EU Structural Funds and Early Childhood Education and Care for Marginalized Romani Communities, Policy Recommendations

Transcription

1 Roma Education Fund EU Structural Funds and Early Childhood Education and Care for Marginalized Romani Communities, Policy Recommendations

2 R3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to give special thanks to the Directorate General Regional Policy (European Commission) for giving us an opportunity to develop and implement A Good Start Roma Pilot project. The final formulation of this document was a collaborative experience involving the efforts and responses of Roma Education Fund staff and numerous local and international partners. All efforts were made to arrive at a common agreement about the final content and to include all provided comments and feedback. However, given the complexity of this issue, and the large number of contributors, certain opinions and comments might not be well reflected in this document. Nevertheless, the authors assure that this document will be helpful in generating open and critical discussion about future initiatives and interventions. The main authors of this policy paper are Joanna Kostka and Adam Kullmann. Joanna Kostka is a Roma Education Fund consultant and PhD candidate who specializes in Roma inclusion strategies and European Structural Fund management. Adam Kullmann is a senior policy officer of Making the Most of EU Funds for Roma at the Open Society Institute Budapest. The policy paper does not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of project partners who provided their feedback.

3 R4 R5 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 3 Contents 5 Executive Summary 6 Introduction 8 The Potential of Early Childhood Education and Care 9 Exclusion of Romani Children and Parents 11 A Good Start EU Pilot Project 13 New European Union Policies 15 Recommendations to the Finalization of the EU Regulatory Framework for the Funds 17 The Regulation Laying Down Common Provisions on the CSF Funds, and General Provisions on the Funds, and the Regulation on the European Social Fund 17 The Common Strategic Framework 19 Strengthening European Coordination Structures 21 Recommendations for the Preparation of National Programming Documents for the Funds 22 General recommendations 22 Country-specific recommendations 25 Annex 1: The Potential of Early Childhood Education and Care Services 30 Annex 2: The World Bank: Investing in Roma Children 34 Annex 3: Exclusion of Romani Children and Parents 36 Annex 4: A Good Start Pilot Project 47 Annex 5: Activities per Locality 55 Annex 6: Recent EU Policies 66 Annex 7: Finalizing the EU regulatory framework 68 Annex 8: ECEC Programs in Hungary 73 Annex 9: Future Costs of National Kindergarten Development 76 IMPROVEMENTS IN SCHOOL PERFORMANCE LEAD TO HIGHER EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND SUBSEQUENT ECONOMIC SUCCESS IN ADULTHOOD, THUS THE GOVERNMENT MAY BENEFIT FROM HIGHER TAX REVENUES AND REDUCED OUTLAYS FOR SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

4 R6 R7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent research shows that high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) is probably the most crucial factor in breaking the circle of intergenerational transmission of poverty, and constitutes an investment with the highest returns. Furthermore, ECEC is particularly beneficial for children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, a problem all too common for many Roma. Statistical data from numerous surveys indicates that Romani children face multiple disadvantages in access to ECEC: they live in countries with limited services compared to European Union (EU) averages, they live in areas with limited services compared to national averages, and they have restricted access to services compared to non-romani children living in close proximity. A Good Start (AGS) pilot project demonstrated that the reasons for limited access to ECEC services can be effectively mitigated with well-designed and diverse community-based services, involvement of parents and communities, employment of qualified teachers, teaching assistants and mediators, and the involvement of local governments and institutions by creating synergies between services and resources. However, the pilot project also demonstrates that sustainability of the services can be ensured only if structural problems of mainstream public services are also addressed (for example, integrating public services and optimizing the territorial level of public services). A number of recent EU policy documents recognize the importance of high-quality ECEC. Still, to what extent this understanding will be reflected in the EU regulatory framework for the funding period is a question. Among others, strong ex-ante conditionalities for education (early school leaving) and anti-discrimination could support the design and implementation of comprehensive interventions in fields such as ECEC. Besides the EU regulatory framework, national programming documents will determine the use of EU Structural Funds (SF) in ECEC for marginalized Romani communities. Tasks include the following (not in order of importance): 1. Efforts should be made to enhance the targeting of funds towards Roma inclusion strategies and increase the overall absorption rate of SF. 2. Roma inclusion initiatives should be expanded beyond pilot projects, and efforts should be made to implement large-scale and sustainable programs and utilize SF to scale-up and mainstream successful practices. 3. Coordination should be ensured through designation of a responsible government body that should work with stakeholders like government bodies, experts, and NGOs these should include Romani professionals, and follow clear structures (for example, a steering committee); 4. Quantified targets should be set to close the gaps between EU benchmarks and national figures and between national figures and figures for Romani children by Lessons from previous efforts should be learnt through an assessment by independent experts. 6. A framework that integrates more specific activities should be designed, for example, targeting child poverty or the most disadvantaged micro-regions should be considered. 7. Equal access to quality preschool facilities for all children, including Romani children, should be prioritized in SF programming, in geographically isolated locations where integration is often impossible. Careful planning should be undertaken, with active involvement from civil society, to ensure that early childhood services do not perpetuate or contribute to segregation. 8. ECEC measures should be harmonized with current or upcoming educational reforms, in order to provide access to quality ECEC by marginalized Romani communities and other vulnerable groups, and to make educational facilities sustainable. These two objectives (access and sustainability) must be considered simultaneously. 9. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) investment in provision of ECEC facilities should be secured, and special attention should be paid to providing infrastructure in impoverished micro-regions and geographically isolated areas. Construction of new facilities should adhere to desegregation strategies and should contain evidence of sustainability and operational capacities. 10. Commitment of local actors must be ensured by motivating local governments to deliver quality services in partnership with NGOs and communities, and by financing community-based services implemented by NGOs, 11. Quality standards for ECEC interventions must be established. Given the complexity of this issue, an exchange of experiences among the Member States at the level of education authorities and SF managing authorities should take place regularly and be supported by the European Commission. 12. Both coordination structures and beneficiaries should be provided with continuous professional assistance. 13. High-quality, comprehensive data that is disaggregated by gender and ethnicity should be collected and used to inform activities at all stages of project design and implementation. 14. Monitoring should include regular reporting to program management staff that captures the views of experts and NGOs, including Romani professionals; evaluation should include comprehensive impact assessment. The preparation of national programming documents should be supported with the revision of relevant policies, such as existing legislation on the educational system, poverty reduction, and Roma integration strategies, and strategies for reducing early school leaving.

