e classroom, and that school staff interacts meaningfully with parents EDUCATION and the community outside of the classroom.

Transcription

1 have begun to be reflected in the few statistics available. A new elite, committed to working for their communities as facilitator achers, school masters or in grassroots NGOs, is appearing. Sustaining this positive trend, however, requires concerted efforts. important that education systems become more open to multicultural approaches and that people accept that being citizens e same country does not mean being exactly the same, having the same cultural references, or having the same economic bac ound. It is also important that pedagogues become more focused on each child and on interactions with others in the classroom d that school staff interacts meaningfully with parents and the community outside of the classroom. The main philosophy behin F s intervention is that efforts to make school systems friendlier to the Roma should actually benefit all children and society as ole. What is needed is not different, separate education initiatives for Roma, on the contrary, a more child centered, communi ntered approach, whereby all children, even with differences, can improve and develop as part of a broader society. This can on achieved if governments collaborate on improving policies and institutions and if Roma become fuller members and participan the system. The Roma Education Fund in 2006 made some significant steps towards these objectives and is committed to co ue doing so in order to help ensure that Roma children can access good quality education in their respective countries, which w imately contribute to their fuller inclusion in their societies. Roma inclusion in education systems is possible and, in the last fe ars, some notable progress has been made. Indeed the changes have begun to be reflected in the few statistics available. A ne te, committed to working for their communities as facilitators, teachers, school masters or in grassroots NGOs, is appearing. Su ining this positive trend, however, requires concerted efforts. It is important that education systems become more open to mul ltural approaches and that people accept that being citizens of the same country does not mean being exactly the same, havi e same cultural references, or having the same economic background. It is also important that pedagogues become more focuse each child and on interactions with others in the classroom, and that school staff interacts meaningfully with parents and th mmunity outside of the classroom. The main philosophy behind REF s intervention is that efforts to make school systems frien r to the Roma should actually benefit all children and society as a whole. What is needed is not different, separate educatio tiatives for Roma, on the contrary, a more child centered, community centered approach, whereby all children, even with diffe ces, can improve and develop as part of a broader society. This can only be achieved if governments collaborate on improvi licies and institutions and if Roma become fuller members and participants in the system. The Roma Education Fund in 2006 mad me significant steps towards these objectives and is committed to continue doing so in order to help ensure that Roma childre n access good quality education in their respective countries, which will ultimately contribute to their fuller inclusion in the cieties. Roma inclusion in education systems is possible and, in the last few years, some notable progress has been made. Indee e changes have begun to be reflected in the few statistics available. A new elite, committed to working for their communities cilitators, teachers, school masters or in grassroots NGOs, is appearing. Sustaining Roma this positive Education trend, however, Fund requires co rted efforts. It is important that education systems become more open to multicultural approaches and that people accept th ing citizens of the same country does not mean being exactly the same, having the same cultural references, or having the sam onomic background. It is also important that pedagogues become more focused on each child and on interactions with others ROMA e classroom, and that school staff interacts meaningfully with parents EDUCATION and the community outside of the classroom. The ma FUND ilosophy behind REF s intervention is that efforts to make school systems friendlier to the Roma should actually benefit all childre d society as a whole. What is needed is not different, separate education initiatives for Roma, on the contrary, a more child ce red, community centered approach, whereby all children, even with differences, can improve and develop as part of a broad ciety. This can only be achieved if governments collaborate on improving policies and institutions and if Roma become fuller mem rs and participants in the system. The Roma Education Fund in 2006 made some significant steps towards these objectives and mmitted to continue doing so in order to help ensure that Roma children can access good quality education in their respecti untries, which will ultimately contribute to their fuller inclusion in their societies. Roma inclusion in education systems is possib d, in the last few years, some notable progress has been made. Indeed the changes have begun to be reflected in the few stat s available. A new elite, committed to working for their communities as facilitators, teachers, school masters or in grassroo Os, is appearing. Sustaining this positive trend, however, requires concerted efforts. It is important that education systems b me more open to multicultural approaches and that people accept that being citizens of the same country does not mean bein actly the same, having the same cultural references, or having the same economic background. It is also important that ped gues become more focused on each child and on interactions with others in the classroom, and that school staff interacts mea fully with parents and the community outside of the classroom. The main philosophy behind REF s intervention is that efforts ke school systems friendlier to the Roma should actually benefit all children and society as a whole. What is needed is not diffe t, separate education initiatives for Roma, on the contrary, a more child centered, community centered approach, whereby a ildren, even with differences, can improve and develop as part of a broader society. This can only be achieved if governmen llaborate on improving policies and institutions and if Roma become fuller members and participants in the system.the Rom ucation Fund in 2006 made some significant steps towards these objectives and is committed to continue doing so in order to he sure that Roma children can access good quality education in their respective countries, which will ultimately contribute to the ller inclusion in their societies. Roma inclusion in education systems is possible and, in the last few years, some notable progre s been made. Indeed the changes Annual have begun to be reflected Report in the few statistics 2009 available. A new elite, committed to worki r their communities as facilitators, teachers, school masters or in grassroots NGOs, is appearing. Sustaining this positive tren wever, requires concerted efforts. It is important that education systems become more open to multicultural approaches and th ople accept that being citizens of the same country does not mean being exactly the same, having the same cultural reference having the same economic background. It is also important that pedagogues become more focused on each child and on intera ns with others in the classroom, and that school staff interacts meaningfully with parents and the community outside of th ssroom. The main philosophy behind REF s intervention is that efforts to make school systems friendlier to the Roma should act y benefit all children and society as a whole. What is needed is not different, separate education initiatives for Roma, on th ntrary, a more child centered, community centered approach, whereby all children, even with differences, can improve and d

