.
5. Activities for familiarization and basic internet navigation, typesetting techniques for all ages
(children, teenagers and adult people).
6. Monthly seminars with the adult and children residents, to which the association will invite
specialists in different fields, to inform the participants on:
- Ethics and good manners
- Prevention of hepatic diseases
- Prevention of tooth cavities
- Measures against AIDS
- About the danger of drugs
- About the human rights, etc.
Artistic activities
During May 2013 June 2014, the association, in partnership with voluntaries, specialists in this
field, will organize:
1. Training courses (for children) for beginner classes in piano, organ, drums, guitar, xylophone, etc.
2. Training courses (for children) little actors, sketches, monologues, poem reciting, theatre
shows
3. Training courses for initiation and creation in drawing, painting in watercolors
4. Training courses for initiation in sportive dancing
5. Theatre shows, musical concerts, dancing competitions (for children).
Cultural activities
1. Visiting (for children and parents) 3 museums: Antipa Museum, Village Museum (including a ride
with the boat on Herastrau Lake), Museum of National History.
2. Watching (for children) 3 movies (3D and 4D)
3. Watching (for children) 2 theatre shows
158
4. Watching different cartoons, documentary movies, artistic movies, using video-projector
5. Visiting the Botanical garden and the Zoo.
6. Visiting the Constanta Aquarium and the Mamaia Dolphinarium (as part of the 7-day trip to the
seaside in July 2013).
Travelling, tourism and sport activities
1. Organization of games with children: football, handball, volleyball, tennis, badminton.
2. Organization of competitions (with awards) for the children: ice skating, rollers, skateboard.
3. Trip to the seaside (7 days) in July 2013 with the children and their parents; trips to the seaside
resorts, visiting the Aquarium and Dolphinarium; sport competitions: volleyball, Ping-Pong, billiards,
bowling, ride with the mini-car, ride with the boat on the sea, watching a show in the open summer
theatre.
Financial-economic activities
The Association cannot finance itself on its own, but is determined to find sources for self-financing.
Thus, it will seek solutions to get involved in activities of production and sales, provision of services,
attended by as many residents as possible, since they are the main beneficiaries and part of the
benefits will be reinvested (in the community budget).
Until the Association becomes financially autonomous, we need to take steps and ask support from
NGOs, or from domestic or foreign sources of financing, from sponsors and (less probably) from the
local and governmental bodies (which are less interested by our existence).
For the following period (May 2013 June 2014), the Association needs several didactic and logistic
support materials in order to carry out the proposed activities:
- Exercise books, reading books, school manuals, office supplies;
- Magnetic board (and markers);
- Video projector and screen;
- Computers, displays and sound boxes;
- Printer;
- Camera, video-recorder;
- Tents with no inner walls (3);
- Foldable PVC tables for 6 persons (3-4);
- PVC chairs (15-20);
- Water dispenser;
- Different balls (volleyballs, footballs, handballs, basketballs, tennis balls);
- Tennis and badminton rackets
In order to get these minimal necessities, the leadership of La Bomba Studios Association
undertakes to ask the support of experienced NGOs and draws up a strategy to solve these financial
issues from domestic and foreign financers.
The leadership of La Bomba Studios Association aims to find pertinent and immediate solutions for
partnership with some NGOs available and interested to cooperate; it also relies on the voluntary
support of specialists and on their expertise in the fields where we will act on behalf and to the
benefit of Rahova Uranus community.
159

Source: Google maps.
3. The story of Rahova Uranus area
Many of those who do not know RahovaUranus area mistake it for Rahova or Ferentari districts.
Actually, this area was part of the former Uranus-Izvor district, which no longer exists. Rahova
Uranus area being the bordering neighborhood of Rahova-Izvor district.
In 1970-1986, many architectural monuments have been demolished: churches, various
constructions of historical value, memorial houses and many bohemian, villa-like houses, tall, nice,
with particular architecture.
Presently, RahovaUranus area includes the following sections of streets (from sector 5): Calea
Rahovei; Str.Uranus; Str.Sabinelor; Str.Sapunari which creates a triangle-like shape, divided in two by
Sapunari Street. In total Rahova-Uranus holds 39 buildings. The legal situation for the 39 buildings
existing in this district is:
- The house from Uranus Street no. 95 is a dispensary owned by PMB
- The house from Sabinelor Street no.5 (abusively occupied) owned by PMB
- 27 houses bought by the dwellers according to Law 112/1995
- 10 houses restituted by PMB according to Law 10/2001
As the buildings that composed UranusIzvor district were demolished, the entire areas and its
community lost their identity. The discontinuance of Izvor and Uranus communities lead to the
establishment of a new community consisting of the dwellers that remained in this area (those for
160
which their houses were not demolished); the former name of UranusIzvor district is no longer
actual.
The community lived in the houses from this area for the past 25-30 years, in most cases the families
being composed of 3 generations (grandparents, parents and children).
Analyzing the community situation according to the socio-demographics, out of the total 195
residents:
- Total adult dwellers = 65 + 88 = 153 people (31 pensioners)
- Total minor children = 6 + 36 = 42 children
Of which, people with certificate of disability = 3 adult people + 1 minor child
Out of total area population, 71 people do not experience poverty, 65 are adult people (24
pensioners) and 6 are children. They all own their homes have average incomes higher than the
national minimal guaranteed income. Most of the adult people have higher education (the
pensioners are former doctors, architects, engineers etc.). Among the adults, two are journalists and
reporters for Realitatea TV station (Mr Ion Marin Ionita and his wife). We may also exemplify the
case of Mr Viorel Dorel Ursu (former Ministry of Internal Affairs), currently running a Lawyer office
on Sabinelor Street (together with his wife). We also have cases of a former minister from before
1989, or of renowned international export, recycling business or oil drilling equipment companies.
Our association focuses its attention of all the other 124 members of the community who are
confronted daily with more and more problems; provided these problems are not solved as fast as
possible, they may become a mass social phenomenon.
The fact that these members of the RahovaUranus community are confronted with these social
problems is the result of the national-scale anti-economic measures: closing down the state-owned
enterprises; the loss of interest in some types of crafts; rising inflation; permanent increase of the
prices for food, household appliances, utilities etc. This permanent process of decreasing the quality
of life started in 1990 and continues, bearing an adverse impact on the entire population, but with
the most devastating effects on the poor population which became even poorer, being the most
affected victim of these measures.
The lack of education, of studies, of the possibility to qualify in a profession (due to lack of
education), the large number of underage children in combination with rather low monthly incomes
(due to lack of qualifications), represent the most pregnant poverty factors.
When these two pauperization factors reach their maximum, they have negative consequences on
the moral of those families, which become rather pessimistic and almost give up hope for the better.
The average monthly income per capita of these families ranges between a minimum of 350 lei and
a maximum of 666 lei.
Community members by age, sex and ethnicity
Ethnicity
Adults Minors
Total

% out of 106
community members
F M Total F M Total F M Total M F T
Roma 18 18 36 5 9 14 23 27 50 22 25 47
Mixed 13 10 23 5 10 15 18 20 38 17 19 36
Romanian 8 7 15 0 3 3 8 10 18 8 9 17
TOTAL 39 35 74 10 22 32 49 57 106 46 54 100

161
The above table presents the community structure in terms of ethnic affiliation and gender. The
ethnic criteria show that in mixed families, one of the spouses is Roma and the other is Romanian.
Childrens distribution for the next school year (2013-2014)
Children under 5 years old 4
Children to be enrolled in clasa 0 3
Children in primary school (1-4) 9
Children in gymnasium (5-8) 10 (3 abandoned the school)
Children in high school 3



162


163