5 R8 R9 INTRODUCTION This policy paper is prepared as part of the AGS pilot project, with the aim to bring together three issues: ECEC, Roma inclusion, and use of EU funds in the coming funding period. There is rich literature on each of these three issues as well as any pair of them, but there is less on the three issues together. THE POTENTIAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE The paper gives a brief overview of how early ECEC can play a central role in Roma inclusion, how many of these services are still not accessible for Romani children and parents, and how the pilot project has designed and implemented such services that are now accessible for Romani families. More details can be found in the Annexes. The paper introduces recent developments in EU policies and then formulates recommendations for the finalization of the EU regulatory framework and the preparation of the national programming documents. These will become parallel activities for the next few years. Recommendations are formulated for decision-makers and officials of the member states as well as the EU (including the Commission, Council, and Parliament). As the finalization of the EU regulatory framework needs a joint effort from actors in member states and the EU, these recommendations are relevant for both national and EU audiences. Romani children have been identified as a vulnerable group in need of attention, protection, and investment from the EU and its member states. Their possibilities to succeed in life continue to be severely constrained by widespread poverty, lack of access to quality services, segregation, and prevailing negative attitudes toward their families and communities. Accessible and high-quality ECEC has regularly been recognized as an effective and cost-efficient tool for protecting vulnerable children, developing their full potential, and providing them with equal opportunities to actively participate in society. There are three broad rationales for putting public resources into high-quality ECEC. First, it has significant economic and social payoffs. Second, it positively stimulates brain development. Third, it is part of society s responsibility to educate children, to combat child poverty, and to help children overcome educational disadvantage. Economists such as Nobel Prize winner James Heckman have shown how early learning is a good investment for wider society because it provides the foundation for ongoing future learning. The important insight is that a dollar or euro spent on preschool programs generates a higher, more lasting return on investment than the same spending on later schooling. Outcome research shows that children who participate in high-quality ECEC are likely to develop higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills; to be more cooperative and considerate of others; to develop greater self-esteem; and to be better equipped to make effective transitions to compulsory schooling. Improvements in school performance lead to higher educational attainment and subsequent economic success in adulthood, thus the government may benefit from higher tax revenues and reduced outlays for social welfare programs and the criminal justice system.

6 R10 R11 All children gain from attending high-quality ECEC but disadvantaged children have the greatest potential to benefit from ECEC. Without high-quality ECEC, their abilities will be less developed when they start school, requiring more catch-up. It has been repeatedly and convincingly proven that investment in ECEC is the most promising intervention to break the intergenerational transmission of social exclusion. Investing in children also paves the road to a more cohesive society, effectively fights stereotypes and prejudice, and generates benefits for the entire society. A more detailed description of the potential of ECEC services in Roma inclusion is in Annex 1. The World Bank s arguments for investing in Romani children are outlined in Annex 2. EXCLUSION OF ROMANI CHILDREN AND PARENTS Preschool enrolment among Romani children is low at all ages, and stands in stark contrast not just to the national averages, but enrolment among non-romani children living in close proximity to Romani households. The gaps are largest in Romania and Slovakia, smaller in Hungary. 1 The gaps are also relatively large in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but here enrolment rates in general are much lower. TABLE 1. Preschool attendance rate of children aged three to six or three to five 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Macedonia Moldova Montenegro Romania Serbia Slovakia Roma Non-Roma living in close proximity to Roma households National averages For most countries figures are for children aged three to six, for Czech Republic, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovakia for children aged three to five. SOURCE: UNDP-WB Roma Survey 2011, UNICEF database 2012 for school year 2010/ Preschool enrolment of Romani children in Hungary is higher (69 percent) than in other countries of the region due to the favorable policy and also because of the awareness raising campaigns about the subsidized services supported by Roma Education Fund.

7 R12 R13 There are numerous barriers preventing equal access to quality ECEC services for Romani children. Many of these barriers are linked to socio-economic background characteristics. The AGS 2010 household survey links low enrolment of children in preschool education to low educational attainment of parents, low household income, and high rates of unemployment (see Annex 3, Table 2). The absence of universal or subsidized services for children aged zero to three appears to be an important barrier to enrolling children, especially for low-income families. Inconsistent subsidies for kindergarten attendees, hidden fees, and limited provision of free meals (except in Hungary) have been cited as leading causes for low enrolment of children aged three to six; 59 percent of respondents stated that services are too expensive (see Annex 3, Figure 1). Segregation of Romani children in preschool continues to be widespread, particularly in Romania and Slovakia. Experience has shown that the kindergartens with predominately Romani children have not only lower standard classrooms and didactic equipment, but very often lack skilled professionals who are inspired to work in multicultural environments. Children attending these facilities receive substandard care that does not stimulate their cognitive development and does not prepare them for primary school. Such an environment prompts Romani parents to keep their children at home and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Roma disinterest in education. The authors of the RECI FYROM National Report emphasized discrimination against Roma and insufficient attention given to Romani language and culture as the leading barrier to inclusive preschool education. Finally, the consistent exclusion of children and parents from quality ECEC often results from insufficient knowledge of regional and local conditions in Romani communities and unrealistic ambitions regarding the pace and scope of Roma integration (by public administrations and Romani leaders). Rarely are Roma issues represented at the planning stage as Roma representatives do not have access to policy debates on issues such as education or health and do not participate in the elaboration of governmental strategies to tackle poverty and socioeconomic exclusion. Participation of women in shaping and implementing ECEC programs is severely limited even though in many localities women are primarily responsible for children s upbringing. In spite of the recognized role ECEC services can play in facilitating equal access to education for disadvantaged children, severe gaps exist in terms of policy (numerous aspects are not addressed at all) and implementation (more effort, coordination, and resources are needed). Progress in making national early education programs genuinely inclusive for Romani children continues to lag behind the promised outcomes. More detailed descriptions of the exclusion of Romani children and parents from ECEC services can be found in Annex 3. A GOOD START EU PILOT PROJECT AGS is one of the EU Roma Pilot projects managed by the European Commission, DG Regional Policy. It was originally initiated by the European Parliament and implemented through a cooperative partnership between the Roma Education Fund (REF) and three international partners: the International Step by Step Association, the Spanish Fundación Secretariado Gitano, and the Slovak Governance Institute, along with 12 partner NGOs and organizations active in social inclusion and education of Romani children in the target countries (see Annex 3). Starting in June 2010 and ending in June 2012, AGS provided an important start to long-term, effective support for Romani children across a range of their developmental needs. The undertaken initiatives systematically tackled the existing exclusion of children and parents from quality ECEC services. The main objective of the pilot was to expand access to quality ECEC for disadvantaged Romani and non-romani children and to raise early childhood development outcomes for these children, so as to enhance their school readiness and subsequent life opportunities. Various projects and activities were implemented through 16 locations in four European countries: FYR Macedonia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. AGS has set in motion a wide range of tailored activities aimed at addressing shortages of infrastructure, capacity problems, and inadequate teaching methodologies. AGS s local partners have worked with national and local governments in an effort to increase and improve the range of services provided to young children over time and to incorporate ECEC into social inclusion strategies. One particular strength of AGS is its comprehensive and holistic approach to ECEC that has successfully engaged parents and communities in educational activities. AGS builds its initiatives on the notion that parental involvement in child s preschool activities leads to improved academic success and serves as a gateway to active involvement of parents during the child s elementary years. It also highlights the need to use qualified teachers, teacher s assistants, and mediators (mainly Romani community mediators) to adequately address educational, cultural, linguistic and developmental needs of children and parents. AGS provided hands-on training for pedagogues and service providers, organized literacy groups for mothers, awareness-raising activities and homeschool-community liaison programs. It was also sensitive to the specific needs of families, including individual consultations, assistance in acquiring ID for children, and vaccinations. Such an approach created linkages between institutions and families, enhanced information exchange, and in many instances contributed to building trust and cultural tolerance.

