Increased Employment for Segregated Roma May Improve Their Health: Outcomes of a Public–Private Partnership Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Sample
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Measures
2.5. Analysis and Reporting
3. Results
3.1. Project Setting
3.2. Increased Employability of Segregated Roma
3.3. Resulting Better Well-Being and Health of Segregated Roma
4. Discussion
4.1. Outcomes Related to Increased Employability of Segregated Roma
4.2. Better Well-Being and Health of Segregated Roma Resulting from Increased Employability
4.3. Strengths and Limitations
4.4. Implications for Practice and Policy, and for Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Stages of the Performed Qualitative Study
Phase | Description | Time-Table | |
1. Study protocol | elaboration of study protocol: objectives of the study, timetable set-up, field collection procedures, data collection procedures, analytic strategy | January 2013 | |
2. Preparation for data collection | specifying of sites to be visited, data collection plan, contacting the respondents | February–March 2013 | |
3. Data collection | collecting and studying of internal documents and previous studies (relevant academic and grey literature) | March–September 2013 January–October 2015 June–December 2016 January 2017–February 2018 March 2018–May 2019 | |
direct observation | presence in recruitment process | March 2013 | |
visit to settlements (Velka Ida, Lunik IX) | April; June; November 2013 January; September 2014 December 2017 March 2018 | ||
in-depth face-to-face semi-structured interviews | April–July 2013 | ||
focus groups | April–July 2013 | ||
face-to-face unstructured interviews | November 2013 | ||
4. Data processing/analysis | content analysis: transcription, coding, recursive abstraction (searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes), writing and finalising | July 2013–January 2014 June–October 2015 June–December 2016 January 2017–February 2018 March 2018–May 2019 |
Appendix B. Structure of the Semi-Structured Interviews
- (a)
- What are the circumstances of the project initiation? Why do you think this project was created? (physical neighbourhood, high crime, high unemployment rate, available and cheap labour force…) [Why and how was the project initiated?]
- (b)
- Which factors, elements and mechanisms (tools, instruments) affected the project start-up in a positive and a negative way? (legislation, local authorities, financial assurance, material and technical support…) [Why and how has the project initiation been supported? Why and how has the project initiation been limited and restricted?]
- (a)
- Which factors, elements and mechanisms (tools, instruments) have enabled project implementation and maintenance (sustainability)? [Why and how was the project implemented? Why and how has the project been maintained?]
- (b)
- Which factors, elements and mechanisms (tools, instruments) have precluded and hindered project implementation and maintenance? (Legislative—existing social support scheme, Labour Code, fluctuation…) [Why and how has project implementation and maintenance been supported? Why and how has project implementation and maintenance been limited and restricted?]
- (a)
- What do you think, what are the (positive and negative) outcomes of this project?
- (b)
- What do you think, does the project have an impact on the rest of the community? If yes, why and how? If not, why?
- (a)
- Do you think the project improves the chances of participants, their families and children to be healthier? If yes, why and how? If not, why?
- (b)
- Are the project participants in better shape than those from their surroundings who are not in the project? (Those employed and unemployed who are treated only by existing health-care system etc.). If yes, why? If not, why?
- (c)
- Do the project participants have better health and living conditions than those from their surroundings who are not participating in the project? (Those employed and unemployed who are treated only by existing health care system etc.) If yes, why? If not, why?
Appendix C. Scenario of the Focus Group Interviews
- (a)
- Project creation
- -
- Why do you think this project was created? (What are the circumstances of the project initiation?)
- -
- Do you know how this project was created?
- -
- Were there any obstacles at the beginning? (Which factors, elements and mechanisms affected the project start-up in a negative way?)
- -
- Was there any support at the beginning? (Which factors, elements and mechanisms affected the project start-up in a positive way?)
- (b)
- Project now
- -
- Are there any obstacles now? (Which factors, elements and mechanisms preclude and hinder the project maintenance?)
- -
- Who or what presents the main support of the project? (Which factors, elements and mechanisms enable and support the project maintenance?)
- (c)
- Project outcomes
- -
- What do you think, what are the (positive and negative) outcomes of this project? (What are the positives about this project? What are the negatives about this project?)
- -
- What do you think, does the project have an impact on the rest of the community? If yes, why? If not, why?
- (d)
- Project versus well-being and health
- -
- Do you think the project improves the chances of participants, their families and children to be healthier? If yes, why and how? If not, why?