2

3 Annual Report 2009 Roma Education ROMA Fund EDUCATION FUND

4 Copyright Roma Education Fund, 2010 All rights reserved This Report has been organized and partly written by Vivien Gyuris, based on contributions from REF staff and with the strategic guidance of Toby Linden, Director. All photos used in this publication are owned or their user right purchased by the Roma Education Fund. design w w w.foszer- design.com IV r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

5 contents Words from the Chairman of the Board 1 The Governing Boards of REF 3 Part I REF Operations in Part II Setting up REF Romania 53 Part III The Roma Education Fund s Strategy Tackling the Challenges that Lie Ahead 55 Part IV Donor Coordination and Partnerships 59 Part V Words from the Director 77 Annex 1 Major Conferences and Events in 2009 with REF Participation 79 Annex 2 Reimbursable Grants Awarded Annex 3 REF Staff in Annex 4 Roma Education Fund: List of Projects under Implementation as of December 31, Annex 5 Roma Education Fund: REF Projects Closed in Annex 6 Consolidated Management Report 2009 Hungarian, Romanian and Swiss REF Foundations 145 a n n u a l r e p o r t V

6 Index of Tables and Figures Tables Table 1. New projects received and approved, Table 2. Annual project financing from 2005 to Table 3. Funds leveraged from Table 4. Proposals received by country in Table 5. Proposals received by country from 1 September 2005 to 31 December Table 6. Project funding by country in Table 7. Project funding by country from 2005 to Table 8. Beneficiaries of REF-funded projects, by indicator Table 9. REF Scholarship Programme in Three Academic Years from 2007 to Table 10. RMUSP Awards by Country from 2005 to Table 11. RSGS and RISP in Three Academic Years from 2007 to Table 12. LHP awards by country Table 13. LHP awards, graduates and drop-out rates, Table 14. Budget (Actual and Forecast) 61 Table 15. Donor Income Received by Roma Education Fund Table 16. Tally of Pledges after the Donor Conference, Brussels, November 11-12, VI r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

7 Figures Figure 1. Participation in pre-school education by country 21 Figure 2. Parental participation in Figure 3. Pre-school education in 2009, distribution of beneficiaries by country 22 Figure 4. Preventing early school leaving in 2009, distribution of beneficiaries by country 23 Figure 5. Admission into secondary schools after grade 8, per cent 39 Figure 6. Fraction of Roma students in the class and reading scores of Roma and non-roma students (program schools and control schools separately) 40 Figure 7. School drop-out rate trend (grades 1-4) 70 Figure 8. School performances of Roma children (grades 1-4) 71 a n n u a l r e p o r t VII

8

9 Words from the Chairman of the Board A s the Roma Education Fund (REF) and the Decade of Roma Inclusion are approaching their fifth anniversaries in 2010, I would like to take stock of what has been accomplished by REF since Since its foundation, REF has established and managed an extensive network of key players engaged in Roma education in 14 countries of Europe. This network includes REF s beneficiaries on the ground and its various partner organisations, such as civil society organisations, local and national governments, and donor and development agencies. To give you some numbers, in 2009 about 43,000 parents participated in their children s education with REF support. Around 11,000 children were helped to continue with their early education and over 6,000 to complete secondary education. Over 1,100 children were granted scholarship for studies at tertiary level. This network has become an essential instrument and a channel to reach the highest number of beneficiaries possible, and thus, provoke important impacts and bring about real and long-lasting changes. By 2009, it became clear that the key challenge for REF is to use its prior experience and success to scale up education interventions in order to significantly expand the number of Roma beneficiaries and take structural reforms to the next level. Where Roma education is concerned, it is becoming imperative to move from small-scale projects to large-scale interventions, from projects to policies, and from policy design towards policy implementation and genuine, systemic change on the ground. REF has taken the lead in this area by supporting the education component of the EU Roma Platform and continuing to advocate for far-ranging educational reform, as well as by fostering and monitoring inclusive education in all Decade countries. At the same time, REF collected and published data intended to serve as a spring-board for systemic policy changes on issues which deserve more attention. For example, School as Ghetto provides a comprehensive picture of the over-representation of Roma in special education institutions in Slovakia. The report seeks to provide policy makers and civil society in Slovakia as well as relevant international organisations with a sound empirical basis for measures to reduce the gap in education outcomes between Roma and non-roma. The year 2009 also marked the renewal of the financial commitment from REF s supporters. At the second international donor conference hosted by the Open Society Institute, the World Bank and the European Economic and Social Committee, over EUR 25 million in funding commitments were announced. This solid financial foundation will allow REF to move forward and build on its firm base of expertise, with the objective of pressing for and contributing to large-scale, systemic changes for improved education access to Roma children. a n n u a l r e p o r t