8 R14 R15 AGS addressed the sustainability of initiatives, considering this the most important factor in the fight against exclusion. It recognized that local authorities must be involved and must be convinced to participate actively for sustainability to be secured. For that reason AGS operated through partnership with local actors, creating synergies among all available resources. It also built strong inter-organizational relations with public and private institutions such as kindergartens, community centers, health service providers, and universities. Most importantly, all the AGS interventions aimed at the eventual integration of Romani children into mainstream services, thus contributing to fighting segregation and unequal treatment. They also effectively reduced institutional discrimination by involving teachers and pedagogy students in preschool activities. NEW EUROPEAN UNION POLICIES A number of key EU policy documents prepared in the past years or months give a solid framework for using EU funds for ECEC programs for Roma, fully in line with our experiences. AGS constitutes a relevant example of the successful use of European funding to tackle Roma exclusion in a strategic and practical manner. A review of the major activities and achievements demonstrates that EU funding can be of great added value provided that central and local authorities pledge their full commitment to inclusive ECEC and introduce potent mechanisms for facilitating the absorption, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of specific projects and ECEC strategies. It is critical that all the initiatives are developed and implemented in partnership with the communities, Romani representatives, local service providers, and administrators. More detailed description of the pilot project is in Annex 4. Description of the activities per locality is in Annex 5. Given the potential of ECEC services in Roma inclusion, two headline targets of the EU 2020 strategy can be served with such programs: education: reducing early school leaving to below 10 percent, and poverty/social exclusion: lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and social exclusion. The Council has issued a recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving (June 2011), which states: Providing high-quality early childhood education and care is beneficial for all children and especially relevant for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, including migrants and Roma. It enhances physical well-eing, social and emotional development, language and basic cognitive skills. Provision should be high-quality, affordable, adequately staffed and accessible to families with a disadvantaged background. 2 The Commission Communication, The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European Framework for Social and Territorial Cohesion (December 2010), 3 so states: Education and training have a direct bearing on what people can be and do. Education and training systems should be instrumental in supporting upward social mobility and help break, rather than reinforce, the cycle of disadvantage and inequality. Pre-primary education is probably the most crucial factor for breaking the vicious cycle of intergenerational transmission of poverty, and it is the investments with the highest returns. Investing in high quality ECEC can support a sure start in life for all. Member States have subscribed the benchmark that 95 percent of children between 4 years old and the beginning of compulsory education should participate in ECEC. 4 2 Available online: 3 The Commission Communication was welcomed by the Council Conclusions on the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European Framework for Social and Territorial Cohesion (March 2011). 4 Available online:

9 R16 R17 The policy document focusing on ECEC is the Council s conclusions on Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing all our Children with the Best Start for the World of Tomorrow (May 2011) which recognizes: High quality ECEC is beneficial for all children, but particularly for those with a socio-economically disadvantaged, migrant or Roma background, or with special educational needs, including disabilities. By helping to close the achievement gap and supporting cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional development, it can help to break the cycle of disadvantage and disengagement that often lead to early school leaving and to the transmission of poverty from one generation to the next. While the Member States have made good overall progress in recent years in improving the availability of ECEC, further efforts are needed in order to reach the objective of a 95 percent rate of participation by 2020 agreed under the ET2020 strategic framework, and in particular to ensure greater access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. 5 The importance of early childhood development in the field of Roma inclusion is also highlighted by the fact that the fourth meeting of the European Platform on Roma Inclusion (December 2010) was devoted to this issue. The discussion paper of the meeting (Preventing Social Exclusion through the Europe 2020 Strategy Early Childhood Development and the Inclusion of Romani Families 6 ) raises important issues for EU funding: The launch of the Europe 2020 Strategy coincided with a period of economic crisis in which many EU Member States have introduced austerity policies, often with severe budget cuts to welfare benefits and social services, just at a time when families with young children need increased support. While the financial crisis lasts, funding should be channelled not only to establishing child and family services for excluded groups, but also to providing the operating costs of effective services until such time as they can be taken over effectively by the public authorities. 7 Draft regulations for the funds for the period prepared by the Commission are in line with the above-cited statements. As they are discussed in the Council and the Parliament, and their content may change, we deal with them in the next chapter with recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FINALIZATION OF THE EU REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUNDS In this chapter we give proposals for the finalization of the EU level regulatory framework for the funds for the period, namely; the regulation laying down common provisions on the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) Funds and general provisions on the Funds, the regulation on the European Social Fund (ESF), and the Common Strategic Framework (CSF). The proposals aim to increase coherence of the EU regulatory framework for the funds with the relevant EU strategies and policies. Besides the finalization of the documents, strengthening European coordination structures is also key. This is covered in a separate sub-chapter. THE REGULATION LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS ON THE CSF FUNDS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE FUNDS, AND THE REGULATION ON THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND Further reading on recent development in EU policies can be found in Annex 6. 5 Available online: 6 The discussion paper cannot be seen as an EU policy document; still it is an important and serious contribution to the issue, prepared in the framework of the consultation mechanism set up by the European Commission and the member states. 7 Available online: Background The draft regulations were prepared by the European Commission in October They contain important elements that help the use of EU funds for Roma inclusion, including early childhood development programs targeting Romani families. These important elements include the following: Integrated use of SF is helped by the possibility that an Operational Program may concern more Funds, the introduction of Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) for territorial strategies, and so on. A minimum share (25 percent) of Structural Funds has been allocated for ESF (Article 84.3 of the general regulation).

