Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52019SC0320

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Roma inclusion measures reported under the EU Framework for NRIS Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Report on the implementation of national Roma integration strategies - 2019

SWD/2019/320 final

Brussels, 5.9.2019

SWD(2019) 320 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Roma inclusion measures reported under the EU Framework for NRIS

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

Report on the implementation of national Roma integration strategies - 2019

{COM(2019) 406 final}


Table of contents

1.    General overview    

1.1.    Mainstream or targeted?    

1.2.    Reaching the final beneficiaries    

1.3.    Type of implementing entities and level of implementation    

1.4.    An integrated approach to Roma inclusion?    

1.5.    A firm commitment?    

2.    Overview by key thematic areas    

2.1.    Education    

2.2.    Employment    

2.3.    Healthcare    

2.4.    Housing    

2.5.    Anti-discrimination    

2.6.    Poverty reduction    

2.7.    Legislative measures    

3.    Selected outcome indicators on Roma inclusion    

3.1.    Education    

3.2.    Employment    

3.3.    Health    

3.4.    Housing    

3.5.    Poverty    

3.6.    Discrimination and antigypsyism    

This Staff Working Document and its annexes complement the Communication, providing more in-depth thematic and country-by-country information on the implementation of national Roma integration strategies (NRIS) based on reports from:

·national Roma contact points (NRCPs) in 2018 (presenting the implementation of Roma inclusion measures in 2017);

·national civil society coalitions involving over 90 non-governmental organisations and experts across 27 Member States.

The 2017-2020 Roma Civil Monitor (RCM) Project has been initiated by the European Parliament, managed by the European Commission (DG Justice and Consumers) and coordinated by the Center for Policy Studies of the Central European University, in partnership with the European Roma Grassroots Organisations Network, the European Roma Rights Centre, the Fundación Secretariado Gitano and the Roma Education Fund. Annex 1 of this report contains country-specific information on EU Member States summarising both the reports from Member States’ NRCPs and the assessment by civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor project.

Annex 2 is dedicated to Roma inclusion in the enlargement region, including both an in-depth assessment of the evolution of the situation of Roma in the period 2011-2017; as well as country summaries from NRCPs and civil society in the enlargement region.

The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has contributed to the development of this Staff Working Document, by: (i) helping Member States to report on the implementation of integration measures; and (ii) helping the Commission in its monitoring as part of the EU framework for NRIS. FRA survey data on the situation of Roma in education, employment, healthcare, housing, and experience of discrimination and poverty helped to put in context the reviewed Roma inclusion efforts and highlight remaining challenges and gaps.

This Staff Working Document is based on information on measures implemented to improve the situation of Roma in education, employment, healthcare, housing, poverty reduction, and the fight against discrimination and antigypsyism in response to the Council Recommendation from December 2013 1 . The overview summarises information provided by the NRCPs from 23 EU Member States through the Roma Integration Measures Reporting Tool developed by the European Commission and the FRA 2 .

The overview uses this information to populate a set of ‘process’ indicators, which show the level of engagement and investment of Member States in Roma inclusion. These indicators measure — in a manner that makes it possible to compare EU countries — how far the ‘process’ matches the objectives set out in the 2013 Council Recommendation and the national Roma integration strategies. Data are used from 2011 and 2016 FRA surveys 3 to assess how far these measures have made a tangible difference to Roma people’s lives (with due reference to lack of more recent data reflecting the results of 2017 measures).


1.General overview

In 2017, 23 Member States provided detailed information on their Roma integration measures. Overall, 863 measures were reported. This section presents a snapshot of all implemented measures by their key characteristics (type of measure; funding allocated; identifiable Roma beneficiaries; and existence of safeguards to secure equal access for various vulnerable people, including vulnerable Roma, to mainstream measures and thus prevent indirect discrimination). Analysing the reported data, it is necessary to keep in mind the different meaning of the term ‘measure’ in different countries. In some cases, a ‘measure’ means a small local-level project with a few thousand euro in funding; in other cases, it means a massive programme with funding in the tens of millions of euro.

1.1.Mainstream or targeted?

Of all the 863 measures reported, 44% were mainstream and 56% were targeted ( Figure 1 ). Targeted measures dominate in BE, CY, CZ, EE, ES, HR, IT, LV, LT, PL, PT, SE, SI and SK. In all these countries, targeted measures account for 60% or more of all implemented measures. FR and LU implement only mainstream approaches to Roma integration, while mainstream measures dominate in BG, EL, HU, NL, and UK.

Figure 1: Number of Roma integration measures implemented in 2017 (mainstream or targeted)


Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017

1.2.Reaching the final beneficiaries

Ideally, it should be possible to estimate how many people benefit from the projects and funding intended for Roma. One way to achieve this goal is to target measures at individuals from a particular disadvantaged group, such as Roma.

However, targeting on its own is not sufficient. For example, targeting does not make it possible to know how many people benefited from the particular measure or what was the return on investment in the measure. Figure 2 shows that being able to identify (i.e. estimate the number of Roma among) the final beneficiaries is not necessarily correlated with the existence of targeted measures. On average, it was only possible to identify the number of Roma beneficiaries in 27% of the targeted measures.

The share of targeted measures with Roma as final beneficiaries was higher than the average in 10 Member States (CY, EE, EL, ES, HR, LT, LV, PL, RO, and SK).

Figure 2: Number of targeted measures with identifiable Roma as final beneficiaries

Targeting is only one way of reaching the final beneficiaries. Several Member States base their Roma integration strategies primarily (UK, NL, EL, BG, and HU) or entirely (FR and LU) on mainstream approaches. Such mainstream measures are effective only if they are accessible to disadvantaged groups such as Roma. Although mainstream measures are nominally accessible to disadvantaged groups such as Roma (Roma are citizens of the respective Member States), in reality Roma can face a variety of different barriers. These barriers limit Roma in: (i) access to various mainstream services; and (ii) opportunities to exercise in full their rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the presence of explicit safeguards to compensate for the impact of these disadvantages is important for making mainstream measures work also for Roma.

Figure 3 shows that, on average, only 37% of the mainstream measures have safeguards to ensure that Roma can benefit from them. Such safeguards are missing in 241 measures (or 63% of all 383 mainstream measures). These 241 measures are also reported as ‘Roma relevant’ and the resources they use are accounted for as Roma integration measures. However, because they do not have safeguards these 241 measures have less potential to actually reach and benefit Roma. This picture is even more worrying when looking at the safeguards themselves, because in many cases the reported ‘safeguards’ are merely statements of a general nature.

Figure 3: Number of mainstream measures with additional safeguards to make them accessible for vulnerable groups such as Roma

1.3.Type of implementing entities and level of implementation

Table 1 and Figure 4 show the prominent role of governments in the implementation of interventions. 88% of all measures were reported as being implemented by a public authority, and the bulk of these measures are taken at the national level (68%). Implementation by civil society (either individually or in partnership with other stakeholders) was reported in 6% of measures and primarily in Austria at local and regional level. The private sector is rarely mentioned as an implementing entity. Even for measures that focus on promoting employment, the private sector is almost absent. Civil society implementation is reportedly highest in fighting discrimination (11% of measures). Partnerships of different actors (civil society, the private sector and public authorities) are most prevalent in housing. This information on implementing entities should be considered with regard to the context that national authorities (namely NRCPs) did the reporting. A parallel exercise reviewing existing evaluations and studies on Roma inclusion interventions found that 38% of evaluations were on interventions implemented by civil society and 33% by a public authority. 4

Table 1: Distribution by type of implementing entity and level of implementation (national, regional, local)

Type of implementing entity

Level of implementation

Countries

Total (number)

Total (%)

Civil society

National

IT, LV, LT, NL

4

0%

Regional

AT, LV, NL

5

1%

Local

AT, IT, UK

40

5%

Private sector

National

EL, LU

3

0%

Regional

EE, EL, LU, ES

4

0%

Public authority

National

AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE, UK

571

68%

Regional

AT, BE, CZ, IT, SK, ES, UK

109

13%

Local

AT, BG, CY, EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, NL, RO, SE, UK

60

7%

Transnational

EL, IT, SE

3

0%

Partnerships or other implementing entity

BE, BG, LU, SK

42

5%

Total*

 

841

100%

Notes: * no information about type of entity and level of implementation was provided for 22 measures across various countries (AT, BG, CZ, EE, FR, HU, IT, PL, RO, SK, ES, SE, UK).

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Figure 4: Number of measures by country and type of implementing entity

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

1.4.An integrated approach to Roma inclusion?