- -
- Are the project participants in better shape than those from their surroundings who are not in project? (Those employed and unemployed who are treated only by the existing health care system etc.). If yes, why? If not, why?
- -
- Do the project participants have better health and living conditions than those from their surroundings who are not in the project? (Those employed and unemployed who are treated only by existing health-care system etc.) If yes, why? If not, why?
References
- Ivanov, A.; Kagin, J. Roma Poverty from a Human Development Perspective; UNDP: Istanbul, Turkey, 2014; p. 96. [Google Scholar]
- UNDP Employing the Roma: Insights from Business. 2005. Available online: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbec/docs/Employing-the-Roma-Insights-from-business.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2019).
- Kolesarova, J. Empowerment of Roma communities through municipal enterprises in the context of Slovak Republic. In Roma Popuation on the Peripheries of the Visegrad Countries. Integration Issues and Possible Solutions; Penczes, J., Radics, Z., Eds.; DIDAKT Kft.: Debrecen, Hungary, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Korec, P. Regionálny Rozvoj Slovenska v Rokoch 1989–2004. Identifikácia Menej Rozvinutých Regiónov Slovenska [Regional Development of Slovakia in 1989–2004. Identification of the Less Developed Regions of Slovakia]; Geo-grafika: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hyde, A. Systemic Exclusion of Roma from Employment. Roma Rights Q. 2006, 1, 3–8. [Google Scholar]
- Belak, A.; Madarasova Geckova, A.; van Dijk, J.P.; Reijneveld, S.A. Health-endangering everyday settings and practices in a rural segregated Roma settlement in Slovakia: A descriptive summary from an exploratory longitudinal case study. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pappa, E.; Chatzikonstantinidou, S.; Chalkiopoulos, G.; Papadopoulos, A.; Niakas, D. Health-Related Quality of Life of the Roma in Greece: The Role of Socio-Economic Characteristics and Housing Conditions. IJERPH 2015, 12, 6669–6681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fundación Secretariado Gitano. Health and the Roma Community, Analysis of the Situation in Europe. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain; Fundación Secretariado Gitano: Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, N. The Impact of Employment on the Health Status and Health Care Costs of Working-Age People with Disabilities; Lead Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Stateva, M.; Stock, L.; Junge, K.; Serrano, C.C. Good Practices in Social Inclusion through Employment: Learning from Roma Integration; The West London Alliance: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Open Society Foundations. Open Society Roma Initiatives Policy Brief: Empowerment through Employment: Capitalizing on the Economic Opportunities of Roma Inclusion; Open Society Foundations: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- O’Higgins, N.; Ivanov, A. Education and Employment Opportunities for the Roma. Comp. Econ. Stud. 2006, 48, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mušinka, A. Podarilo sa. Príklady Úspešných Aktivít na Úrovni Samospráv Smerujúcich k Zlepšeniu Situácie Rómov [The Things that Worked. Examples of Successful Activities at Local Level Aimed at Improving the Situation of Roma]; University of Prešov Publishing: Prešov, Slovakia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Stănescu, S.M.; Alexandrescu, A.M.; Ernu, S.; Bojincă, M.; Rădulescu, L. Model of social enterprises for Roma. Book review. Sociol. Asistenţă Soc. 2014, 7, 139–141. [Google Scholar]
- Munteanu, G. Roma Youth in Romania’s Changing Labor Market: Governmental and Nongovernmental Programs for Roma Employment in Rural Areas. Ph.D. Thesis, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Pawson, R.; Tilley, N. Realist Evaluation; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Linsley, P.; Howard, D.; Owen, S. The construction of context-mechanisms-outcomes in realistic evaluation. Nurse Res. 2015, 22, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- LeCompte, M.D.; Schensul, J.J. Analysis and Interpretation of Ethnographic Data: A Mixed Methods Approach; AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bosakova, L. A Bottom-Up Approach to Employment. An Example of Good Practice; WHO Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Marmot, M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010; Institute of Health Equity: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dinca, M.; Luches, D. Work Integration of the Roma: Between Family and Labor Market. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riddell, W.C.; Song, X. The Impact of Education on Unemployment Incidence and Re-employment Success: Evidence from the U.S. Labour Market. Labour Econ. 2011, 18, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hronec, M. The Education—Unemployment Relationship in the Slovak Republic: An Analysis with Special Regard to Economic Education. New Educ. Rev. 2007, 11, 115–126. [Google Scholar]