10 R18 R19 A minimum share (20 percent) of ESF has been allocated for social inclusion (Article 4.2 of the ESF regulation). Comprehensive strategies for reducing early school leaving have been defined as thematic ex-ante conditionalities for education. These strategies must be comprehensive convening all education sectors including early childhood development (Annex IV (9) of the general regulation). Strategies for poverty reduction and Roma integration have been defined as thematic ex-ante conditionalities for social inclusion (Annex IV (10) of the general regulation). ESF can be used among others for reducing early school leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early childhood education, for integration of marginalized communities such as the Roma, and for enhancing access to quality services of general interest (Article 3.1.b.i, 3.1.c.ii and iv of the ESF regulation). Identifying and targeting the most disadvantaged micro-regions is required (Article 14.c and Annex IV of the general regulation). Institutional guarantees for anti-discrimination have been prescribed (Article 5.1.c and 87.3) and defined as general ex-ante conditionalities (Annex IV (1) of the general regulation). ESF shall be used for promoting equal opportunities for all, including specific actions (Article 8 of the ESF regulation). ESF shall be used for capacity building of partners (Article 3.1.d.ii and 6.2 of the ESF regulation). Simplified cost options shall be used at least for ESF grants up to EUR 50,000 (Article 14.4 of the ESF regulation). ERDF can support social infrastructure, amongst others childcare infrastructure. According to a recent proposal, the Council would keep many but not all of the elements mentioned above: Concerning thematic ex-ante conditionalities for education, the Council would reduce conditionalities to ESF, and discard reference to the Council Recommendation on the policies to reduce early school leaving. Concerning thematic ex-ante conditionalities for social inclusion, the Council would reduce conditionalities to ESF, delete reference to preventing and combating segregation, and discard reference to the Commission Recommendation on the active inclusion of the people excluded from the labor market. Concerning general ex-ante conditionalities for anti-discrimination, the Council would delete all these conditionalities. Recommendations In order to utilize the full potential of the EU funds, our proposal is to keep all the above elements, and even strengthen ex-ante conditionalities. Conditionality is needed for two main reasons: 1. It can help to reach a better balance between the evidence that ECEC is one of the most crucial factors for breaking the circle of intergenerational transmission of poverty, the evidence that ECEC is the investment with the highest returns, and the experience that in the period of the economic crisis many EU member states have introduced severe budget cuts to social services, including early childhood development It can help exploring potential synergies between EU funding and other tools (for example, legislation, state budget funding, educational reforms). The focus should be placed on long-term provision of access to quality, non-segregated, diverse ECEC services for children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds such as Roma. For the above reasons, we propose: Concerning thematic ex-ante conditionalities for education (early school leaving), attention should be paid to the special needs of disadvantaged groups, to the elimination of segregation, and to the creation of diverse teaching staff. Concerning general ex-ante conditionalities for anti-discrimination, arrangements should be in place for ownership within the institutional system distributing the funds, and for collecting data disaggregated by ethnicity, disability, and age. Concrete proposals are in Annex 7. 9 THE COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK Background The draft CSF was prepared by the European Commission in March Part I of the draft CSF deals with horizontal issues and Part II of the draft CSF deals with thematic objectives. In line with the EU policy documents cited in the previous chapter, the CSF mentions early childhood development programs targeting disadvantaged families/ marginalized communities under the thematic objectives of education and social inclusion. 8 See Commission Communication, The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European Framework for Social and Territorial Cohesion, and the discussion paper of the European Platform of Roma Inclusion Preventing Social Exclusion through the Europe 2020 Strategy Early Childhood Development and the Inclusion of Romani Families (2011). 9 Recommendations have been prepared with a contribution from the Making the Most of EU Funds for Roma and the Early Childhood Program of the Open Society Foundations.

11 R20 R21 Concerning education: Early childhood development is mentioned under the ESF investment priority Reducing early schoolleaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education ; key actions for ESF include addressing obstacles in access faced by children from disadvantaged families, in particular during the very first years of early-childhood (0-3). Key actions for ERDF include support for investments in education and training infrastructure particularly with a view to reducing territorial disparities and fostering non-segregated education, and increasing the responsiveness of education and training systems to evolving patterns of skill needs and demands and complementing ESF measures. Concerning social inclusion: Early childhood development is mentioned under the ESF investment priorities Integration of marginalized communities such as the Roma and Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest. Key actions for ESF include: elimination of segregation in education, promoting early-childhood education, fighting early school-leaving and ensuring successful transitions from school to employment and targeted early-childhood education and care services, including integrated approaches combining childcare, education, health and parental support, with a particular focus on the prevention of children s placement in institutional care. Key actions for ERDF include supporting infrastructure investments in childcare, social infrastructure, elderly care and long-term care. As early childhood development for marginalized communities is an emerging area, there is need for European coordination, especially in the following fields: Ensuring quality in early childhood development services Ensuring involvement of professional non-governmental organizations in the implementation of programs Ensuring training and involvement of Romani professionals Supporting community-based and parent-led early childhood development services Organizing the collection of data, including ethnically disaggregated data, with a view to support monitoring and evaluation Good practices should be identified and recommendations and standards should be formulated in the areas listed above. Key participants of the coordination structure include the European Commission, most relevant member states (especially Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia), and with a strong presence professional international and national non-governmental organizations. The coordination structure may be new or part of existing structures, either on the implementation of the national Roma integration strategies or mainstream early childhood development strategies. Recommendations In order to utilize the full potential of the EU funds, our proposal is to keep the above elements, adding: Concerning the thematic objectives of education and social inclusion, explicit reference should also be made to early childhood development in key actions for ERDF. Concerning the horizontal issues of equal opportunities and non-discrimination, arrangements should be in place for ownership within the institutional system distributing the funds. Concrete proposals are in Annex 7. STRENGTHENING EUROPEAN COORDINATION STRUCTURES A permanent European coordination structure needs to be operated to assist the exchange of knowledge and experiences related to early childhood development for marginalized communities.

12 R22 R23 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS FOR THE FUNDS In this chapter we outline proposals for the preparation of national-level programming documents for the structural funds for the period, namely the partnership agreements and the operational programs. The preparation of the partnership agreements and the operational programs should be supported with the revision of the relevant strategies, such as the poverty reduction and Roma integration strategies, and the comprehensive strategies for reducing early school leaving. In most member states these strategies were prepared when the availability of EU funds for the period was not yet clear (which at the time of writing is still the case). The EU funds are meant to play an important role in financing, so the strategies are weak in defining budgets. As among others defining budgets is what makes the difference between lofty ideals and real strategies, it is key to revise the strategies as soon as the availability of EU funds for the period is clarified. Revising the relevant strategies, on the one hand, and preparing the partnership agreements and the operational programs, on the other hand, should be an iterative process. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Below we try to outline issues that must be considered when designing early childhood development programs for Roma inclusion with the involvement of EU funds. If any of these issues is not addressed, the program is likely to fail. The sequence reflects the order in which issues occur, not the order of importance. 1. Coordination should be ensured through designation of a responsible government body that should work with all stakeholders such as relevant ministries (education, social affairs, health, and so on); managing authorities; independent early childhood development experts from the academic sphere and the field; and NGOs. These should include Romani professionals. Partnership with these stakeholders should be structured, for example, a steering committee. Partnership should cover the design and implementation of programs. 2. The gaps between EU benchmarks and national figures, and national figures and figures for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including Roma should be assessed, in terms of early school leaving, poverty, participation in ECEC, and so on. Ambitious but realistic quantifiable targets should be set for closing these gaps by Annual targets should be designated for each year until Previous efforts to reduce early school leaving, reduce poverty, and increase participation in ECEC should be assessed by independent experts. Assessment should cover both legislative and financial issues, including state budget funding and EU funds, and explore potential synergies between these tools. Access to quality, non-segregated, diverse education, social and health services for children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds should be a focus of the assessment. 4. A framework that integrates a variety of more specific activities for using EU funds for early childhood development programs for Roma inclusion (for example, individual calls for proposals) should be designed. Alternatives for this framework include, for example: Targeting child poverty, especially for better coordination of relevant national policies and actions (see, for example, the Chance for Children program in Hungary); Targeting the most disadvantaged micro-regions, especially for harmonizing national and local actions and tailoring them to local needs (see, for example, the comprehensive approach for marginalized Romani communities in Slovakia or the integrated program for the most depressed micro-regions in Hungary). Simple sectoral programs are likely to result in supporting competitive institutions in central locations. With the ambition to counterbalance this tendency, geographical targeting is strongly promoted by the draft regulations. The decision needs to be made as to whether the program should fall under the thematic objective of education or social inclusion. A brief description of the above mentioned programs in Hungary is included in Annex Activities should be tailored to the needs of the target group. They should cover both legislative and financial issues, include state budget funding, involve ESF and ERDF type activities, and explore potential synergies between these tools. They should actively support, desegregation, diversity and flexibility of services, development of infrastructure, innovation, and financial assistance. Efforts to eliminate segregation and promote active anti-segregation should also indirectly cover culturallybiased barriers such as psychological entry tests for enrolling children into mainstream education. Diversity and flexibility of services can be assisted by the promotion of home-based and community-based