10 Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to some people that REF enjoyed working with until 2009, and also welcome new members to REF s extended institutional family. Bill Newton-Smith came to the end of his mandate as OSI representative on the REF board. I would like to express my great appreciation of his professionalism and dedicated work in supporting REF over the past four years. REF, as a young foundation, has benefited tremendously from Bill s management experience. I have personally learned a lot from Bill to guide me through my position as Chair. His imprint will mark not just the foundation, but also the future of this organisation. I would also like to thank Rumyan Russinov, who served as REF s Deputy Director for the past four years. His vision of Roma integration, his expertise and high esteem the Roma communities and REF s partners held of him, contributed greatly to REF s early success. I welcome Rob Kushen in the REF Board as Vice-Chair. I had the chance to work with Rob since 2005 and I fully appreciate his professional capacity, managerial skills and personal dedication to Roma cause in Europe. I look forward to a most productive collaboration. Last but not least, I would once again encourage all of you, readers and partners, to join our efforts in the Roma Education Fund in help fulfil the educational needs of Roma children in Europe. I look forward to celebrating the fifth anniversary of REF in 2010, and I also look forward to sharing with you success stories on Roma inclusion. Costel Bercus Chairman of the Board 2 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

11 The Governing Boards of REF The Roma Education Fund (REF) consists of a Swiss and a Hungarian Foundation, and since April 2009, of a Romanian Foundation. Each foundation is overseen by a separate Governing Board. In 2009, a Memorandum of Agreement was agreed by all three REF Boards, which describes their roles and areas of cooperation. The Swiss Foundation s Gove rning Board The Swiss Foundation s Governing Board is responsible for the overview of the REF s general operations and the approval of grants and projects. In accordance with the statutes and by-laws of the REF, the Swiss Foundation s Governing Board consists of eight members, appointed in the following manner: ÖÖThe Open Society Institute appoints one member in its role as founder of REF. ÖÖThe World Bank appoints one member in its role as founder of REF. ÖÖThe Open Society Institute and the World Bank mutually agree on the appointment of a member who is a Swiss national. (Swiss law requires a Swiss national on the Governing Board.) ÖÖThe Open Society Institute and the World Bank appoint, on the basis of a transparent process, three members of Roma origin. ÖÖThe two largest public donors to REF apart from the founding members whether governments or multilateral organisations are invited by the founding members to appoint one member each. ÖÖThe largest private donor or consortium of private donors of REF is invited by the founding members to appoint a member. The Swiss Foundation s Governing Board meets regularly, approximately four times a year. The Board s members mutually agree on the appointment of one member as Chair. The Chair organises the Swiss Foundation s Governing Board meetings and proposes their agenda. a n n u a l r e p o r t

12 T H E g o v e r n i n g b o a r d o f t h e r e f The primary responsibilities of the Governing Board are as follows: ÖÖSetting REF s policies. ÖÖApproval and amendment, as necessary, of REF s operations guidelines, and internal policies. ÖÖSelection of REF Director. ÖÖApproval of REF s annual budgets. ÖÖApproval of REF s annual financial audits. ÖÖResolution of issues confronting REF, as necessary. ÖÖApproval of projects and programmes. 4 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

13 composition of the swiss Foundation s Gove rning Board 1 Costel Bercus, Chair Since October 2005 Costel Bercus is a Romanian Roma, graduated in International Relations and European Studies from the Spiru Haret University in Bucharest. Since 1997, he has been working as a human rights activist with Romani CRISS (Roma Center for Social Interventions and Studies), which is a well-known human rights organisation in Romania. In 2000, he was appointed Executive Director of Romani CRISS, which made him exposed to extensive international activities and ultimately led to his appointment in 2005 as Board Member of the Roma Education Fund (REF). The same year, he was asked to take the Chairmanship of the REF Board which he is carrying on still today. Between 2006 and 2008, he was leading the Roma Civic Alliance of Romania, a network organisation linking over twenty Roma NGOs in Romania. He has also worked as an international consultant providing technical assistance in policy development on Roma inclusion for several countries in the Western Balkans and Romania, commissioned by different international development agencies. William Newton-Smith, Vice-Chair (outgoing) William Newton-Smith, Canadian national, is a philosopher who has recently retired after teaching at Oxford University for 35 years. He has been actively involved in the reform of higher education in former communist countries and is Chair of the Higher Education Board of the Open Society Institute. Rob Kushen, Vice-Chair (incoming) Since 2008, Robert Kushen has been the Managing Director of the European Roma Rights Centre, a public interest legal advocacy organisation dedicated to challenging discrimination and promoting equality of Roma throughout Europe. From and , he served in a number of positions at the Open Society Institute, including Director of International Operations from From 1999 to 2002, he served as Executive Director of Doctors of the World ( DOW ), a non-governmental organisation committed to addressing health care problems caused by human rights abuses in the U.S. and around the world. From , he served in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State, where he worked as counsel to the bureau on counterterrorism, liaison to the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and negotiated a number of international agreements in the areas of scientific and environmental cooperation. Rob s experience on Roma issues includes the establishment while at DOW of health education and service delivery programs addressing tuberculosis and maternal child health care for Roma, Ashkalia and Egyptian people in Kosovo. He has served as a member of OSI s Roma Advisory Board since 2004, which is responsible for oversight of all of OSI s Roma programming, and is presently the Chair of that Board. 1 As of December 31, a n n u a l r e p o r t