Out of 863 measures, as many as 73% (633 measures) were reported as being relevant to only one thematic area, 21% as being relevant to two thematic areas, and 6% as being relevant to three thematic areas. This indicates that the more ‘integrated’ approach was reported for only 27% of the measures taken in 2017 ( Figure 5 ). The largest share of measures that were relevant for more than one thematic area was reported in the area of ‘local action’ (48% of measures in this area were relevant to more than one area), followed by ‘empowerment’ (46% of measures in this area were relevant to more than one area) and ‘poverty reduction’ (46% of measures in this area were relevant to more than one area). This is largely because these areas call for horizontal ways of working. In the case of employment, one third of measures (35%) were reported as also being relevant to other thematic areas, while in the area of housing and education the share was 25% and 29% respectively. The share of measures that were also related to another thematic area was lowest in healthcare, where only 22% of measures were relevant to more than one area.

However, the pattern is different in different countries. Latvia (65%), Luxembourg (63%), Slovakia (59%) and Sweden (54%) all reported that more than half of their measures were relevant to two or three thematic areas. On the other hand, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Poland and Slovenia reported only measures that were relevant to one thematic area. The share of measures relevant to more than one thematic area slightly rises (to 30% of all measures) when only the six thematic areas analysed in Part 2 are considered.

Figure 5: Distribution of measures by relevance to different thematic areas

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

1.5.A firm commitment?

The allocation of funding also indicates the degree to which a measure can actually have an impact or merely remains a formal pledge on paper. On average, only 28% of the measures implemented in 2017 did not have any funding allocated to them ( Figure 6 ). However, huge differences exist between countries. In most of the countries, the majority of measures had funding allocated. In several countries (CZ, UK, SI, BE, EL, PT and HR), the number of measures with funding allocated was below average. And in CZ and UK, less than half of the measures had allocated funding.

Figure 6: Number of measures by allocated funding


2.Overview by key thematic areas

In the following pages, the analysis for the four priority areas (education, employment, healthcare and housing) and two horizontal areas (anti-discrimination and poverty reduction) follows an identical structure. This analysis complements the summary for the key areas in the main text of the Communication. The analysis in this overview starts with selected outcome indicators based on data from FRA surveys to provide a snapshot of the situation in the area. The analysis continues with an overview of the measures by type of measure (mainstream or targeted) and an overview of the substantive focus of the measures in each area. In order to determine what the substantive focus of a measure was, the individual measures were analysed and tagged by the main substantive focus of the activities implemented. A caveat must be highlighted: it is often difficult to identify one leading type of activity to which the measure might be attributed. Nevertheless, such analysis: (i) complements the distribution by sub-areas as specified in the Council Recommendation; and (ii) brings us closer to understanding what the specific content of the measures was (what was actually done) for improving the situation in the thematic area. Brief conclusions close each thematic-area section.

As part of the integrated approach to Roma inclusion, several of the 863 measures implemented in 2017 contribute to improvement in more than one thematic area. These cross-cutting measures are reported as being relevant for (and appear in the thematic analysis for) more than one area. This is why adding up the number of measures reported as relevant to specific thematic areas ( Table 2 ) would lead to a higher number than the total number of implemented measures (863) 5 .    

Table 2: Summary of the measures reported as being relevant for individual thematic areas

Thematic area

Country

Total

AT

BE

BG

HR

CY

CZ

EE

FR

EL

HU

IT

LV

LT

LU

NL

PL

PT

RO

SK

SI

ES

SE

UK

Education

36

4

17

8

6

26

 

 

10

13

5

5

9

10

10

1

6

20

17

7

23

2

8

243

Employment

21

1

18

4

1

13

 

 

5

13

 

3

2

10

9

 

3

13

11

1

18

1

3

150

Healthcare

14

1

16

1

 

6

 

 

5

9

1

2

 

 

2

 

 

2

10

2

11

2

10

94

Housing

12

5

3

3

1

6

 

1

4

7

5

1

3

3

 

 

 

1

13

8

10

1

7

94

Anti-discrimination*

21

3

7

3

 

12

2

 

 

5

12

6

3

2

1

 

5

 

10

3

17

5

3

120

Protection of Roma children and women; multiple discrimination**

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

5

 

 

2

4

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

35

Poverty reduction

12

2

 

1

 

7

 

 

11

1

 

3

1

12

5

 

2

1

10

3

28

1

 

100

Empowerment

26

3

 

5

 

8

 

 

6

2

6

4

4

1

6

 

5

1

20

2

23

5

4

131

Local action

 

 

1

3

1

7

 

 

8

3

1

3

1

 

2

 

3

 

26

4

4

1

3

71

Monitoring and Evaluation

9

3

 

2

 

 

 

 

3

3

5

1

 

4

 

 

2

1

1

4

3

 

 

41

Total horizontal measures

81

11

8

14

1

34

2

0

28

15

29

17

9

21

18

0

17

3

67

16

85

12

10

498

Culture

 

1

1

1

 

16

 

 

 

 

 

5

7

 

1

 

1

 

4

7

5

2

 

51

Other areas not specified in the Council Recommendation

 

5

 

 

1

9

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

1

 

 

 

 

20

Transnational Cooperation

 

 

 

1

 

3

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

Legend:

Priority thematic areas

Horizontal areas

Other areas

Notes:

* In the analysis in Part 2 of this document, the measures reported under ‘anti-discrimination’ and ‘fighting multiple discriminations’ were pooled together. The total number of measures in the merged sample (142) is lower than the sum of the measures under each of these areas (155) because 13 measures were reported in both thematic areas.

** The measures relevant for the thematic area ‘Protection of Roma children and women’ were reported together with those relevant for ‘fighting multiple discrimination’ (22 out of the total 35).

2.1.Education

The overall situation seems to have improved between 2011 and 2016 for the nine EU countries covered by FRA surveys on: (i) enrolment in early-childhood education and in compulsory education; and (ii) the number of early leavers from education ( Table 3 ). In Portugal and Romania, the enrolment of children between 4 years of age and starting-of-schooling age in pre-primary education has deteriorated. As for the share of compulsory-school-age children attending education, the situation improved in several Member States and deteriorated in none of the nine surveyed Member States. The share of Roma aged 18-24 with minimal education (i.e. completing at most lower-secondary education, and not continuing in further education or training) did not increase in any of the countries surveyed. This is a very positive development and, as illustrated by the measures the Member States reported for 2017, education remains a focus of attention in these countries.

Table 3: Change in selected education indicators between 2011 and 2016

 

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of children between the age of 4 and the age when they must start compulsory primary education who attend early-childhood education, household members (%)*

Share of compulsory-schooling-age children attending education, household members, aged 5-17 (depending on the country) (%)*

Early leavers from education and training, household members, aged 18-24 (%)**

Share of people who felt they were discriminated against because they were Roma in the past 5 years, when in contact with school (as parent or student), respondents, aged 16+ (%)

Share of Roma children, aged 6-15, attending classes where ‘all classmates are Roma’ as reported by the respondents, household members aged 6-15 in education (%)***

n.a.

NRCP assessment of the situation in this thematic area (2017)****

Notes:

* Age for starting compulsory primary education as well as for compulsory schooling age valid for a given country in a given year (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2011 and 2015)). Age is calculated on an annual basis; therefore the figures do not consider earlier or delayed starts in primary education of an individual child.

** Share of the population aged 18-24 having attained at most lower-secondary education (ISCED 2011 levels 0, 1 or 2) and not involved in further education or training.

*** Comparability between 2011 and 2016 is limited due to differences in how the question was formulated.

Legend: the arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Sources:

FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; FRA, Roma Pilot Survey 2011; UNDP-World Bank-EC 2011 (for Croatia) in European Commission (2017) 6

****For NRCP assessment: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

The detailed overview of the available indicators for 2016 provided in section 3.1 suggests low overall levels of education among adult Roma. On average, only 18% of adult Roma have completed upper secondary, vocational or post-secondary education. Roma tend to have low proficiency in the national language, mainly in reading and writing. The data also indicate high levels of class and school segregation, often, but not always resulting from residential/territorial concentration. On average, 46% of Roma children attend segregated schools and/or classes where all or most children are Roma; and placement of Roma children in special schools is especially common in CZ and SK. Attendance of education by Roma children is promisingly high in primary and lower-secondary education. However, attendance drops dramatically at the upper-secondary level and is almost non-existent at the post-secondary level. On average, almost every third adult Roma who is a parent or guardian of a school-age child recalls their child having faced: (i) name-calling; (ii) someone making jokes about them (ridiculing); or (iii) offensive comments and/or verbal insults in their school, because of their Roma background.

The outcome of measures reported after 2016 cannot be captured with the existing data. But if the trend established between 2011 and 2016 continues, it may indicate a promising return on the investment made in these nine countries to improve Roma access to (and participation in) education.

The measures relevant for education

Overall, 243 measures were reported as relevant in the area of education in the 21 EU Member States reporting on this thematic area. Out of these, 103 were mainstream measures and 140 were targeted measures ( Figure 7 ). With the exception of Hungary, all countries with large Roma populations (such as BG, CZ, ES, RO and SK) address their education measures for Roma primarily through targeted measures. Mainstream measures are a majority of education measures only in EL, HU, LU, NL and UK. Of the 140 targeted measures implemented in the area of education, 49 (35%) could identify the number of Roma final beneficiaries.