13 R24 R25 learning initiatives and parenting programs, and the creation of diverse teaching staff in education, including the involvement of Roma. ESF could be a potent tool for developing human resources equipped with necessary skills and knowledge. ERDF should be utilized to instigate construction of preschool facilities, especially for the zero-to-three target age group, in geographically isolated areas, impoverished micro-regions, and urban outskirts. Commitment to developed, high-quality ECEC infrastructure should adhere to desegregation priorities and sustainability clauses. Given the need for introducing new practices, activities should include piloting innovative early childhood development initiatives and mechanisms for scaling-up promising initiatives. Where demand is lower than supply for ECEC services, targeted conditional cash transfers (CCT) may help in overcoming bottlenecks caused, for example, by lack of information on or trust towards existing services. However, guarantees are needed that CCT is not leading to increased poverty among the families involved. 6. Sustainability of EU-funded activities should be ensured by addressing structural problems, for example, by integrating public services, optimizing the territorial level of public services, and so on, and by identifying financing after the EU funding period. Educational systems in many new member states were not adjusted or not properly adjusted to massive demographic and social changes, (for example, overall declining number of children, in certain disadvantaged areas increasing numbers of children), resulting in territorially unbalanced demand and supply of public services and unequal access to public services. Adjustment of the educational systems needs to be done with a view to ensuring access and affordability of quality public services. Given the overall declining number of children, adjustment of the educational systems can also contribute to the identification of financing after the EU funding period. Educational reform is key to avoiding a situation where early childhood development services are solely dependent on the availability of EU funds. 8. Adequate professional assistance arrangements should be established. The responsible governmental body and the steering committee need professional assistance, for example, ex-ante assessment of major legislative changes; regular assessment of the above described gaps, and so on. Organizations implementing individual projects (for example, local governments, NGOs) need professional assistance, for example, guidance, training, hands-on assistance to project design, and monitoring. Professional assistance can be provided only by early childhood development experts with a high level of independence from politics and with secured continuous funding. Involvement of Romani experts needs to be ensured. 9. Data need to be collected from the start for the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the programs and the activities. For evaluation purposes data need to cover both children and families involved in the program, and children and families not involved (control group). Data disaggregated by gender and ethnicity needs to be collected and analyzed. 10. Adequate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be set up. The aim of monitoring is to provide feedback at the program and activity levels, and to detect and correct potential failures at an early stage. Monitoring mechanisms should include regular (at least annual) reporting to the steering committee and then to the decision-makers (governments). Views of early childhood development experts and NGOs, including Romani professionals, need to be incorporated in the reporting, either within the main reports or in parallel shadow reports. The aim of evaluation is to provide feedback at the policy level. Evaluation mechanisms should include impact assessment. 11. The budget should be defined, including normative budget funding and EU funds. The budget should be fixed in the partnership agreement and/or the relevant operational program. 7. Commitment of local actors must be ensured. Where available, public services can be made accessible for Romani children, activities can be implemented by the providers of the public services, for example, local governments and institutions, in partnership with NGOs and communities. However, experience shows that in many cases local governments and institutions are either not interested in or not able to deliver quality, non-segregated, diverse services for Romani children and parents. The issue of interest can be addressed by specific motivation for local governments to deliver such services (for example, making their access to development funds conditional to their activity in promoting equal opportunities, making access to early childhood development a compulsory element of Integrated Territorial Investments, and so on). The issue of ability can be addressed by financing community-based activities implemented by NGOs. As an example, a rough estimation of the costs of a kindergarten capacity development program in Hungary is in Annex 9. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Slovakia Reasons for problems with the implementation of the comprehensive approach for marginalized Romani communities should be evaluated in detail (covering especially targeting, but also program structure, management structure). This is necessary to avoid repetition of the same problems in the next SF period.

14 R26 R27 Hands-on guidance needs to be provided to localities for the incorporation of early childhood development in the local strategies under the comprehensive approach (in the case there is another comprehensive approach in the next period). Infrastructure needs to be expanded and the quality of services secured and prioritized in the relevant ERDF and ESF operational programs. Romani teachers and teacher assistants should be employed in kindergartens where the majority of children are Roma and speak Romanes. Material for teaching Slovak as a second language should be developed and disseminated. Teachers should be trained to provide assistance with learning the Slovak language as a second language. Hungary Equal access to public social and health services such as health visitors (that is, védőnő), pediatricians, specialist health care and assistive devices (for example, eyeglasses) for children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds, including Roma, needs to be ensured. The capacity of such services should be increased, especially in the most disadvantaged micro-regions and villages, with ESF and national budgetary funds. Equal access to kindergartens for children with disadvantaged backgrounds, including Roma, needs to be ensured. Capacity of such services should be increased, especially in the most disadvantaged micro-regions and villages, with ERDF, ESF, and national budgetary funds. A rough estimation of the costs of a kindergarten capacity development program in Hungary is outlined in Annex 9. The sustainability of the services created with EU funds such as Sure Start children s houses, after school extracurricular programs (that is, tanoda) needs to be improved through stable, continuous work and ongoing financing. Similarly, the sustainability of the professional assistance services created with EU funds for example, in the Chance for Children program needs to be improved through stable, continuous work and ongoing financing. Dialogue between independent early childhood development experts from the academic sphere and from the field and Roma representatives should be strengthened. As a minimum, the level of dialogue achieved in previous years should be maintained. Social assistance and child protection systems need to be strengthened. Funds need to be provided for training of staff and innovative approaches to social services for young children and their families. Technical assistance should be provided for local governments and NGOs working in the field of Roma inclusion, for the preparation and implementation of EU-funded projects. It can be financed by ESF. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) FYROM will continue to benefit from pre-accession funds in the funding period. Although it must address a large number of socio-economic issues, it is imperative that ECEC will be made a priority in all initiatives pertaining to restructuring of education and health services as well as infrastructure. AGS activities in FYROM provide excellent examples of good practices that should be widely disseminated and scaled-up. For ECEC services to be accessible, several conditions must be met: The state budget for preschool education should be increased by revising the basis for the transfer from central government to municipalities of earmarked grants for child protection (including ECEC) to focus on annual per-child costs. Capacity issues should be addressed. In practice, this means that each local community should house a publicly funded kindergarten to serve at least children between the ages of three and five. In remote areas, alternative forms of preschool education should be considered to supplement publicly funded kindergartens. Bilingualism in preschool education is an important tool for overcoming learning and/or cultural barriers. Romani teachers should be introduced, as a way of overcoming language barriers and at the same time should serve as a link between Romani/non-Romani children. Apart from this, learning the Macedonian language should be stimulated amongst Romani children as to enable them to integrate with greater ease. Outreach work with families should be stimulated and institutionalized (via mediators multidisciplinary teams) as it is an extremely useful tool for awareness raising and reaching parents and children. It is recommended that mediators work in close cooperation with various institutions and undertake home visits. Preparatory programs for both parents and children should be introduced and professional teams (in cooperation with NGOs) should work to improve participation and full integration of target families. Romania Management of EU funds should be radically improved. The low level of advance payment, slow reimbursement, requirement of own contribution, and frequently changing rules hinder their absorption. This is especially the case for financially less viable organizations, such as many local governments and NGOs working in the field of Roma inclusion. ECEC infrastructure should be a priority for the relevant ERDF operational program(s). They should target construction of kindergartens and playgrounds in the most disadvantaged territories accessible for both Romani and non-romani children and parents. This would contribute to intercultural exchange.