14 Yvana Enzler is currently the Swiss Ambassador in Albania. She joined the Swiss diplomatic service in 1979 and was posted in Berne ( ), Brussels ( ), Berne ( ), Rome ( ), Washington ( ) and again Berne ( ). From 1998 to 2002 she was Deputy Head of Mission at the Swiss Embassy in Sarajevo and, from 2002 to 2007, Head of the Swiss Liaison Office in Pristina (Kosovo). She holds a Master Degree in Political Sciences from the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) and a M.A.L.S. from Georgetown University in Washington D.C. (U.S.A.). Pierre Gassmann Swiss National. Holds an MBA (INSEAD) and an MA of the Graduate Institute for International Relations in Geneva. He worked for ten years in the private sector, and then, for 25 years in senior management positions at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), namely as Head of Operations for Eastern Europe. He has served as program advisor and lecturer at the Program for Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP). He has been a consultant to the International Labour Office (ILO), the Swiss MFA, the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC) and the United Nations Works and Reconstruction Agency (UNWRA). He is an associate of the WolfGroup Consultants. Lívia Járóka has been a Member of the European Parliament for Hungary since She is a member of the group of the European People s Party and the European Democrats (EPP-ED). She serves on the Women s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) and the Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) committees in the Parliament. Járóka serves as the EPP s Deputy Coordinator for the FEMM committee. Lívia Járóka is also the first Roma woman to be elected to the European Parliament. She was also named a Young Global Leader in 2006 by the Forum of Young Global Leaders and the World Economic Forum. Járóka also won the 2006 MEP award in the category of justice and fundamental rights. Tamar Manuelyan Atinc is currently Director for Human Development in the Europe and Central Asia Region of the World Bank. Tamar has been in the World Bank since 1984 working in various capacities, including 13 years in the East Asia and the Pacific Region as Advisor in the Vice President s office, Acting Director for Human Development, sector manager for poverty, and senior economist on China. She has also served as a member of the World Development Report 06 team on Equity and Development and worked in the Africa Region. Her recent interests and work have focused on poverty, inequality, labour markets and social protection issues. Christian Petry is member of the Board of the Freudenberg Foundation, chairman of the Forum for Roma Inclusion of the European Foundation Centre and chairman of a group of foundations that, with the assistance of the Network of European Foundations (NEF), have set up a project for supporting the REF. 6 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

15 Nadir Redzepi is a Macedonian Roma and NGO activist since With his 12 years of experience, working on the Roma issues at local, national and international level, he contributes to Roma integration and institutional set-up of Roma issues. During this period, he held various positions in managing and coordinating Roma related actions. He has been member of the number of policy and decision making bodies related to the Decade of Roma Inclusion in Macedonia and an active international actor on Roma issues. At present, he holds the position of project manager at Local Government Initiatives. The Hungarian Foundation s Gove rning Board The Hungarian Foundation s Governing Board is responsible for overseeing the operation of the REF Secretariat in Budapest and the approval of selected grants and projects for Hungary. Composition of the Hungarian Foundation s Governing Board Costel Bercus, Chair See above. Katalin E. Koncz Katalin E. Koncz has been the Executive Director of the Open Society Institute-Budapest since Before that, she served as the Executive Director of a Hungarian non-profit organisation devoted to the educational and professional training needs of young Central and East Europeans. She is a member of the Informal Roma Advisory Committee of the Open Society Institute. Julius Várallyay Julius Várallyay is a former senior staff member of the World Bank, where he worked on projects and country programmes in the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Central Asia. He served as Interim Director of REF on two occasions. a n n u a l r e p o r t

16 The Romanian Foundation s Governing Board REF Romania was registered on April 29, 2009 with the purpose of: ÖÖProviding technical assistance within a consortium of other partners implementing projects (i.e. projects principally funded through Structural Funds from the Romanian Government). ÖÖBecoming the lead partner and implementing agency for projects, principally funded through Structural Funds. ÖÖProviding a conduit for resources from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to REF Switzerland. The managing body of the Foundation is represented by the Board of Directors that includes three members. The Board of Directors has the following duties: ÖÖEstablishes the general strategy and the programmes of the Foundation. ÖÖApproves the budget of revenues and expenses and the balance-sheet. ÖÖElects and revokes the censor, or, if necessary, members of censor commission. ÖÖDecides upon the constitution of subsidiaries and branches. ÖÖConcludes legal acts on behalf of the Foundation. ÖÖExecutes the budget of revenues and expenses. ÖÖApproves the Foundation s organisation chart and its staff strategy. ÖÖAmends the Foundation s status. ÖÖCarries out any other duties settled by law or by status. 8 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