- Bosakova, L.; Rosicova, K.; Filakovska Bobakova, D.; Rosic, M.; Dzurova, D.; Pikhart, H.; Lustigova, M.; Santana, P. Mortality in the Visegrad countries from the perspective of socioeconomic inequalities. IJPH 2019, 64, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutler, D.; Lleras-Muney, A. Education and Health: Evaluating Theories and Evidence; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kertesi, G.; Kézdi, G. Roma employment in Hungary after the post-communist transition. Econ. Transit. 2011, 19, 563–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. European Commission European Platform for Roma Inclusion 2017: “Transition from education to employment”. In Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the European Platform for Roma Inclusion, Brussels, Belgium, 27–28 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior; Ramachaudran, V.S., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; Volume 4, pp. 71–81. [Google Scholar]
- FRA—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Transition from Education to Employment of Young Roma in Nine EU Member States; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Albert, G.; Dijksterhuis, R.; End, M.; Hrabanova, G.; Jařab, J.; Koller, F.; Mack, J.; Makaveeva, L.; Mille, S.; Mirga-Kruszelnicka, A.; et al. Antigypsyism—A Reference Paper; Alliance Against Antigypsyism: 2016. Available online: http://antigypsyism.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Antigypsyism-reference-paper-16.06.2017.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2019).
- Jařab, J. Eight Circles of Anti-Gypsyism. 2015. Available online: http://antigypsyism.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Jarab-2015.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2019).
- Morrall, P.; Marshall, P.; Pattison, S.; Macdonald, G. Crime and health: A preliminary study into the effects of crime on the mental health of UK university students. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2010, 17, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization (WHO). Housing and Health Guidelines; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Friedli, L. Mental Health, Resilience and Inequalities; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization (WHO). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy 2018–2025; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, N.E.; Newman, K. Socioeconomic disparities in health: Pathways and policies. Inequality in education, income, and occupation exacerbates the gaps between the health “haves” and “have-nots”. Health Aff. 2002, 21, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.Q.; Kelling, G.L. Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atl. Mon. 1982, 3, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Keizer, K.; Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. The Spreading of Disorder. Science 2008, 322, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKee-Ryan, F.; Song, Z.; Wanberg, C.R.; Kinicki, A.J. Psychological and Physical Well-Being during Unemployment: A Meta-Analytic Study. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 53–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blustein, D.L. The Role of Work in Psychological Health and Well-Being. A Conceptual, Historical, and Public Policy Perspective. Am. Psychol. 2008, 63, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jahoda, M. Employment and Unemployment: A Social-Psychological Analysis (The Psychology of Social Issues); Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Creed, P.A.; Macintyre, S.R. The relative effects of deprivation of the latent and manifest benefits of employment on the well-being of unemployed people. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2001, 6, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobakova, D.F. Challenges for research, policy and practice in the field of Roma health. IJPH 2019, 64, 645. [Google Scholar]
Roma Community | Professionals | Public Authorities | Others | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Description | n | Description | n | Description | n | Description | |
In-depth semi-structured interviews | 3 | Roma project participants | 3 | representatives of USS Kosice 1 | 3 | officers from the City Council of Kosice | 1 | priest at Kosice-Lunik IX 2 |
- | - | - | - | 1 | local authority of Velka Ida 3 | 1 | cultural anthropologist | |
Informal unstructured interviews | 2 | wives of project participants | - | - | - | - | 1 | nun at Kosice-Lunik IX |
3 | inhabitants from the segregated settlement in Velka Ida not participating in project | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
2 | community workers in Velka Ida | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Focus groups | 17 | Roma children from the elementary school in Velka Ida | 5 | teachers at the elementary school in Velka Ida | 6 | representatives/workers at the Labour Office in Kosice | - | - |
Direct observation | ca. 25 | Roma job seekers during the recruitment process | 3 | representatives of USS Kosice during recruitment process | - | - | - | - |
ca. 50 | inhabitants of Velka Ida | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
ca. 20 | inhabitants of Kosice-Lunik IX | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Variable | Questions |
---|---|
Outcomes | What do you think, what are the (positive and negative) outcomes of this project? What do you think, does the project have an impact on the rest of the community? If yes, why and how? If not, why? |
Well-being and health | Do you think the project improves the chances of participants, their families and children to be healthier? If yes, why and how? If not, why? Are the project participants in a better condition than those from their surroundings who are not in the project? If yes, why? If not, why? Do the project participants have better health and living conditions than those from their surroundings who are not participating in the project? If yes, why? If not, why? |