15 R28 R29 EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN RESEARCHED EXTENSIVELY FOR THEIR EFFECT ON PREPARING CHILDREN FOR SCHOOL AND ON LATER SCHOOL OUTCOMES. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY AND CONVINCINGLY PROVEN THAT INVESTMENTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND IMPROVING SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND COMPLETION ARE THE MOST PROMISING INTERVENTIONS TO BREAK THE INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION. MOREOVER, EFFECTS ARE STRONGEST FOR POOR CHILDREN AND FOR CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS HAVE LITTLE EDUCATION.

16 R30 R31 ANNEX 1: THE POTENTIAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE Outcome research shows that children who participate over time in high-quality ECEC are likely to develop higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills; to be more cooperative and considerate of others; to develop greater self-esteem; and to be better equipped to make effective transitions to compulsory schooling. 14 The effects are generally greater and longer lasting in children from disadvantaged backgrounds, which includes many Roma. Research demonstrates that if certain structural requirements are respected (for example, sufficient investment, duration, and intensity of programming) positive and long-lasting outcomes in both the cognitive and socio-emotional domains are likely to be delivered by structured programs with clear developmental and pedagogical aims. Attention and the need to invest and mainstream ECEC are supported by well-researched cogent arguments: 15 Accessible and high quality ECEC has been recognized as an effective and cost-efficient tool for the promotion of socio-economic inclusion of Europe s largest and most marginalized minority, the Roma. Romani children have been identified as a vulnerable group in need of attention, protection, and investment by the EU and its member states. 10 Their possibilities to succeed in life continue to be severely constrained by widespread poverty, segregation, and prevailing negative attitudes toward their families and communities. And yet because of the demographic profile of the Romani population 11 and given the ageing of Europe and its chronic lack of labor, it is Romani children who have the potential to be an extremely valuable asset to society if they can be protected, educated, and brought into the skilled work force. 12 Investing in quality childcare and early childhood education can pay significant returns to Romani children while strengthening social cohesion and enhancing the economic vitality of the European community. According to economic research conducted by Nobel Prize laureate James Heckman, investment in young children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is a rare public policy that not only promotes productivity but also fairness and social justice. 13 Early interventions help families to improve their children s health and well-being and make the most of their subsequent educational opportunities. Improvements in school performance lead to higher educational attainment and subsequent economic success in adulthood, thus the government may benefit from higher tax revenues and reduced outlays for social welfare programs and the criminal justice system. 1. Macro-economic: Some million of Roma live in Europe. The EU and the member states cannot afford to ignore the potential of this population. It must begin now to improve basic health conditions, to educate Romani children, and to provide hope to families by providing jobs and housing. If the situation is not tackled urgently and concrete outcomes achieved an intolerable burden will be placed on welfare, health, and education services and on the next generation of Europeans (see Annex 2: The World Bank s Argument for Investing in Roma Children) 2. Return on investment: The interaction between environment and human development, the negative impact of poverty is more intense in early childhood and has a far greater impact on outcomes than poverty experienced in later life. 16 As adverse economic conditions and parenting practices are linked, children living in extreme poverty may not experience successful role models or acquire the fundamental skills and motivations that underlie all learning. These skills include adequate concept and language acquisition, self-regulation, and confidence to interact with others. In comparison, remedial education interventions targeting young school dropouts or adults with poor basic skills are far more costly and of limited benefit. 17 Thus, interventions during the early years among marginalized populations is a public policy initiative that does not only promote fairness and social justice, but can have a far greater impact than interventions later in life. 10 We are aware that there are many successful Romani people, that Romani groups differ from each other, and that Romani society is socially stratified. This policy papers concerns Romani children who live in dire poverty and are denied the educational opportunities that could break the intergenerational transmission of poverty and enable countries to avail of the positive contribution to society that Romani children can make. 11 According to a recent study undertaken within the framework of the EU s Public Health Program, the European Romani population is significantly younger than the overall population (an average of 25.1 years in seven member states, compared to years in the EU-27; percent of the Romani population is under 29 years old, compared to percent in the EU-27). Despite a gradual decline in birth rates among the Roma, the replacement index (reflecting the population between 15 and 39 for every 100 people aged 40 to 64) remains significantly higher among the Roma (231) than the overall population (101). 12 Gabor Kezdi, and Gabor Kertesi, Expected Long-term Budgetary Benefits to Roma Education in Hungary, Budapest Working Papers on the Labor Market 0605 (Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Science, 2006). 13 James Heckman, The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children, Working Paper 5 (Invest in Kids Working Group, Committee for Economic Development, 2004). 14 Open Society Foundation, Roma Education Fund, UNICEF, Roma Early Childhood Inclusion, Overview Report (New York, Budapest, Geneva, 2012). 15 UNICEF, European Social Observatory and the Belgian Federal Planning Service (Ministry) for Social Integration, Preventing Social Exclusion through the Europe 2020 Strategy: Early Childhood Development and the Inclusion of Romani Families (2011). 16 Ibid. 17 V. Alekeson, Spending on Education and Training overt the Life Course. Have We Got the Balance Right? Social Market Foundation Briefing Paper (Social Market Foundation: London, 2004).

17 R32 R33 3. Brain development: Recent advances in brain research have provided great insight into how the brain, the most immature of all organs at birth, continues to grow and develop well after birth. Whereas this growth had been thought to be determined primarily by genetics, scientists now believe that it is also highly dependent upon a child s experiences. Research shows that interactions with other people and objects are vital nutrients for the growing and developing brain, and different experiences can cause the brain to develop in different ways. As a child grows, his/her ability to understand language, solve problems, and get along with other people will be influenced by what he/she experiences as an infant and young child. While good early experiences help the brain to develop well, experiences of neglect and abuse can literally cause some genetically normal children to become mentally retarded or to develop serious emotional difficulties Preparation for school that can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the school system as a whole: Early childhood programs have been researched extensively for their effect on preparing children for school and on later school outcomes. It has been repeatedly and convincingly proven that investments in early childhood education and improving school attendance and completion are the most promising interventions to break the intergenerational transmission of social exclusion. Moreover, effects are strongest for poor children and for children whose parents have little education. 19 Thus, appropriate ECEC services are essential to improving school readiness and to giving Romani children an equal starting point as they enter primary school, reducing at the same time the likelihood that they will enter special schools. 4. A strong and equal partnership between the authorities and education institutions (pedagogical training centers, universities, schools, teachers unions, principles, and so on). 5. A universal and mandatory access to preschool services, with particular attention to children in need of special support (for example, state s financial assistance to cover access and full participation of children). 6. Substantial public investment in services and the infrastructure delivered to centers that promote inclusive preschool education. 7. A participatory approach to quality improvement and assurance. 8. Appropriate training and working conditions for staff in all forms of provision (including pedagogy students attending universities, healthcare workers and social workers). 9. Systematic attention to monitoring of services benefiting from SF and ex-ante and ex-post evaluations. 10. A stable framework and long-term agenda for research and evaluation. To be successful and sustainable, ECEC initiatives must be an integral part of countries overall policies for developing human capital, infrastructure, employment, health, and anti-discrimination measures. National governments, while not necessarily directly involved in service delivery, are generally responsible for setting and maintaining child education standards and universality of ECEC programs. The experiences of the AGS pilot project demonstrate that there are at least ten general and interrelated aspects of policy and service provision that constitute key elements for promoting equitable access to quality ECEC. The key elements are: 1. Creation of a more comprehensive conception of ECEC, covering maternal and infant healthcare, family support and family well-being, early learning and special needs (ideally the concept needs to be worked out at community level, with the assistance of experienced persons in the field). 2. A systematic and integrated approach to development and implementation of quality ECEC services. 3. A framework for inclusion of parents in children s preschool education (through provision of information, schoolhome liaison, counselling, and so on). 18 The Ounce of Prevention Fund and Zero to Three, How Early Experiences Affect Brain Development (2000). 19 J. Brooks-Gunn, Do You Believe in Magic? What We Can Expert from Early Childhood Intervention Programs, Social Policy Report XVII (1): 3-7.