Figure 7: Number of measures implemented in the area of education by type of measure (mainstream or targeted)


Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Distribution by thematic sub-area

379 measures were reported as being relevant for one or more sub-areas in the thematic area ‘education’, as specified in the Council Recommendation. The countries could link individual measures not only to several thematic areas but also to several sub-areas. Therefore, the total number of measures in the analysis by sub-area is higher than the number of measures reported under the thematic area of education (243). Table 4 provides an overview of: (i) the sub-areas as suggested in the Council Recommendation; (ii) how many measures were relevant for each sub-area; and (iii) in which Member States the measures were reported.

Table 4: Distribution of measures by relevance to the respective sub-areas of the Council Recommendation

Thematic sub-area

AT

BE

BG

HR

CY

CZ

EL

HU

IT

LV

LT

LU

NL

PT

RO

SK

SI

ES

SE

UK

Total

a) eliminate any school segregation

2

1

4

3

4

3

1

1

1

4

1

2

27

b) put an end to any inappropriate placement of Roma pupils in special-needs schools

4

1

1

1

1

1

9

c) reduce early school-leaving

6

1

8

2

3

5

2

1

4

2

3

3

2

9

5

6

1

3

66

d) increase the access to, and quality of, early-childhood education and care

3

3

2

1

1

5

1

2

1

6

5

1

3

34

e) consider the needs of individual pupils in close cooperation with their families

8

1

1

2

2

3

1

4

2

7

1

1

1

1

35

f) use inclusive and tailor-made teaching and learning methods

7

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

23

g) fight illiteracy

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

11

h) promote the availability and use of extracurricular activities

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

15

i) encourage greater parental involvement

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

18

j) improve teacher training

3

1

1

3

1

4

1

1

2

1

18

k) encourage Roma participation in and completion of secondary and tertiary education

4

1

3

3

2

1

2

1

4

2

12

35

l) widen access to second-chance education and adult learning

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

14

m) provide support for the transition between educational levels

3

2

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

3

21

n) provide support for the acquisition of skills that are adapted to the needs of the labour market

5

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

2

1

2

22

o) other

3

1

2

2

13

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

31

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

As Table 4 shows, the vast majority of the reporting Member States have chosen to invest in measures aiming at reducing early school-leaving (mentioned in 66 measures by 18 Member States). The next most commonly implemented measures are: (i) considering the needs of individual pupils in close cooperation with their families; and (ii) encouraging Roma participation in — and completion of — secondary and tertiary education (mentioned equally in 35 measures). Other commonly implemented measures are: (i) increasing access to, and quality of, early-childhood education and care; and (ii) eliminating any school segregation.

Substantive focus of the measures in education

Table 5 indicates that countries mainly pay attention to measures that try to improve the educational attainment of Roma — preventing drop-out; encouraging completion of secondary education and continuation to tertiary education; providing catch-up support to compensate for linguistic, cognitive and educational gaps; or providing tuition, financial or other support to compensate for material disadvantage ( Table 5 ). Other frequently reported activities include: vocational training, career-development support, and lifelong learning. These latter activities address some key barriers to the successful transition from education to employment young Roma face 7 . Although NRCPs generally consider mediation to promote access to education as one of their main achievements, only five NRCPs reported specific measures that had mediation as their key focus. This is because mediators or teaching assistants played a significant role — and were mentioned — in more than 40 measures tagged under other types of activity (in particular, among measures to: prevent drop-out; encourage completion of secondary education; or engage in outreach to Roma families to ensure children’s enrolment in education).

Table 5: Distribution of measures in the area of education by substantive focus of activity

Type of activity

Number of measures

Share

Measures to prevent drop-out, encourage completion of secondary education and continue to tertiary education

32

13%

Catch-up support to compensate for linguistic, cognitive and educational gaps

28

12%

Vocational training, career-development support and lifelong learning

27

11%

Tuition, financial or other support to compensate for material disadvantage

26

11%

Capacity development of teachers, mediators and public institutions

23

9%

Integrated social-inclusion interventions

15

6%

Research on Romani culture, history and language and reflecting these in curricula

14

6%

Preparatory activities for children enrolling in pre-school

11

5%

Anti-discrimination and awareness-raising initiatives

10

4%

Outdoor programmes, school contests and extracurricular activities

10

4%

Developing strategies and monitoring frameworks to fine-tune policies and improve enrolment

9

4%

Capital investment in educational infrastructure

8

3%

Desegregation and reduction of children enrolled in ‘special schools’

8

3%

Outreach to families to ensure children’s enrolment

7

3%

Information campaigns, exchange of good practices, prevention of early marriages

7

3%

Mediation

5

2%

Bilingual education

3

1%

Total

243

100%

Conclusions

The education of Roma (measured through enrolment in early-childhood education, enrolment in compulsory education, and prevention of early school-leaving) improved in almost all countries covered by FRA surveys between 2011 and 2016. Information reported for 2017 indicates that EU countries have invested their resources primarily in those areas where improvement was observed — addressing early school-leaving, overcoming disadvantages to enter schooling, and strengthening efforts to complete upper-secondary education.

Member States applied a very diverse range of measures, most of which were targeted measures. Member States also reported considerable success with these measures. However, it appears to still be a challenge to employ explicit safeguards to secure equal access to education for Roma in mainstream measures, and thus prevent indirect discrimination. Most mainstream measures do not include such safeguards; and in most of the measures that do, the safeguards are not explicit.

Member States seem to make increasing use of evidence and data to monitor programme activities, fine-tune policies, and specify measures. This can increase the efficiency of public investment and its actual impact.

2.2.Employment

The trends for the nine Member States for which comparable data are available depict a deterioration or stagnation in most employment indicators for Roma ( Table 7 ). This is especially true for young Roma (16-24 year olds) who, compared with 2011, increasingly find themselves out of employment, education or training. However, this trend needs to be read in light of the NEET (neither in employment, education or training) situation among the general, non-Roma population, particularly in EU countries still affected by the economic crisis. On the positive side, the share of Roma people feeling discriminated against when looking for a job is declining, especially in the eastern European Member States (BG, CZ, HU).

The outcome indicators for employment (also available in section 3.2 below) suggest that unless dramatic improvement is achieved in the area of employment, the vicious cycle of unemployment-poverty-social exclusion-marginalisation will not end soon.

Table 7: Change in selected employment indicators between 2011 and 2016

 

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of people who self-declared their main activity* status as ‘paid work’ (including full-time, part-time, ad hoc jobs, self-employment), household members, aged 16+ (%)

Share of young persons, aged 16-24 with their current main activity as neither in employment, education or training, household members (%)**

Share of people who felt discriminated against because they were Roma in the past 5 years, when looking for a job, respondents, aged16+ (%)

Share of people who felt discriminated against because they were Roma in the past 5 years, when at work, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

NRCP assessment of the situation in the area of employment (2017)***

Notes:

* The question on ‘main activity’ involves asking all household members for their current employment status. This is distinct from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) concept of employment and the concept of employment used in the Labour Force Survey (variable MAINSTAT). ‘Employment’ also includes small amounts of unpaid work in family businesses, as this benefits the family.

** Based on the self-declared current main activity, excluding those who did any work in the previous four weeks to earn some money.

Legend: the arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Sources:

FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; FRA, Roma Pilot Survey 2011; UNDP-World Bank-EC 2011 (for Croatia) in European Commission (2017). 8  

*** For NRCP assessment: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

The measures relevant for employment

Overall, 150 measures were reported as being relevant in the area of employment in the 19 EU Member States reporting on this thematic area. Out of these, 101 were mainstream and 49 were targeted ( Figure 8 ). Of the 49 targeted measures, 14 (29%), specifically identify Roma as final beneficiaries.

Figure 8: Measures in the area of employment by type of measure (mainstream or targeted)

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Measures specifically targeting Roma are prominent in AT, ES, HR, SK, CZ and BG. Slovakia specifically identifies Roma as beneficiaries in various measures.

Distribution by thematic sub-area

215 measures were reported as being relevant for one or more sub-areas in the thematic area of employment as specified in the Council Recommendation (the figure is higher than the 150 stated above, because most of the measures were reported to be relevant for more than one sub-area). Table 8 visualises their distribution by sub-area and country.