17 Composition of the Romanian Foundation s Governing Board Costel Bercus, Chair See above. Pierre Gassman See above. William Newton-Smith See above. Toby Linden Toby Linden is the Director of REF. He joined the Roma Education Fund on secondment from the World Bank where he has been a Senior Education Specialist. Prior to joining REF, he was based in the World Bank s Sarajevo office where he managed the Bank s education programme in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovakia. Prior to joining the World Bank, Toby worked for the British Council and for the UK Department for Education and Skills. In both organisations, he had a variety of positions in policy analysis and programme management. a n n u a l r e p o r t

18

19 Part I REF OPERATIONS IN 2009 In 2009, the operations of the Roma Education Fund (REF) covered six major areas: ÖÖProject Support grants for projects and programmes approved by the REF Board. ÖÖScholarships the largest tertiary level scholarship programme for Roma students in Europe. ÖÖPolicy Development creating a framework for dialogue on education reform and the inclusion of Roma with governments and civil society through studies, technical assistance and learning activities. ÖÖCommunication and Cross-Country Learning promoting exchange of knowledge of education reform and the inclusion of Roma while advocating for more inclusive education systems. ÖÖReimbursable grants helping Romani NGOs and local governments access EU funds for the purpose of expanding Roma s access to education. ÖÖProgramme administration ensuring that REF has the staff, instruments and infrastructure necessary to make a lasting impact on Roma s education outcomes. The six areas of REF s operations are addressed in the corresponding sections below. Introduction Project Support Progr amme: REF Gr ants In 2009, REF continued to accept grant applications from public and private entities similarly to previous years, REF focused its grant-making activities on the countries participating in the Decade of Roma Inclusion while also considering relevant proposals from other countries (e.g., Kosovo and Moldova). Detailed criteria for assessing project eligibility and performance are contained in REF s Operational Guidelines (available on REF s website). Grants awarded to date have generally supported activities falling into one of three categories: ÖÖTesting interventions in education with potential for scaling up and/or directly influencing changes in policy. ÖÖScaling up successful pilots and reforming education systems. ÖÖAnalysis of issues related to the education of Roma for the purpose of developing appropriate policies and/or institutional capacity. a n n u a l r e p o r t

20 In April 2009, the REF s Board approved a set of changes to project application and project proposal evaluation procedures, which enabled the Project Management Committee of REF to decide on project applications which do not exceed EUR 20,000 under a small grant scheme. The Board also decided to enhance project generation through the possibility of issuing strategic calls for proposals in selected countries as an instrument for building REF s project portfolios in priority areas which have not received sufficient attention from in-country actors. In July 2009, REF issued formal call for proposals aiming to support access to quality integrated pre-school education for Romani children in the Czech Republic in order to prepare them for a successful transition into integrated, standard primary education. In June 2009, the Board also approved the criteria and country-based strategic priorities in each of the countries where REF is active. REF has continued reaching increasing numbers of beneficiaries children, parents and teachers each year (Table 8). In 2009 alone, REF supported more than 31,500 direct beneficiaries and about 40,000 parents. Equally importantly, approximately 30 percent of funding for projects comes from sources other than REF mainly national and local governments. The average project budget for the period was EUR 89,000 with the average project duration 1 year. Trends Observed in 2009 In 2009, REF received and supported a lower number of project applications compared to previous years (see Table 1). This can be explained by the reduced budget allocated for REF s Grant Programme in 2009 and the fact that REF Grant Programme revised its methodology for supporting project applications to focus on more strategic and larger projects. Despite the fall in the number of projects supported, the number of beneficiaries increased. Table 1. New projects received and approved, New projects Year Received Change from previous year n/a -18% -2% -18% Approved Change from previous year n/a -31% +59% -24% From the beginning of its existence REF, has been able to support all projects which it judged to be of sufficient quality. In 2009, based on lessons learned and the knowledge gained in the countries 12 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

