ARVAC Bulletin 98

Romas in Britain

Arthur Ivatts explores the discrimination experienced by Europe’s largest minority and argues the need for mainstreaming provisions for Roma’s, Gypsies and Travellers.

Background

In March this year, the Sun declared “war” on illegal gypsy and traveller sites. The newspaper claimed that Britain’s countryside was being “invaded” by gypsies who were setting up illegal campsites and terrorising local residents and issued a headline call to “Stamp on the Camps.” Whilst inflammatory tabloid stories may be easily dismissed, the deep-seated prejudices that they reflect cannot be ignored.

Since the expansion of the European Union, the Roma now represent the largest ethnic minority in Europe. An estimated seven to nine million Roma live in Europe with 80 percent of them living in new European Union member states. The level of income and employment is considerably lower for the Roma minorities across the region and the treatment of Roma, Gypsies and Travellers has become a pressing political, social and human rights issue.

In 2003 European Commission Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs commissioned a report to examine the conditions Roma, Gypsies and Travellers face in a range of fields and to look at some of the actions supported by the EU to tackle exclusion and discrimination experienced by these communities. This article focuses on only one aspect of the EU research, namely the question of whether policy strategies should promote the development of Roma specific projects as opposed to policies productive of inclusion within mainstream policy programmes and strategies. The debate is not only relevant to Roma/Gypsy/Traveller community issues, but to wider policy objectives for marginalised social and or minority ethnic groups.

Research

The research team examined eleven countries and identified a number of dysfunctions in the context of Roma specific projects addressed to ameliorate social exclusion and discrimination. In the past, Roma specific projects have not been very successful in terms of impact and sustainability. The research evidence routinely assessed and described well intentioned Roma projects falling victim to obstructions at local level and proving dysfunctional in terms of unjustified delays, administrative obstacles, dilution of needs assessments and a poor delivery record for the target beneficiaries.

A further hindrance to mainstreaming and sustainability of structural change, appears to have resulted from the specific projects targeted on Roma communities being seen as the responsibility of individual government departments (at national and local levels) with little evidence of an holistic approach. This policy reality facilitates the marginalisation of the policy issues, although it might be welcomed for the sake of meeting specific targets and ticking boxes.

In addition to a history of disappointing or untraceable impact, Roma specific projects over the years have frequently resulted in either the solidifying of, or even promotion of, racial segregation rather than inclusion. By specifically targeting certain groups in social policy terms, there is the danger, particularly where segregated situations exist, for a lack of equity in both needs assessment and policy response. Needs assessments are frequently not carried out on the basis of routine criteria and the policy response is usually disproportionate to the identified needs. Such policy initiatives are not thus assessed or measured against the generally accepted levels of policy and response provided for the wider society. The research evidence also points to the fact that need assessments are fundamentally undermined by a data deficient environment.

A further dysfunction is that Roma specific projects, even in circumstances which are aimed at inclusion within mainstream programmes and provisions, can develop an institutional structure of their own which only serves to slow the rate of change and the institutionalization of separate provision. Evidence suggested that Roma specific projects are likely to suffer less vigorous monitoring and evaluation routines than other mainstream programmes and attract heightened public profiles. The nature of this publicity can frequently lead to the promotion and or expression of negative attitudes towards the communities and the confirmation of negative stereotypes.

Specific policies and provision for Roma communities are also vulnerable to the development of ‘go-between’ roles for non-Roma professionals and this is particularly acute when the target group is in receipt of endemic race hatred. The ‘go-between’ role facilitates the avoidance of administrative and political boundaries with ‘untouchable’ territory. This situation, as it ossifies, is seriously counterproductive to policies aimed at social inclusion, anti discrimination and race equality.

The research team assessed the evidence on this issue as further confirming the view that specific Roma projects are essentially ‘tokenistic’ in intention and promoted by the political agenda of meeting non-Roma expectations or regulations, rather than motivated to secure real and lasting change. The process tends to collude with the unchallenged racism and discrimination within mainstream programmes and provisions, which prevent these negative attitudes and behaviors ever being seriously challenged.

Into the mainstream?

The potential for specific as opposed to mainstream inclusive policy formulation, frequently presents policy makers with confusion over the appropriate course of action. If presented with a choice, which is sometimes the case, Roma communities may opt for separate provision so as to avoid the social rejection and racist discrimination that so often blight their daily lives and access to mainstream provisions. Policies agreed to on this basis, however, provide seriously corrupted rewards for the policy maker and the public at large. On the one hand they have listened to community wishes, and on the other, they have secured the delivery of provision, which has not required the frontal challenging of the discriminatory tendencies of mainstream providers and users. This corruption of policy is related to the reality that the organic progress and development of policy, provision and practice for all is undermined by such policy responses.

The research team’s general conclusion based on all the research evidence was that policy, provision and practice must be rooted within mainstream settings if they are to result in real and sustainable change which secures Roma inclusion, race equality and freedom from discrimination. Roma specific projects or funding lines are to be promoted and welcomed, but only within the context of their primary target being the achievement of inclusion within mainstream programmes and provision. This must be the essential audit for any Roma related policy initiatives at any level.

“The Situation of Roma in an Enlarged European Union” (2004) EU - DG Employment and Social Affairs

Arthur Ivatts OBE, is a consultant in the field of educational provision for ethnic minorities and was a member of the research team.

Edited: S. Simanowitz

Contact: A.Ivatts@ukgateway.net