Table 8: Distribution of measures in the area of employment by thematic sub-area (number of measures)

Thematic sub-area

Country

AT

BE

BG

HR

CY

CZ

EL

HU

LV

LT

LU

NL

PT

RO

SK

SI

ES

SE

UK

Total

a) support first work experience

6

 

1

1

1

1

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

1

1

 

1

 

 

16

b) support vocational training

5

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

2

2

 

1

1

 

6

 

 

20

c) support on-the-job training

 

 

3

 

 

1

 

3

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

4

 

 

14

d) support lifelong learning and skills development

3

 

1

2

 

 

 

1

2

1

1

1

2

 

 

 

4

 

 

18

e) support self-employment and entrepreneurship

3

 

3

1

 

3

1

2

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

18

f) provide equal access to mainstream public employment services

 

 

3

1

 

1

 

1

2

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

2

 

1

13

g) support individual job-seekers, focusing on personalised guidance and individual action planning

12

 

1

2

 

2

1

1

3

 

3

5

 

3

2

1

5

 

 

41

h) promote employment opportunities within the civil service

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

3

 

 

 

1

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

8

i) eliminate barriers, including discrimination, to entering or re-entering the labour market

6

1

3

3

1

4

3

3

 

1

5

3

2

4

3

 

4

1

2

49

j) other

 

 

3

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

4

2

 

2

 

 

18

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

As seen from the above table, most measures aimed at the elimination of barriers to entering or re-entering the labour market (23% of all measures). 19% of measures aimed at supporting individual job-seekers by providing personalised guidance. Surprisingly, given the high proportion of Roma NEETs mentioned earlier, measures to support first work experience, vocational training, and on-the-job training for young Roma do not appear to feature very prominently. There were also relatively few measures to ensure equal access to employment in the public sector.

Substantive focus of the measures in employment

Table 9 summarises the distribution, based on tagging individual measures by type of activity. In total, the 150 measures reported in the area of employment in 2017 can be broadly grouped into 16 clusters, notwithstanding their diversity in type, scope, financial allocation, and targeting.

At the top of the list are employment subsidisation and other forms of employment-related cost sharing. The top three categories — all individually oriented forms of support — account for 35% of all measures. Other common clusters include: general social inclusion; local community development; addressing gaps in education and qualification; and supporting entrepreneurship. Interestingly, only a fifth (32 of the 150) of all measures explicitly targeted young people — this is quite a low number given the widespread discourse about addressing youth unemployment. This is especially surprising considering that the increasing share of Roma NEETs was the only area where, as survey data show, the situation deteriorated in 2016 compared to 2011.

Table 9: Distribution of measures in the area of employment by substantive focus of activity

Clusters of measures

Number of measures

Share

Employment subsidisation and other forms of employment-related cost sharing

20

13%

Career-development support, mentoring and coaching that targets young people

18

12%

Vocational training

14

9%

General social-inclusion and labour-market-integration measures

13

9%

Professional qualification and catch-up education for adults (aged 16+)

12

8%

Local-level community-development initiatives

11

7%

Support for small business start-ups and social entrepreneurship

11

7%

Job fairs, job matching, mediation, information campaigns

9

6%

Awareness raising and training to reduce discrimination

8

5%

On-the-job training and apprenticeships with employers

8

5%

Public employment schemes

7

5%

Activation and motivation of young unemployed people

6

4%

Tuition, family allowances or other support to compensate for material disadvantage

6

4%

Skills validation and certification

3

2%

Using data and monitoring to fine-tune policies and improve the employment of young and long-term unemployed people

2

1%

Individual support to address qualification or knowledge gaps

2

1%

Total

150

100%

Source: own calculation based on EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Conclusions

Of all the thematic areas reported on, employment was one of the top three areas where the NRCPs assessed the situation as having improved across the most reporting Member States. The recent economic upturn starting in 2016 and continuing in 2017 might be partially credited for this improvement. However, many Member States noted that the measures were specifically tailored — and carefully implemented — with Roma job-seekers’ needs in mind, and that this built a solid foundation for their labour-market success.

Member States used a diverse range of measures, and reported considerable successes, in their efforts to improve labour-market situation of their Roma beneficiaries. Better use could be made of targeting especially towards Roma youth not in education, employment or training (NEET). Making use of measures designed with the specific needs of the Roma communities in mind may help them find and stay in non-subsidised employment in the open and competitive labour market.

It continues to be a challenge to include explicit safeguards to secure equal access for various vulnerable people (including vulnerable Roma) to mainstream measures, and thus prevent indirect discrimination. Most mainstream measures do not have such safeguards, and in most of the measures that do have safeguards, these safeguards are not explicit.

It appears that data are also increasingly being used to monitor programme activities, fine-tune policies and personalise measures. Such data-guided tailoring may well prove to be the best solution to the challenges in targeting and outreach.

2.3.Healthcare

Table 11 summarises selected health indicators for Roma in nine EU Member States (BG, HR, CZ, EL, HU, PT, RO, SK and ES). As the data show, the share of Roma who assess their health as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ increased between 2011 and 2016 (it declined only in HR). At the same time however, the health-insurance coverage rate remained unchanged in most countries, and even declined in CZ and HU. Improvement in health-insurance coverage was registered in only one EU Member State (EL). All this suggests that access to healthcare should be a priority for governments.

Table 11: Change in selected health indicators between 2011 and 2016

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of people assessing their health in general as ‘very good’ or ‘good’, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

Share of people with medical insurance coverage, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

NRCP assessment of the situation in this thematic area (2017)*

Note:

The arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Legend: the arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Sources:

FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; FRA, Roma Pilot Survey 2011; UNDP-World Bank-EC 2011 (for Croatia) in European Commission (2017). 9  

* For NRCP assessment: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

The measures relevant for healthcare

Overall, 94 measures were reported as being relevant in the area of healthcare in the 16 EU Member States reporting on this thematic area. Out of these 94 measures, 51 (54%) were mainstream and 43 (46%) were targeted ( Figure 9 ). In some Member States, targeted measures play a significant role (they are especially prominent in ES, IT, HR, LV, SI, SE, SK and UK), whereas in other Member States most measures remain mainstream (AT, BE, BG, HU, NL). The predominance of mainstream measures (and absence or near-absence of targeted measures) could be a concern especially in countries with sizeable Roma populations such as BG and HU. Figure 9 also reveals that relatively few measures were taken in some countries such as BE, HR, IT, LV, NL, RO, SI and SE.

Figure 9: Distribution of measures in the area of health by country and type of measure (mainstream or targeted)

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Of the 43 targeted measures implemented in the area of healthcare, 14 (33%) could identify the number of Roma beneficiaries.

Distribution by thematic sub-area

Most of the 117 measures in this thematic area were reported as being relevant to more than one sub-area as suggested in the Council Recommendation. Table 12 visualises the distribution of measures by their linkage to the respective thematic sub-areas.


Table 12: Distribution of measures in the area of health by thematic sub-area (number of measures)

Sub-area

Country

Total

AT

BE

BG

HR

CZ

EL

HU

IT

LV

NL

RO

SK

SI

ES

SE

UK

a) remove any barriers to accessing the healthcare system accessible for the general population

9

1

11

1

2

1

3

1

2

3

1

1

9

45

b) improve access to medical check-ups; prenatal and postnatal care and family planning; as well as sexual and reproductive healthcare, generally provided by national healthcare services

3

3

1

1

1

2

11

c) improve access to free vaccination programmes

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

11

d) promote awareness of health and healthcare issues

4

3

1

3

2

3

1

2

2

4

1

8

2

5

41

e) other

3

5

1

9

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Table 12 shows that most of the reporting Member States have focused their measures on removing barriers to access to healthcare for the general population (mentioned in 45 measures). The second most popular sub-area of measures promoted awareness of health and healthcare issues (mentioned in 41 measures).

In contrast, fewer measures were taken to improve access to medical check-ups; prenatal and postnatal care and family planning; as well as sexual and reproductive healthcare, generally provided by national healthcare services. The same applies to measures to improve access to free vaccination programmes. It remains unclear whether: (i) these less frequently mentioned services were actually being implemented, but were understood by Member States to be included under the framework measures in group one (improving access to mainstream health services), or (ii) Member States simply put less effort into targeted measures to improve Roma access to mainstream health services.

Substantive focus of the measures in healthcare

In total, Member States reported eight clusters of measures implemented in the area of health in 2017 ( Table 13 ).

At the top of the list, the most commonly implemented clusters were: (i) improving the supply side of health provision infrastructure (staff, facilities); (ii) health awareness and information campaigns targeting Roma communities; and (iii) general social-inclusion actions for improving health and sanitation infrastructure at local level ( Table 13 ). 60 of the 94 measures fall under these three categories, and these three categories reach the most beneficiaries. The provision of preventive services (screening, early diagnostics, immunisation) has also emerged as an important cluster of activities.