18 R34 R35 ANNEX 2: THE WORLD BANK: INVESTING IN ROMA CHILDREN On the occasion of the Second EU Roma Summit in Cordoba, April 8-9, 2010, the World Bank presented a Note on the preliminary findings of its Economic Costs of Roma Exclusion study, which focuses on the economic benefits of eliminating the productivity gap between Roma and the majority population in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, and Serbia. The analysis is based on quantitative data from seven household surveys in the four countries and information from interviews with 222 stakeholders government and non-government officials and Roma and non-roma. The Note points out that the challenges posed by the large gap in labor market outcomes between mainstream and Romani populations are compounded by these countries demographic trends. The majority populations of the four countries in the study are aging and will experience substantial increases in the proportion of elderly people (65+ years), compared with much younger Romani populations. Increasingly, the employment and fiscal burden will need to be carried by young Romani men and women who are reaching working age at (relative) rates that are two to three times higher than young people from the majority populations, thus increasing the share of Roma among the working-age population. The Note also finds that, contrary to common perceptions, the vast majority of Roma do not depend on social assistance in the four countries studied. While some Roma do receive guaranteed minimum income social assistance, as would be expected given the high levels of poverty, the vast majority does not. The perception that is consistent with the facts is that the vast majority of Roma have much lower levels of education than non-roma. Roma want to contribute and have the potential to do so. The Policy Note finds that Roma want to work but cannot find jobs in the countries studied. Often, public perception holds that Roma do not want to work and are overwhelmingly dependent on social assistance programs, such as guaranteed minimum income. But, according to the Note, among males, while many do not have work, their labor force participation rates are higher than those of non-roma in three out of four countries; in other words, Roma are willing to work, but cannot find jobs. In fact, for women, 39 percent looking for jobs remain unemployed, and for men 20 percent looking for jobs remain unemployed. The Note states that reducing the productivity gap will require investments in education, among other things, but the government revenues generated by higher productivity in terms of lower social assistance, but especially in terms of higher income tax revenues far outweigh the investments needed to close the education gap between Roma and non-roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Investments needed to close the education gap would only be approximately 30 percent of the potential fiscal benefits from such investments across the four countries. For example, already as many as one in eight in Serbia and one in five in Bulgaria and Romania of potential new labor market entrants are Roma. These figures will only increase if demographic trends persist in these countries. Unless Roma employment and wage rates substantially improve, Central and Eastern European governments will find it increasingly difficult to carry the rising fiscal burden in terms of pensions, healthcare, and other costs that come with an aging population. Estimates based on official statistics of Romani populations put the economic benefits across Eastern and Central Europe at EUR 3.4 billion annually, and EUR 1.2 billion annually for the direct fiscal benefits. Using the higher Council of Europe Romani population estimates, these direct gains are EUR 9.9 billion in terms of annual economic gains and EUR 3.5 billion in terms of annual fiscal gains.

19 R36 R37 ANNEX 3: EXCLUSION OF ROMANI CHILDREN AND PARENTS Presently, the work at the national level in all four countries in the AGS program shows that, in spite of the recognized benefits of ECEC, severe gaps exist in terms of policies (numerous aspects are not addressed at all) and implementation (more effort, coordination, and resources are needed). Progress in making national early education programs genuinely inclusive for Romani children continue to lag behind the promised outcomes. AGS stakeholders have identified the major causes for prevailing Romani exclusion from quality ECEC services, evident in all four countries (FYROM, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia). 20 First round data was collected (in 2010) and a research report was published, A Good Start Survey Spotlight on its Localities and Households (2011). The following are highlights from this research. Economic barriers are the most important reasons for not enrolling children. The AGS Household Survey demonstrates that 59 percent of parents with non-enrolled children aged three to seven consider ECEC too expensive for them to send a child, while 40 percent reported having no money for clothes for their children to attend. Lack of compulsory and subsidized preschool education amplifies these barriers. Persistence of segregated services for Romani children is often caused by geographical segregation of Romani communities, services that impose extra requirements such as fees from which Romani children are de facto excluded on account of their social disadvantages, and discriminatory attitudes of service providers. Three out of four parents with enrolled children reported that their child attends a kindergarten with half or over half Roma children (36 percent of partners had children in kindergartens where all or almost all children were Roma, 40 percent of parents had children in kindergartens with around half Roma children). In Romania, Romani children are placed mainly in Romani kindergartens where all or almost all the children are Roma. These facilities tend to be poorly equipped and lack qualified staff. They often do not engage children in cognitive activities and fail to involve Romani communities and parents. In the Slovak locality of Zborov, parents mentioned that their children attend a mixed kindergarten, but with almost all Roma in the class. In-school segregation has also been recorded in other countries. Access can be inadequate in particular, for children from low-income families, children living in rural areas or children from ethnic minorities such as Roma, especially in countries where government funded, center-based 20 The AGS Household Survey demonstrates that in Slovakia 90.2 percent of children age three are not enrolled in any ECEC programs, in FYROM the percentage is even higher reaching percent. Hungarian and Romanian enrolment rates are higher for the three-year-olds but is still very low for children age zero to two; Romania as high as 70 percent and Hungary 72 percent. instruction programs are limited.this is often due to inadequate infrastructural provisions (classrooms, bathrooms, equipment, heating, and so on), capacity issues, and inadequate transport in rural and geographically segregated areas. Although the WB First Deliberative Draft, Improving Access to Kindergarten and Pre-school among Roma in Eastern Europe, demonstrated that distance to preschool facilities is not significantly associated with low enrolment rate, AGS localities reported lack of kindergartens and ECEC infrastructure in Crnik and Trabotivište in the FYROM as well as in Abranovce, Banská Bystrica, and Martin in Slovakia. Focus groups organized in the context of the RECI National Report for Romania revealed that the most frequent reason given by Romani parents (especially those from rural area) is distance from services. 21 It needs to be pointed out that while infrastructure for children three to six is more accessible, facilities for children zero to three are scarce. The quality of programming can be a concern due to unfavorable structural features such as: high childstaff ratios; inadequate training of staff; curricula that are neither developmental nor educational; programming that is unsuitable for children with special educational needs, such as second-language classes. (In Šuto Orizari more than 20 percent of parents claimed they do not enrol their children because of language issues, in Abranovce more than 10 percent made similar claims). Limited budgetary provisions for ECEC prevent development of holistic approaches and enhancement of existing services. Low wages result in a shortage of qualified pedagogues, experienced mediators, and administrators. Few incentives and no hands-on pedagogical training significantly reduce the number of candidates for teaching positions, especially in rural and geographically segregated areas. Experience has shown that preschools with predominately Romani children have not only a lower standard of classrooms and didactic equipment, but very often lack adequate human resources including Romani professionals. While provided as a public service, the program offered is often too short for working parents: brief programs place strain on working parents, and encourage the survival especially among low-income groups of ad hoc arrangements that are unsupervised and generally of low quality. Families from isolated communities face additional transportation costs, while there are still many places where public transport is not accessible (especially in the rural areas). Lack of information and parent engagement: Many Romani parents did not complete formal education and face difficulties supporting their children s language skills and educational development. 22 Because of their isolation, Romani communities often rely on traditional understandings of child rearing. There is little knowledge about the benefits of ECEC in many communities, which substantially reduces enrolment of Romani children in such programs. Seven out of 10 children aged three to seven and whose mother had not gone to school at all are at home and are not enrolled in any preschool program. In addition, many Romani 21 Open Society Foundation, Roma Education Fund, UNICEF, Roma Early Childhood Inclusion Overview Report (New York, Budapest, Geneva, 2012). 22 AGS survey (2011) shows for the locations covered in the project that in Hungary 60.1 percent of mothers completed primary school but only 0.3 completed universities. In Slovakia 55.5 percent of mothers completed primary school, 21.8 percent went on to secondary vocational training and 0.4 completed universities. In Romania 4.4 percent of mothers completed only the first four years of primary education. and 51.1 percent completed more years of primary education. Similar situation is in FYROM with only 19.5 percent of mothers finishing primary school, and 3.3 percent vocational secondary education.