21 of support, REF s Board shifted the criteria to support not only projects which are of sufficient quality, but also those that are considered to have strategic priority as identified by REF in the given country. Based on this shift, a template was designed for setting up country-specific priorities for project funding. Priorities for 2009 were compared with priorities from the country assessments, taking into consideration any change in the political context, relevant views of stakeholders, current and new issues that need to be tackled (e.g. major changes in education system like per capita financing or a law on desegregation, etc.) and further REF-supported experiences and best practices. This practice of setting up priorities is expected to continue in the upcoming years in the Grant Programme s operations, where country priorities will be established and reviewed regularly by REF staff and Board. Table 2. Annual project financing from 2005 to Amount (EUR) Year Committed 3,352,595 5,592,141 4,616,061 3,229,615 2,773,112 Contracted 2,208,856 6,190,978 4,437,800 3,453,046 2,402,296 Disbursed 1,048, ,852,621 4,797,243 4,429,848 2,701,429 Note: The numbers presented above can be slightly different from the numbers in the audit report due to accrual issues. It is important to note, that despite the reduced budget for the Grants Programme in 2009, the number of direct and indirect beneficiaries supported in 2009 have not decreased in comparison to previous years, but on the contrary, there is an increasing trend. This is because the level of cofinancing of projects has increased and is expected to further increase in the upcoming years. In 2009, EUR 841,858 was leveraged as part of co-funding for project activities supported by REF, which comprises up to 40% of REF s overall Grants budget. 2 Differences relative to figures presented in previous annual reports stem from project suspensions and closures. 3 Includes EUR for eleven projects transferred from the Open Society Institute in a n n u a l r e p o r t

22 Table 3. Funds leveraged from Year Total cofinancing Total Co-financing/ Total Project Cost ,764,584 41% ,060,144 34% ,023,197 31% ,235,695 57% ,858 40% In 2009, REF maintained the priority to consolidate the learning from its project portfolios and scaling up the interventions with the support of governments. e of the good examples was the Secondary Scholarship Programme for Roma Students in Macedonia. This initiative was a four-year project (2005/ /09) implemented by the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia (FOSIM) in partnership with the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) of RM/Department for Promotion and Development of Education in the Languages of Minorities and in cooperation with the Bureau for Development of Education (BDE). The project provided Roma secondary school students with two means of support: ÖÖScholarships ÖÖSchool-based mentorship The project achieved excellent results (for example, a retention rate of 98 percent by the end 2008). The proportion of Roma student-participants who graduated from three-year vocational schools in 2005/06 was 95.2 percent. For the four-year duration of the project, 1,265 full and 195 partial scholarships were awarded to high-school Roma students. At the end of the school year 2008/09, 111 Roma 4 th year students had successfully completed their secondary education with an average GPA of 3.71 out of 5, which is a result for very good student. It is worth emphasising that students completion and retention rates were 100 percent. In 2009, there were big developments in the sustainability of this project. The key step forward in this project was that the Ministry of Education and Science, Directorate for Development and Promotion of the Education in the Languages of the Minorities took over the administration of this initiative, so that it can be implemented at the national scale, and the Ministry contributed with 30 percent co-financing. The MoES will incorporate the evaluation findings, the know-how and positive experiences, accumulated knowledge and the lessons learned during the four years of the project implementation. The project aims to increase the number of scholars from 657 to 800 in the first year. In addition, a new component of Tutoring will be introduced for all Roma Secondary school students because many Roma students lag behind in their academic achievements and have lower than 3.0 GPA (which is the minimum required to receive a scholarship). Tutoring will be in specific academic subjects to complement the broader mentoring students will continue to receive. 14 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

23 Suppor ting Secondar y Education Students in Macedonia The project Project Alliance for Inclusion of Roma in Macedonia was a 4-year programme of FOSI-Macedonia in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) of RM/Department for Promotion and Development of Education in the Languages of Minorities approved by the Roma Education Fund on 12/12/2005 with a total budget of EUR 1,147,976. The goal of the project was to improve the retention and achievement rate of targeted Roma students enrolled in secondary education; to increase the number of Roma with completed secondary education in the country as well as to improve the transition rate of Roma students from secondary to university education. The project objectives were to provide Roma secondary school students with financial and school-based mentorship support. RESULTS FOR SCHOOL YEAR 2008/09 At the end of the school year 2008/09, 111 Roma 4 th year students have successfully completed their secondary education and all 111 have acquired a 4-year secondary education diploma. The completion rate of the students and their retention rate was 100 percent for all 118 students enrolled in their final year. Please see Table 1 for comparison of achievement results for each school year since School year Retention rate % Achievement rate GPA Absences (days/student/year) Excused Non-excused 2005/ / / / Given the success of the Project Alliance for Inclusion of Roma in Education, the project is being scaled up with REF support. In the current phase (MAC 052), the project has the following objectives: ÖÖTo provide 800 Roma secondary school students enrolled in 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd class with GPA 3.00 and above in the school year 2009/10, with financial support. ÖÖTo provide all 1606 Roma secondary school students enrolled in 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd class in the school year 2009/10, with school-based mentorship and tutorship support. box 1 It incorporates the evaluation findings, positive experiences, accumulated knowledge and the lessons learned during the four year of the project implementation MAC 001. For the first time the tutorship as an additional school support for Roma secondary students is piloting in Macedonia and this intervention is being provided to all Roma students in secondary education. a n n u a l r e p o r t