Table 13: Distribution of measures in the area of health by substantive focus of activity

Type of activity

Number of measures

Share

Improving the supply side of health provision infrastructure (staff, facilities)

24

26%

Health awareness and information campaigns targeting Roma communities

20

21%

General social-inclusion actions for improving health and sanitation infrastructure at local level

16

17%

Provision of preventive services (screening, early diagnostic, immunisation)

15

16%

Inclusion in health-insurance systems

7

7%

Anti-discrimination measures, intercultural mediation, awareness campaigns targeting health practitioners

6

6%

Research, data collection and monitoring of health challenges faced by Roma

5

5%

Development of strategies and policy documents

1

1%

Total

94

100%

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Conclusions

The overview of measures relevant to the area of healthcare highlights the need to intensify efforts to reach the target population (including funding of measures). If the measures are difficult to target by their very nature, it is at least necessary to provide safeguards to ensure that these targeted measures actually benefit the Roma population. This is especially a concern for countries where most measures are mainstream.

The overview also highlights certain topics where relatively few measures were adopted, such as: (i) measures to improve access to medical check-ups, prenatal and postnatal care and family planning, as well as sexual and reproductive healthcare, generally provided by national healthcare services; (ii) measures to secure vaccination coverage of all children; or (iii) measures fighting poor nutrition and unhealthy living conditions. Other measures could significantly improve Roma access to health services, particularly of those living in marginalised and/or remote areas. These other measures include: (i) anti-discrimination and sensitisation measures targeting healthcare professionals; and (ii) more active engagement of health mediators from Roma communities. Such actions should be prioritised for the future.

Finally, civil society actors should be more actively engaged as implementing entities. The modest engagement of NGOs — particularly Roma community organisations — seems to be an untapped opportunity, although civil involvement is possibly underrepresented in Member States reports, with NRCPs being more aware of measures implemented by public authorities. Actively engaging Roma organisations in the implementation of measures in this area would increase trust, boosting the outreach and effectiveness of the measures. This is especially relevant for countries with sizeable Roma populations, where health indicators show a deterioration in the health of the Roma population.

2.4.Housing

The available data and outcome indicators, based on data from representative surveys in nine EU Member States, suggest that the situation in housing remained largely the same between 2011 and 2016 (with some improvements in access to water and basic amenities in some countries, Table 15 ). However, discrimination when looking for housing continues to be a challenge in a number of Member States with sizeable (CZ, ES) or smaller (PT) Roma populations. This discrimination fell notably in SK.

Table 15: Change in selected housing indicators between 2011 and 2016

 

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Average number of rooms per person in the household (without kitchen)

Share of people living in households without tap water inside the dwelling, household members (%)

Share of people living in households having neither toilet, nor shower, nor bathroom inside the dwelling, household members (%)

Share of people living in households with electricity supply, household members (%)

Share of people who felt being discriminated against because of being Roma in the past 5 years, when looking for housing, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

NRCP assessment of the situation in this thematic area (2017)*

Legend:

The arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Sources:

FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; FRA, Roma Pilot Survey 2011; UNDP-World Bank-EC 2011 (for Croatia) in European Commission (2017). 10  

* For NRCP assessment: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

The measures relevant for housing

Overall, 94 measures were reported as being relevant in the area of housing in the 19 EU Member States reporting on this thematic area. Out of these, 46 were mainstream measures and 48 were targeted measures ( Figure 10 ). Data suggest that targeted measures play a significant role in some Member States (they are especially prominent in IT, HR, SK and UK), whereas in other Member States most measures remain mainstream (AT, BE, BG, HU, LU). The predominance of mainstream measures (and absence or near-absence of targeted measures) can be a concern in countries with a sizeable Roma population such as BG and HU.

Figure 10: Measures in the area of housing by country and type of measure (mainstream or targeted)

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Of the 48 targeted measures implemented in the area of housing, only 16 (33%) could identify the number of Roma final beneficiaries. This relatively low share is surprising given the spatial dimensions of the challenge: a lot of data exist on the location of Roma ghettoes and the number of people living there. It should therefore be relatively easy to determine the number of potential beneficiaries of such targeted interventions.

Distribution by thematic sub-area

124 measures in this thematic area were reported as being relevant to one or more sub-area as suggested in the Council Recommendation (the figure is higher than the 94 stated above because some measures are relevant for more than one sub-area). Table 16 visualises their distribution by sub-area and country.

Table 16: Distribution of measures by relevance to the respective sub-areas of the Council Recommendation

Sub-area

Country

Total

AT

BE

BG

HR

CY

CZ

EL

HU

IT

LV

LT

LU

RO

SK

SI

ES

SE

UK

a) eliminate any spatial segregation and promote desegregation

1

2

3

 

 

 

1

3

4

 

2

 

1

1

 

4

 

3

25

b) promote non-discriminatory access to social housing

4

 

 

 

 

3

1

1

2

1

1

 

1

3

2

1

 

2

22

c) provide halting sites for non-sedentary Roma, in proportion to local needs

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

5

d) ensure access to public utilities (such as water, electricity and gas) and infrastructure for housing in compliance with national legal requirements

 

1

1

3

1

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

7

2

7

 

1

26

e) ensure that applications from local authorities for urban regeneration projects include integrated housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities

 

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

3

 

4

 

 

12

f) promote community-led local development and/or integrated territorial investments supported by the European Structura; and Investment Funds (ESIF)

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

2

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

9

g) other

4

1

1

2

 

3

 

1

 

 

 

3

 

3

4

2

1

 

25

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

As Table 16 shows, most of the reporting Member States focus on ensuring access to public utilities (such as water, electricity and gas) and infrastructure for housing, in compliance with national legal requirements (mentioned in 26 measures). Other commonly implemented measures focus on combating spatial/residential segregation and promoting desegregation (mentioned in 25 measures). The promotion of non-discriminatory access to social housing is also a commonly implemented type of measure.

In contrast, fewer measures were taken to: (i) provide halting sites for non-sedentary Roma; (ii) promote community-led local development and/or integrated territorial investments supported by the ESIF; or (iii) ensure that applications from local authorities for urban regeneration projects include integrated housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities.

Substantive focus of the measures in housing

In total, Member States reported 11 clusters of measures implemented in the area of housing in 2017 ( Table 17 ). At the top of the list were: (i) the provision and maintenance of municipal and social housing; (ii) investments in physical infrastructure in Roma settlements (water, sanitation, electricity, roads); and (iii) legislative measures, construction permits, and informal housing legalisation ( Table 17 ). 47 of the 94 housing measures fall under these three categories and these three categories reach the most beneficiaries. Other significant clusters of activities include: (i) monitoring and evaluation of living conditions, barriers and discriminatory factors in access to housing; (ii) removal of slums and shanty towns; and (iii) social support and infrastructure for homeless persons.

Table 17: Distribution of measures in the area of housing by substantive focus of activity

Number of measures

Share

Provision and maintenance of municipal and social housing (including maintenance and repair)

25

27%

Investments in physical infrastructure in Roma settlements (water, sanitation, electricity, roads)

15

16%

Legislative measures, construction permits, informal housing legalisation

12

13%

Monitoring and evaluation of living conditions, barriers and discriminatory factors in access to housing

9

10%

Removal of slums and shanty towns

7

7%

Social support and infrastructure for homeless persons

7

7%

Integrated territorial measures for desegregation

7

7%

Traveller mobile home pitches, maintenance of caravan sites

5

5%

Community mobilisation, working groups with local authorities

5

5%

Meetings, discussions, awareness campaigns

2

2%

Total

94

100%

Source: own tagging based on the NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Conclusions

The overview of measures relevant to housing highlights a need to intensify efforts to reach the target population (including funding of measures). If the measures are difficult to target by their very nature, it is at least necessary to provide safeguards to ensure that these targeted measures actually benefit Roma. This is especially a concern in countries where most measures are mainstream and do not include safeguards to ensure that they include Roma as beneficiaries.

Finally, the overview highlights certain topics where relatively few measures were adopted, such as: actions to provide halting sites for non-sedentary Roma; actions to promote explicit active desegregation; community-led local development and/or integrated territorial investments supported by the ESIF; and actions to develop the social housing stock with improved Roma access. These areas should be prioritised for the future. Also, relatively few measures were reported in certain countries. Many of these countries with relatively few measures have sizeable Roma populations where high levels of perceived discrimination rates were recorded.

2.5.Anti-discrimination

The available data on perceptions and experience of discrimination against Roma in nine EU Member States surveyed in 2011 and 2016 suggest that this thematic area is particularly significant for the overall success of Roma integration strategies. As seen from Table 19 , the overall situation on discrimination in the nine countries for which data are available has not changed. The detailed overview of the available indicators provided in section 3.6 suggests that the discrimination, harassment and victimisation that Roma frequently experience are driven by racially motivated attitudes.