20 R38 R39 parents are not only functionally illiterate, but are constantly absorbed by survival issues. This often means that children receive limited support at home as their parents are unable to provide them with guidance or motivation. 23 Experience shows that parent s involvement is a prerequisite for higher enrolment in ECEC and successful educational development. Informing parents about educational activities and potential outcomes builds trust between parents and educational institutions and dismantles hurtful stereotypes that Roma are uninterested in educating their children. Mechanisms for parent involvement are generally available but not compulsory (Eurydice, Cedefop, ETF, 2009/2010), so in practice it is not clear whether parents, and especially poorly educated Romani parents, have a say in the way their children are cared for and educated. Impact of poverty: Romani children live in environments that often function at basic survival levels, with negative effects on infant health and development prospects. Many Romani children are born into very poor households where, in many cases, no adult is employed. Housing and community infrastructure are often unhealthy, without sewage, running water, or heating. Only three-quarters of the households participating in AGS project have a kitchen indoors, with the lowest share in Skopje/Šuto Orizari (34 percent) and Vinica (45 percent). Toilets inside are available in 51 percent of households and running water in 63 percent of household, with Vinica, Skopje/Šuto Orizari, Telechiu, Craiova-Mofleni, and Nyírkáta lagging behind. Romani children are hospitalized for pneumonia and respiratory illnesses at double the rate of children from mainstream backgrounds; ear and skin infections are rife. 24 Lack of intercultural educational strategies: Aims to develop bridges between different ethnic groups are often absent. When they are present, country strategies consist largely of support measures that target Roma as disadvantaged learners rather than promoting intercultural understanding as a key dimension of national education policy. A critical point is that many of the disadvantages that the Roma face inside educational institutions are caused by discrimination and segregation reflexes among majority populations. The issue needs to be tackled primarily at early school levels by changing the attitudes of both children and parents toward the Roma minority. More often than not, however, human rights and intercultural understanding are present only in specific projects, which do not affect the structure and operation of the general education system. As such, they are unlikely to bring about the necessary ideological and systemic changes and, for this reason, their added value as well as their sustainability remains questionable. 25 Roma issues are not well represented at the planning stage: Special units within the administration have been created in all four countries, within the framework of the Roma Decade, to ensure that problems specific to Romani communities are taken into account. It becomes clear that their influence on decision-making and implementation continue to be very limited. Strategies to incorporate Romani representatives in policy debates or in the elaboration of governmental agendas to tackle poverty are also absent. The evidence gathered so far suggests that the involvement of Romani organizations in shaping and implementing policies is limited and even this limited participation is characterized by low effectiveness. 26 Lack of engagement on the part of local authorities: Local level involvement in implementation of measures in favor of Romani populations is practiced to some extent in all four countries but proper engagement with Roma issues is still very much absent. In some instances programs that showed some degree of success (that is, health and education mediators) were discontinued once funding became the responsibility of local authorities. Public servants are rarely included in project-oriented approaches to Roma inclusion, which curtails sustainability of undertaken actions and transfer of knowledge. At the same time public services rarely reach out or cater to Romani communities. The lack of cooperation between local authorities, public servants, and Romani communities creates a twofold system (public based and project based) that is neither efficient nor effective. Decentralization: WB (2011) and OSI (2007) studies bring attention to ways decentralization may enable segregation. In theory, decentralized educational services can address local needs better by paying greater respect to the diverse situation and problems of communities, and thus can better address needs of vulnerable groups and individual students. However, without clearly delineated responsibilities of local authorities, regular inspections, and effective mechanisms to address potential problems, decentralization may fuel the segregation of Roma. Country-specific causes for the low enrolment rate of Romani children in ECEC programs are specified in order to highlight contextual problems and allow for a more concrete formulation of recommendations. FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (FYROM) The leading cause for low enrolment of Romani children in ECEC services is widespread poverty among Romani communities. Close to 63 percent of Romani households live on less than 60 percent of the median monthly income, a situation attributed to unacceptably high rates of unemployment. Romani families are desperately poor, live in debt, and face a continual struggle to survive. Thus it is unrealistic to expect a family living at or below the poverty line of EUR 94 per month, to cover the monthly fees of approximately EUR 25 for each child enrolled in public kindergarten. Considering the poverty line, it is almost impossible for child development to be paid proper attention by families that struggle to ensure mere existence. 23 Survey on engagement of household members over the age of 15 in different activities with the children, such as reading books, telling stories shows that little engagement takes place. In general, adults surveyed in FYROM and Romania tended to be less engaged in these activities than those from Hungary and Slovakia. 24 UNICEF CEE/CIS Regional Office, Situation Analysis: An Overview of Inclusive Education in Central Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (UNICEF: Geneva, 2010). 25 EUMC, Breaking the Barriers Romani Women and Access to Public Health Care (EUMC: Vienna, 2003). 26 Decade Watch, Decade Watch Results of the 2009 Survey (Budapest: Decade Watch, 2009).