24 REF Projects by Country In 2009, REF supported projects in the countries of the Decade of Roma Inclusion, as well as in Kosovo and Moldova. Tables 4 and 5 show the processing of proposals by country in 2009 and in the entire period since REF s establishment. Table 4. Proposals received by country in 2009 Country Country or Territory/ Project Albania Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Kosovo Macedonia Montenegro Romania Serbia Slovak Republic Others Total ** Number of Projects Received Number of Projects Rejected Number of Projects Approved Number of Projects Contracted * * Includes 1 project in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 2 projects in Moldova. ** Figures might not match arithmetically due to the following reasons: - Some projects arrived in the last part of 2008 but got processed only in 2009 (Bulgaria and Hungary). - Some projects arrived in the last part of 2009 and will be processed in 2010 (Macedonia and Romania). Due to the number of incoming project proposals and the exhausted Grants programme budget for 2009, in June 2009, the REF Board decided that a moratorium for receiving project applications should be applied for the countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Serbia until December r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

25 Table 5. Proposals received by country from 1 September 2005 to 31 December 2009 Country New proposals Albania Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Kosovo Macedonia Montenegro Romania Serbia Slovak Republic Others Total **** Received * 497 Rejected Approved ** 202 Contracted *** 196 * Includes 9 projects in Bosnia, 4 in Moldova and 19 international projects. ** Includes 2 projects in Bosnia, 3 in Moldova and 3 international projects. *** Includes 3 projects in Bosnia, 3 in Moldova and 2 international projects. **** Figures might not match arithmetically due to the following reasons: - Some projects arrived in the last part of 2008 but got processed only in 2009 (Bulgaria and Hungary). - Some projects arrived in the last part of 2009 and will be processed in 2010 (Macedonia and Romania). Under the Grants Programme, during the period of , REF has received 497 project proposals, of which 202 were approved by the REF Board, with a total commitment of EUR 19,563,524. As of 31 December 2009, REF had 72 projects in the implementation phase. An additional 49 projects completed implementation in the course of the year in twelve countries. Based on figures in Table 5, on average up to 50 percent of all incoming project applications per country were approved. An exception is Hungary where the figure was about 64 percent. There is a negative tendency from the previous year that the number of project applications from Croatia and Montenegro were significantly lower. Tables 6 and 7 on the next page provide an overview of REF project funding in its partner countries since its establishment in a n n u a l r e p o r t

26 Table 6. Project funding by country in Country/ Territory Albania Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Macedonia Romania Serbia Slovakia Others Total Amount committed (EUR) Amount contracted (EUR) Amount disbursed (EUR) 155, , , , , , , , ,651 2,773, , , , , , ,126 81, ,972 2,402,296 76, ,961 45, , , , ,440 91, ,007 2,701,429 Note: The numbers presented can be slightly different from the numbers in the audit report due to accrual issues. Table 7. Project funding by country from 2005 to 2009 Country/ Territory Albania Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Hungary Macedonia Montenegro Montenegro Romania Serbia Slovakia Others Total Amount committed (EUR) Amount contracted (EUR) Amount disbursed (EUR) 377,571 4,848, , ,541 1,560,452 2,650, ,734 3,933,937 2,748,790 1,284, ,853 19,563, ,571 4,848, , ,095 1,520,952 2,635, ,734 3,330,517 2,748,790 1,163, ,853 18,692, ,411 4,745, , ,095 1,484,792 2,302, ,734 2,869,662 2,462,832 1,133, ,888 16,829,385 4 The formula for calculating the country allocations is a combination of per capita income and the size of the Roma population in each country. 18 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

27 REF Monitoring and Evaluation With an eye to further strengthening the link between the projects it funds and sustainable changes in policy, throughout 2009, REF maintained its focus on monitoring and evaluation of the projects it supports. In 2009, REF undertook a total of 132 visits to 93 projects in the framework of the 42 monitoring missions organised throughout the year. Additionally, eleven external evaluations were conducted in REF s system for assessing the impact of the projects it finances consists of three main components: ÖÖA system of ten indicators that are systematically monitored by REF staff for all projects. ÖÖExternal evaluations of larger and/or particularly important projects. ÖÖA specialized Management Information System (MIS) developed for collecting and comparing the information reported by REF grantees and the findings of monitoring visits. During 2009, REF has revised the application form and the tools for monitoring, such as the monitoring visit guide questionaire and the appraisal of the final report. Education Indicators In 2009, REF continued collecting data for its education indicators in order to better understand the underlying trends of its project support programme from the perspective of project beneficiaries. Table 8 below describes the trends in the major indicators between 2005 and a n n u a l r e p o r t