Table 19: Change in the overall discrimination rate because of skin colour/ethnic origin/religion in the past 5 years across key areas of life 2011-2016 (decline or increase of the share of people who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in the past 5 years when …)

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

...in contact with school (as parent or student), respondents, aged 16+ (%)

...looking for housing, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

__

__

__

__

...looking for a job, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

...at work, respondents, aged 16+ (%)

NRCP assessment of the situation in anti-discrimination (2017)

X

X

NRCP assessment of the situation in multiple discrimination (2017)*

X

X

X

X

Notes:

‘__’ denotes cases when trends are not possible to provide due to the small number of observations

The arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Legend: the arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Sources:

FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; FRA, Roma Pilot Survey 2011; UNDP-World Bank-EC 2011 (for Croatia) in European Commission (2017). 11  

* For NRCP assessment: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

The measures relevant for anti-discrimination

Overall, 142 measures were reported as being relevant in the area of anti-discrimination. This included measures to fight multiple discrimination in the 18 EU Member States reporting on this thematic area. Out of these 142 measures, 60 (42%) were mainstream measures while 82 (58%) were targeted measures ( Figure 11 ). However, of the 82 targeted measures implemented in the area of anti-discrimination and multiple discrimination, only 16 (20%) could identify Roma beneficiaries. This is the lowest share of targeted measures directly identifying Roma as beneficiaries among all six thematic areas analysed in this overview. This may suggest that the targeting is not particularly effective in the area of anti-discrimination.

Figure 11: Number of measures implemented in the area of anti-discrimination by type of measure (mainstream or targeted)


Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Five countries (CY, FR, EL, PL, RO) did not report any measures on anti-discrimination. This lack of reporting on is especially worrying for Member States with a sizeable Roma population, such as Romania and Greece.

Distribution by thematic sub-area

Many of the measures reported were relevant for more than one thematic sub-area. Table 20 visualises the distribution of measures by their linkage to the respective thematic sub-areas. 20% of the measures were in the sub-area ‘Combat antigypsyism by raising awareness about the benefits of Roma integration’, 17% were in the sub-area ‘Combat antigypsyism by raising awareness about the diverse nature of societies and sensitising public opinion to the inclusion problems Roma face’, and 15% were in the sub-area ‘Combat anti-Roma rhetoric and hate speech’. 18% of the measures were reported as relevant for combating all forms of discrimination, including multiple discrimination, faced by Roma children and women. Many measures concerned thematic sub-areas that are not listed in the Council Recommendation from December 2013 and were reported as ‘other’.

Table 20: Distribution of measures by relevance to the respective sub-areas of the Council Recommendation

Thematic sub-area

Country

AT

BE

BG

HR

CZ

EE

HU

IT

LV

LT

LU

NL

PT

SK

SI

ES

SE

UK

Total

a) ensure the effective practical enforcement of Directive 2000/43/EC

1

2

2

1

6

3%

b) implement desegregation measures both regionally and locally

1

1

1

3

2%

c) ensure that forced evictions are in full compliance with EU law as well as with other international human rights obligations

1

1

1%

d). combat anti-gypsyism by raising awareness about the benefits of Roma integration both in Roma communities and among the general public

3

1

1

1

6

5

1

1

4

11

1

35

20%

e) combat anti-gypsyism by raising awareness about the diversity and sensitising public opinion to the inclusion problems Roma face

4

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

3

4

8

2

31

17%

f) combat anti-Roma rhetoric and hate speech

9

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

5

2

27

15%

g) fight violence, including domestic violence, against women and girls

3

1

1

6

11

6%

h) fight trafficking in human beings

5

1

6

3%

i) fight underage and forced marriages

3

3

6

3%

j) fight begging involving children, in particular through the enforcement of legislation

1

1

1%

k) multiple discrimination, faced by Roma children and women involving all relevant actors including public authorities, civil society and Roma communities

2

4

1

1

8

4%

l) encourage cooperation between Member States in situations with a cross-border dimension

1

1

1%

Other

9

1

4

2

7

2

1

2

1

1

3

7

2

42

24%

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

The distribution of measures in the area of anti-discrimination also indicates that besides combatting anti-Roma rhetoric and hate speech (15%), in line with the Council Framework Decision on combatting racism and xenophobia there were relatively few measures with a particularly European dimension that were reported. For example, there were relatively few measures to: (i) ensure effective practical enforcement of Directive 2000/43/EC; or (ii) ensure that evictions were in full compliance with EU law as well as in compliance with other international human rights obligations. These findings indicate possibilities for further action in the future, fully exploring the potential of European and international human rights law to improve the situation of the Roma population.

Other areas where relatively few measures were reported were areas which could directly affect the living conditions of the Roma population, for example: desegregation measures, cooperation between Member States in situations with a cross-border dimension, and measures to fight trafficking in human beings.

Substantive focus of the measures in anti-discrimination

The measures reported in this thematic area seem to cluster in two major groups: those targeting persons at risk of discrimination, including multiple discrimination; and those targeting the general public and public institutions ( Table 21 ). The first group includes activities such as: (i) raising awareness of the contribution of Roma to European history and culture (31 of the 142 measures); and (ii) building Roma organisations’ capacity to fight discrimination (17 of the 142 measures). The measures in this first group can boost Roma people’s self-confidence and decrease the prejudice against Roma, ultimately decreasing their social exclusion and risk of discrimination. The measures in the second group include: (i) public campaigns and awareness raising to combat discrimination and promote rights (26 of the 142 measures); and (ii) building public institutions’ capacity to address discrimination (21 of the 142 measures). Addressing discrimination from both angles increases the chances of achieving a sustainable decline in prejudice and discrimination against Roma.

Access to legal protection (including knowledge of the law, access to law enforcement, and access to legal aid) was identified as a key challenge in a number of countries (AT, CZ, LT, PT). However, this seems not to be sufficiently reflected in the substantive focus of the measures reported under anti-discrimination and multiple discrimination. Only 8 of the 142 measures concerned the provision of affordable legal advice and support.

Table 21: Distribution of measures in the area of anti-discrimination by substantive focus of activity

Type of intervention

Number of measures

Share

Promotion of Roma culture and history

31

22%

Campaigns, conferences and awareness raising to combat intolerance and discrimination

26

18%

Building institutions’ capacity to address discrimination

21

15%

Development of the capacity of Roma organisations

17

12%

Strengthening human rights’ monitoring mechanisms

15

11%

Developing strategies and policy frameworks

9

6%

Affordable legal advice and support

8

6%

Enhancing the role and participation of women

8

6%

Desegregation and social-inclusion initiatives at local level

7

5%

Total

142

100%

Source: own calculations based on the NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Out of the 142 measures analysed in this section, 21 were reported as relevant under the horizontal area ‘Protection of Roma children and women’. Of these 21 measures, 15 targeted women (5 in AT, 1 in IT, 2 in NL and 7 in ES) and 6 targeted children and youth (2 in AT, 1 in HU, 1 in IT, 1 in NL and 1 in ES). Looking in more detail, the measures explicitly targeting Roma women dealt primarily with: (i) fighting violence, including domestic violence, against women and girls; and (ii) fighting underage and forced marriages. Measures explicitly targeting Roma children and youth dealt primarily with fighting trafficking in human beings.

Conclusions

The overview of measures in the area of anti-discrimination highlights a need to better target measures to benefit the Roma population. Although most of the measures have funding allocated, some do not and remain only a commitment on paper.

Discrimination is usually driven by prejudice and myths shared by mainstream societies. This is why targeted measures might be less effective in fighting such phenomena. In such cases, it is important for mainstream measures to provide safeguards to ensure that the measures actually benefit the Roma population.

Finally, the overview highlights certain topics where relatively few measures were adopted:

·measures with a specific EU dimension, such as: (i) to ensure effective practical enforcement of Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; or (ii) to ensure that evictions are in full compliance with EU law as well as in compliance with other international human rights obligations – while measures combatting anti-Roma rhetoric or hate speech were greater in number;

·desegregation measures;

·cooperation between Member States in situations with a cross-border dimension; and

·measures to fight against trafficking in human beings (in particular, focusing on Roma women and children).

These areas could be prioritised for the future. Also, relatively few (or no) measures were reported in certain countries. Many of these countries with few measures — or no measures at all — were countries with sizeable Roma populations, where high levels of perceived discrimination rates were recorded.

2.6.Poverty reduction

Table 23 and section 3.5 provide trends in the key poverty indicators for Roma in nine EU Member States surveyed in 2011 and 2016. Data suggest that key poverty indicators improved, but the trend in poverty indicators is diverging from that of employment indicators. This divergence suggests that active labour-market policies should be a core component of poverty-reduction strategies. For example, the transition from working in the informal sector to formal (safe and secure) employment could be an integral part of active labour-market policies targeting Roma. It could also potentially be an integral part of active labour-market policies for other groups facing similar problems, such as migrants. The detailed overview of the available indicators for 2016 provided in section 3.5 also illustrates the consequences of monetary poverty — the unaffordability of key household expenditures and goods, indebtedness (especially related to bills for utilities and housing in general), and material deprivation.


Table 23: Change in key poverty indicators for Roma, 2011-2016

 

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

At-risk-of-poverty rate (below 60% of median equivalised income after social transfers), household members (%)

n.a.

Share of persons in households where at least one person had to go hungry to bed at least once in the last month, household members (%)

n.a.