Characteristics * | Share (%) | |
---|---|---|
Education | primary school | 56% |
secondary school without graduation | 18% | |
secondary school with graduation | 26% | |
Age structure | 18–20 | 8% |
21–30 | 38% | |
31–40 | 33% | |
41–50 | 13% | |
51–60 | 8% | |
Locality | Velka Ida 1 | 52% |
Kosice-Lunik IX 2 | 19% | |
Kosice-Saca 3 | 29% |
Quotes | Group of Outcomes |
---|---|
“It is important to me, that my sons attend school regularly and learn well, because without school they will not find a job. Maybe I’m hard on them, but it is for their own good. You know, those who do not work are not so tough on their kids, but then they do not go to school.” Project participant, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: education]. | Increased employability of segregated Roma |
“My father works in the project and our family is therefore well, certainly better than those children whose fathers do not work. I’m proud of him. I’m also learning well, so I can then continue to study and also find a good job.” Roma child from the elementary school in Velka Ida, focus group [outcome: education]. | |
“We [USS Kosice] closely cooperate with local primary schools, not only by monitoring school attendance and the behaviour of project participants’ children, but also by involving all schoolchildren in various projects, attempting to motivate them to complete primary school education and continue their studies at least at partner vocational schools.” Representative of USS Kosice, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: education]. | |
“I can see how they [non-Roma colleagues from core staff] treat me [equally]. They count with me. They treat me as a core employee not as a temporary worker. Foreman [coordinator] has even more confidence in me than in others.” Project participant, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: social inclusion; increasing of self-confidence and courage]. | |
“The fact that they [segregated Roma] come to the selection procedure and make contact with the mayor or his deputy and the other recruiters is already a first step toward making them feel more confident. Many of them, even the unsuccessful candidates, then often later seek out these people and ask their advice in various areas.” Representative of USS Kosice, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: social inclusion; increasing of self-confidence and courage]. | |
“Aside from finding work, they [project participants] come into contact with adults who are outside their community, who may have information, options, can offer encouragement, provide support, assistance with various things—because in their community they often cannot find an ‘expert’ for solving various problems.” Local authority of Velka Ida, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: social inclusion; increasing of self-confidence and courage]. | |
“Yes, it has been better since I worked at USS Kosice. I have regular income […], it is better in every way […], I have motivation there. I want to join the core staff once in the future. I see they have better salaries there; you know [smile]. So that is the better motivation there, you know [smile]. But I do not complain, it is good, still better than material needs’ 60 Euros [material needs benefit payment provided by the Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family for unemployed or low-income families]. Project participant, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: stable income]. | Resulting better well-being and health of segregated Roma |
“The project ensured a stable income for many people. They [project participants] can now afford to buy many more things, such as clothes and school materials and tools for children, the absence of which was often previously a barrier to their school attendance.” Community worker, informal unstructured interview [outcome: stable income]. | |
“Certainly their [project participant´s] quality of life has improved through income. They have more income; they can afford more.” Priest at Lunik X, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: stable income]. | |
“The project is profitable. They [project participants] have a stable income and the collective agreement of the USS Kosice also applies to project participants, so they have 13th and 14th months´ salaries and rewards.” Local authority of Velka Ida, in-depth semi-structured interview [outcome: stable income]. |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bosakova, L.; Madarasova Geckova, A.; van Dijk, J.P.; Reijneveld, S.A. Increased Employment for Segregated Roma May Improve Their Health: Outcomes of a Public–Private Partnership Project. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2889. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162889
Bosakova L, Madarasova Geckova A, van Dijk JP, Reijneveld SA. Increased Employment for Segregated Roma May Improve Their Health: Outcomes of a Public–Private Partnership Project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(16):2889. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162889
Chicago/Turabian StyleBosakova, Lucia, Andrea Madarasova Geckova, Jitse P. van Dijk, and Sijmen A. Reijneveld. 2019. "Increased Employment for Segregated Roma May Improve Their Health: Outcomes of a Public–Private Partnership Project" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 16: 2889. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162889