28 Table 8. Beneficiaries of REF-funded projects, by indicator Year Indicator Number of beneficiaries Participation in pre-school education 600 2,966 4,497 10,441 3,418 Prevention of early school leaving 269 2,765 5,339 7,256 10,938 Completion of upper secondary education 1,278 2,687 4,797 5,060 6,282 Participation in tertiary education* Parental participation in children s education 2,050 17,561 29,780 29,674 42,685 Desegregation 0 1,734 3,553 5,673 6,534 Prevention/reversal of enrolment in special education In-service teacher training 551 2,977 4,018 4,488 2,945 Roma employed by REF-funded projects Cumulative 5,078 31,951 54,106 64,133 74,040 * The figures in this row do not include beneficiaries of REF s Scholarship Programmes. As it can be seen above, there is a significant increase in the cumulative number of REF beneficiaries in The most significant increase comes under the indicators on Parental participation in children s education (42,685 in 2009 vs. 29,674 in 2008) and on Prevention of early school leaving (10,938 in 2009 vs. to 7,256 in 2008). REF has been actively supporting the participation of Romani children in pre-school education because of its demonstrated impact on improving educational outcomes of disadvantaged groups. However, there was a decrease in the number of REF beneficiaries supported through REF projects to participate in pre-school education in 2009 compared with The explanation for the decrease in the number of pre-school beneficiaries is related to ÖÖthe general trend of REF s decreasing project portfolio in 2009 (i.e. 36 contracted projects in 2009 vs. 61 in 2008), ÖÖthe related policy changes in some countries, ÖÖthe evolution of the financing sources at country level. The decrease in contracted projects in 2009 can also be explained by the fact that the structural funds have become the major source for financing in the EU member states, while the IPA funds in 20 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

29 the Western Balkans. Another reason can be the fact that big projects targeting pre-school, like in Macedonia, Serbia and Slovakia, ended in 2009 and to a large extent got replicated at a higher level with national government contributions. The graph below shows the distribution by country of the children in pre-school education supported in 2009 by REF projects. Figure 1. Participation in pre-school education by country Albania Moldova Romania Serbia Macedonia 130 Slovakia 25 Czech Republic 110 Bulgaria a n n u a l r e p o r t

30 Graphs illustrating distribution of beneficiaries by country for three main indicators in 2009 are given below. Figure 2. Parental participation in 2009 Albania 5% 3% 1% 10% Hungary Moldova Romania Bosnia and Herzegovina 0% 21% 1% 5% 13% 40% 1% Serbia Macedonia Montenegro Slovakia Czech Republic Bulgaria International Figure 3. Pre-school education in 2009, distribution of beneficiaries by country Albania Hungary 0% Moldova 12% 4% 1% 30% 3% 6% 24% 9% 2% 9% 0% Romania Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbia Macedonia Montenegro Slovakia Czech Republic Bulgaria International 22 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d

31 Figure 4. Preventing early school leaving in 2009, distribution of beneficiaries by country Albania Hungary 0% Moldova 1% 2% 2% 7% Romania 0% 1% 0% 42% 42% 17% 4% Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbia Macedonia Montenegro Slovakia Czech Republic Bulgaria International Project Management Information System REF s Management Information System (MIS) is intended to provide an easily accessible central repository of up-to-date information on all REF-funded projects for consultation by REF staff. By bringing together content from regular grantee and REF project reports, the MIS should serve as an instrument for comparison both within and across countries. The MIS plays a central role in synthetizing data on REF projects which is essential for project officers to monitor project implementation and also to collect statistical indicators on projects and development trends. Providing up-to-date and accurate data is also necessary for reporting purposes to the REF Board and all of its donors. In 2009, a user manual was developed and training was held for staff to facilitate their work in using the MIS. REF Schol arship Progr amme In 2009, the REF Scholarship Programme extended the Roma Health Scholarship Programme to Bulgaria and the Roma Memorial Scholarship Programme to Albania. Thus, in 2009, the REF Scholarship Programme included the following components: ÖÖRoma Memorial University Scholarship Programme (RMUSP) ÖÖLaw and Humanities Programme (LHP) a n n u a l r e p o r t

32 ÖÖRoma Health Scholarship Programme (RHSP) ÖÖRoma Supplementary Grants Scholarship (RSGS) and Roma Interregional Scholarship Programme (RISP) Table 9. REF Scholarship Programme in Three Academic Years from 2007 to Component Grants Awarded Funding Granted (EUR * ) Grants Awarded Funding Granted (EUR ** ) Grants Awarded Funding Granted (EUR) RMUSP , , ,451 RHSP N/A N/A , ,290 LHP 81 85, , ,555 Supplementary 2 29, , ,272 Interregional 6 4, , ,075 TOTAL , ,482 1,137 1,343,643 * EUR-USD exchange rate: Source FX history. ** EUR-USD exchange rate: Source FX history. Details on each of the components of the REF Scholarship Programme are given in the following section. Roma Memorial Universit y Scholarship Programme The Roma Memorial University Scholarship Programme (RMUSP) is designed to contribute to providing open acess to Roma youth to tertiary education and also to educating larger numbers of Roma to take on visible positions in society, particularly in the business and civil sectors. To this end, the Programme provides support to Romani students from Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe to pursue tertiary education in their countries of residence. Scholarship recipients are full-time students and study at established, state-accredited universities in the countries of the Decade of Roma Inclusion and Turkey. (In 2009, the REF Board approved access to the RMUSP programme for part-time students in the Czech Republic since this is the mode of study for most Roma students in that country.) For the academic year, RMUSP granted support to 916 out of 1,434 applicants, with the acceptance rate of 63 percent slightly higher than in the period covering the three previous academic 24 r o m a e d u c a t i o n f u n d