NRCP assessment of the situation this thematic area (2017)*

X

Legend:

The arrow visualises the direction of change in the respective indicator (‘↑’ increase, ‘↔’ no change and ‘↓’ decline). The background shows improvement (green), deterioration (red) or no change (yellow).

Sources:

FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma; FRA, Roma Pilot Survey 2011; UNDP-World Bank-EC 2011 (for Croatia) in European Commission (2017). 12  

* For NRCP assessment: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Measures relevant for poverty reduction

Overall, 100 measures were reported as being relevant to poverty reduction in the 16 EU Member States reporting on this thematic area. Out of these 100 measures, 67 were mainstream measures and 33 were targeted ( Figure 12 ).

Given the horizontal nature of this thematic area, the focus on mainstream measures is not a surprise. In those countries with large Roma populations, only CZ reported more targeted measures than mainstream measures, while ES reported that it had slightly more mainstream measures than targeted measures. While HR and SE reported only targeted measures (one measure each), BE, HU, LT, LU, PT, and RO reported only mainstream measures.

Figure 12: Number of measures implemented in the area of poverty reduction by type of measure (mainstream or targeted)


Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

Of the 33 targeted measures implemented in the area of poverty reduction, 13 (39%) could identify the number of Roma final beneficiaries. This is the highest share among all six thematic areas analysed in this overview.

Distribution by thematic sub-area

120 measures were reported as being relevant for one or more sub-areas in the thematic area ‘poverty reduction’ as specified in the Council Recommendation. The countries could link individual measures not only to several thematic areas but also to several sub-areas. Therefore, the total number of measures in the analysis by sub-area (120) differs from the number of measures reported under thematic area of poverty reduction (100). Table 24 provides an overview of: the sub-areas as suggested in the Council Recommendation; how many measures were relevant for each sub-area; and in which Member States measures they were reported.

Table 24: Distribution of measures by relevance to the respective sub-areas of the Council Recommendation

Sub-area of the Recommendation

Country

Total

AT

BE

HR

CZ

EL

HU

LV

LT

LU

NL

PT

RO

SK

SI

ES

SE

a) support Roma at all stages of their lives, including by investing in good-quality inclusive early-childhood education and care, targeted youth guarantee schemes, lifelong learning and active ageing measures

6

 

 

1

5

 

1

 

 

3

2

 

 

1

12

 

31

b) pursue policies of activation and enablement

8

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

2

2

1

 

6

1

2

 

24

c) support entry and re-entry to the labour market through targeted or mainstream employment support schemes

 

 

 

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

 

 

3

 

10

1

20

e) make social benefits and social services granted to the disadvantaged more appropriate and sustainable

2

 

 

1

4

1

2

 

7

 

 

1

4

 

12

 

34

f) other

 

2

1

4

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

2

 

11

Source: EC (2018), NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

As Table 24 suggests, the largest group of measures are related directly to improvement in access to the labour market. These are sub-areas (b) (pursue policies of activation and enablement) and (c) (support entry and re-entry to the labour market through targeted or mainstream employment support schemes). 44 out of the 120 measures are directly related to the labour market.

The second-largest group of measures (34 out of the 120 measures) concerns ‘social safety nets’ aiming at ‘making social benefits and social services granted to the disadvantaged more appropriate and sustainable’ (34 measures across nine countries). The third-largest group of measures (31 measures) was indirectly related to the labour market, and focused on building human capital (the sub-area ‘support Roma at all stages of their lives, including by investing in good-quality inclusive early-childhood education and care, targeted youth guarantee schemes, lifelong learning and active ageing measures’). All this suggests that the Member States have adopted a more holistic approach to poverty reduction by treating poverty not just as a monetary problem, but also as a social-inclusion and human-development problem. This approach is in line with the Council recommendation to focus on poverty from a social-investment perspective.

Substantive focus of the measures in poverty reduction

The results summarised in Table 25 indicate that countries pay greatest attention to labour-market-related interventions (skills development and labour-market integration, general social-inclusion and labour-market integration, specific support for children to allow parents to engage in employment, and measures facilitating the transition from education to employment). These three groups account for 36% of all measures. The group of safety net measures (those providing social assistance and material support for vulnerable families, and those targeted at improving access to social services) account for 38% of the 100 measures.

Table 25: Distribution of measures in the area of poverty reduction by substantive focus of activity

Substantive area

Total

Share

Social assistance, material support for vulnerable families

25

25%

Skills development and labour-market integration

15

15%

Improving access to social services (health, education)

13

13%

Capacity development of public institutions to address vulnerability

9

9%

General social inclusion and labour-market integration

9

9%

Addressing housing deprivation

7

7%

Specific support for children to allow parents to engage in employment

7

7%

Local-level community-development initiatives

6

6%

Measures facilitating the transition from education to employment

5

5%

Anti-discrimination and awareness-raising initiatives

4

4%

Total

100

100%

Source: own calculations based on the NRCPs’ reporting on Roma integration measures implemented in 2017.

More evidence of the cross-cutting nature of the main approach in this thematic area — and its drive to go beyond monetary-poverty reduction — can be seen in the fact that its individual measures are also relevant to other areas. Out of all 100 measures reported as relevant to poverty reduction, only half were ‘purely’ related to poverty reduction. The other half was reported as also being relevant to other thematic areas: 27 were also reported under the thematic area for employment, 16 were reported under the thematic area for education, and 7 were reported under the thematic area for housing. The fact that most of the employment-related measures also appeared under the ‘poverty reduction’ heading is another indicator that the main approach to poverty reduction is through access to jobs.

Conclusions

The overview of measures in the area of poverty reduction suggests that the Member States adopted a holistic approach to poverty reduction, blending social protection, incentives for education and measures to encourage employment. Consistent implementation of such measures may decrease the dependency of Roma households in vulnerable situations, and therefore help promote the genuine empowerment of Roma.

Two thirds of the measures implemented in 2017 were mainstream measures. Mainstream measures are appropriate for poverty reduction, provided that Roma have genuine access to these measures. The Member States adopt a variety of approaches to ensure this genuine access, and these approaches reflect the specific conditions and circumstances of each Member State. In many cases, however, the safeguards to secure equal access by Roma to mainstream measures are far from perfect. It can therefore be necessary to fine-tune these measures by involving a broad range of stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society.

As is the case in other thematic areas, public authorities are the main implementing partners in poverty reduction. It is only natural that public authorities take precedence in implementing ‘social safety net’ measures. But for other types of measures, a greater role for the private sector and civil society might improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of the resources invested. The dominant role of public authorities brings risks, particularly for measures related to employment in public works implemented at local level, where the decision to include (or not include) a person may be discretionary. The results of the FRA’s ‘Local Engagement in Roma Inclusion’ 13 project suggested that such risks exist.

2.7.Legislative measures

Member States also reported on any new legislation introduced in 2017 to improve the situation of Roma. This legislation could involve either targeted measures or mainstream measures with safeguards for Roma. This section summarises the information NRCPs provided, and shows that only four countries reported a change in legislation (FI, FR, PT and SK).

Substantive policy areas

In January 2017, an amendment was made to the Law on the financing of elementary schools, secondary schools and school facilities (597/2003 Coll.) in Slovakia. This amendment enables the founders of elementary schools to receive an allowance from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Interior to improve conditions for the education of pupils from a socially disadvantaged environment. The allowance is proportional to the number of pupils from a socially disadvantaged environment in the school. In 2017, the allowance was €260 per pupil.

The contribution is provided only to pupils who have confirmation of their disadvantaged situation issued by the Centre for Pedagogical-psychological Counselling and Prevention and who are enrolled in a normal class in an elementary school. This measure could also be seen as a measure for combating segregation and improving the quality of education in schools with a high proportion of Roma pupils.

This legislative measure followed a set of broader legislative changes initiated in Slovakia in 2015 to address the segregation of Roma pupils. These changes stipulated that a child or student whose special educational needs are solely the result of growing up in a socially disadvantaged environment cannot be accepted in special schools, special kindergarten classes, special primary school classes, or special middle school classes. Those changes also increased the powers of school inspectorates to intervene in cases of misdiagnosis of children placed in the special schools.

In May 2017, Slovakia amended its Act on Public Employment Services and other related laws. The amendment provides for an individual action plan to promote employment. The action plan is binding for both the job-seeker and for the Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. The Office can work with disadvantaged job-seekers to develop an individual action plan to help the job-seeker to find work. These measures are expected to increase the employment of Roma minorities.

In September 2017, Slovakia amended Act No 153/2017 amending Act No 330/1991 on Land Conversion, Settlement of Land Ownership, Land Register Offices, the Slovak Land Fund and Land Communities. The amendment provides for a procedure to clarify the arrangements for ownership and use of the land located under the settlements of marginalised groups in the form of land adjustments. If the procedure is successful, the land of the settlements can be acquired by the municipality, which can then be sold to the inhabitants of Roma settlements. The administrative procedure may only be proposed by municipalities in which settlements of the marginalised population are located.

Horizontal areas

Finland did not report on measures implemented in 2017, but in December the legal basis of the regional Advisory Boards on Roma Affairs entered into force. Since that date, these boards have operated on a proper legislative level instead of merely being based on a governmental decree. This also has practical consequences. These practical consequences include the introduction of a general obligation to carry out equality planning. Starting in January 2018, equality plans must be drawn up in all municipalities, all administrative levels and all larger employers. These plans are monitored by the Non-discrimination Ombudsman’s office. This obligation to have equality plans is expected to have an impact on the situation of Roma populations.

Portugal streamlined its legal procedure for anti-discrimination. New legislation entered into force on 1 September 2017, which centralises all the different phases of the procedure to optimise the services and make the application of the law more timely and effective. The High Commission for Migration (www.acm.gov.pt), through the Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (CICDR) (www.cicdr.pt), will now be responsible for all phases of the administrative offences procedure within their areas of competence. These phases include: reception and analysis of complaints; instruction; decision; and the coordination of actions for the prevention, inspection and combat of discriminatory practices. The CICDR’s capacity was also increased, and it now has 32 advisers, including a representative of the Roma communities.

In France, a new law on equality and citizenship entered into force on 27 January 2017. For the ‘gens du voyage’, this new law means that they will no longer be obliged to maintain a booklet of circulation, and their way of life is now recognised.

The Bankruptcy and Restructuring Act entered into force on 1 March 2017 in Slovakia. This reform of the personal bankruptcy system provides a tool for persons living in poverty and debt to be able to file for bankruptcy more easily, once every 10 years. A Legal Aid Centre provides free legal aid and support to all who decide to use this tool. The main challenge this year was to increase the capacity of the Legal Aid Centre, so it could handle the increased workload stemming from the personal bankruptcy reform. The Act may help Roma in marginalised communities escape a debt spiral. Under the new Act they may now have better access to debt relief, and therefore should be able to re-enter the labour market

3.Selected outcome indicators on Roma inclusion 

Unless specified other under the table, all figures in the tables below are extracted from FRA data visualisation application – Roma . They should be referenced as “FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma”.

Results based on less than 20 to 49 unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with less than 20 unweighted observations are noted in parentheses. Results based on less than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published (marked “-“).

3.1.Education

Educational outcomes

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Highest achieved education (ISCED), respondents, 16+ (%)

- Never been in formal education / not completed primary education (ISCED 0)

10

6

58

26

27

15

36

14

6

14

- Primary education (ISCED 1)

34

(2)

33

32

30

50

44

39

12

29

- Lower secondary education (ISCED 2)

44

59

6

32

29

20

18

34

50

38

- Upper secondary, vocational, post-secondary, short cycle tertiary education (ISCED 3 to 5)

12

32

(2)

10

14

16

(2)

13

31

18

Share of Roma with No skills, Not good at all skills or not so good skills of (one of) the countries national language(s), respondents, 16+ (%)

- speaking

9

8

5

(2)

13

2

9

14

26

12

- reading

38

23

56

21

30

29

54

50

44

38

- writing

45

34

64

26

32

30

60

56

55

45

Share of Roma with good, excellent, mother tongue proficiency of (one of) the countries national language(s), respondents, 16+ (%) 

- speaking

91

92

95

98

87

98

91

86

74

88

- reading:

Total

62

77

44

79

70

71

46

50

56

62

Women

57

80

39

74

66

71

35

50

56

61

Men

67

75

49

84

75

71

58

49

56

63

- writing:

Total

55

66

36

74

68

70

40

44

45

55

Women

52

68

33

72

63

71

29

43

46

55

Men

59

65

38

78

74

69

53

45

45

56

Share of Roma currently attending school or vocational training, respondents, 16+ (%)

4

7

(1)

4

6

4

(2)

(2)

9

5

Segregation in education

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

School segregation – share of Roma children aged 6-15 years in school, who attend the school with the following composition of schoolmates (%)

All of them are Roma

27

5

12

3

8

8

11

8

22

13

Most of them are Roma

33

25

36

28

32

53

(3)

21

40

33

Some of them are Roma

38

66

51

62

56

38

84

71

38

53

None of them is Roma

(3)

4

(1)

7

4

(0)

(1)

(0)

(0)

2



BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Class segregation – share of Roma children aged 6-15 years in school, who attend the classes with the following composition of classmates (%)

All of them are Roma

29

6

13

4

22

10

11

10

26

15

Most of them are Roma

31

26

34

27

14

48

8

20

37

31

Some of them are Roma

37

61

53

57

57

41

80

69

35

51

None of them is Roma

(2)

6

(0)

11

7

(1)

(1)

(1)

2

4

Share of Roma children aged 6-15 years in education, who attend a special school (%)

(2)

16

n.a.

n.a.

5

(3)

n.a.

(1)

18

9

Note: n.a. - this question was not asked in the country

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 in FRA (2016). EU MIDIS II. Roma - Selected findings

Education attendance

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of children aged between 4 years and (country specific) age of starting compulsory education who participate early childhood education, by sex, household members (%):

- Total

66

34

28

95

32

91

42

38

34

53

- Girls

69

35

27

93

37

90

(31)

41

34

53

- Boys

64

32

29

98

26

92

51

36

34

52

Share of compulsory-schooling-age children attending education, household members, 5-17 (depending on the country), by sex (%):

- Total

91

98

69

99

94

98

90

78

94

90

- Girls

91

99

66

99

94

98

90

81

95

91

- Boys

92

98

72

98

93

99

90

73

93

89

Share of Roma children of the respective country specific age that corresponds to primary or lower secondary education (ISCED 1+2) attending this level of education, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

89

89

69

89

95

86

88

77

90

86

Share of Roma children of the respective country-specific age that corresponds to primary or lower secondary education (ISCED 1+2) attending any educational level, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

93

98

73

99

97

99

97

85

94

93

Share of Roma children of the respective country-specific age that corresponds to primary or lower secondary education (ISCED 1+2) NOT attending any educational level, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

7

(2)

27

(1)

(3)

(1)

(3)

15

6

7

Share of Roma children of the respective country specific age that corresponds to upper secondary education (ISCED 3) attending this level of education, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

40

45

(9)

20

35

28

(20)

22

33

30

Share of Roma children of the respective country-specific age that corresponds to upper secondary education (ISCED 3) attending any educational level, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

57

67

21

44

47

59

74

34

58

52

Share of Roma children of the respective country-specific age that corresponds to upper secondary education (ISCED 3) NOT attending any educational level, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

43

33

79

56

53

41

26

66

42

48

Share of Roma children of the respective country specific age that corresponds to post-secondary and tertiary education (ISCED 4+) attending this level of education, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma children of the respective country-specific age that corresponds to post-secondary and tertiary education (ISCED 4+) attending any educational level, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

-

-

-

6

-

7

-

-

6

5

Share of Roma children of the respective country-specific age that corresponds to post-secondary and tertiary education (ISCED 4+) NOT attending any educational level, out of the total number of children of that age (%)

97

93

97

94

94

93

96

97

94

95

Note: out of all persons in Roma households of the country-specific age (6 to maximum 24 years) for a given educational level ISCED 2011 in the countries valid for school year 2015-2016

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 in FRA (2016). EU MIDIS II. Roma - Selected findings

Share of households with some child assisted by a Roma teaching assistant at school, households with 6-15 olds in primary or lower secondary education (%)

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

6

11

10

(3)

35

7

(9)

6

49

16

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 in FRA (2019). EU MIDIS II – Roma women in nine EU Member States

Discrimination and harassment in education

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated because of being a Roma when in contact with their children's school, respondents, 16+ (%):

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

- in the past 5 years

(6)

18

(18)

10

16

15

14

10

16

12

- in the past 12 months

(3)

11

(10)

(5)

12

8

(1)

(3)

7

6

Prevalence of verbal harassment* of children while in school in the past 12 months, out of all respondents who are parents/guardians of school-age children, respondents, 16+ (%)

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

12

51

35

16

33

24

18

19

43

28

Note: * Name-calling, or Someone making jokes about them (ridiculing), or Offensive comments and/or verbal insults, because of their Roma background

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 in FRA (2018). A persisting concern: anti-Gypsyism as a barrier to Roma inclusion.

3.2.Employment

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Self-declared current main activity status, household members, 16+ (%)

- Full time work

17

23

23

10

7

30

4

13

14

16

- Part-time/occasional work

5

6

20

7

(1)

6

29

14

6

9

- Unemployed

55

32

26

57

62

23

17

5

48

34

- A pupil, student, in training

3

7

1

3

6

5

4

3

7

5

- Domestic tasks and care responsibilities

3

9

25

12

17

7

24

40

8

17

- In retirement

14

17

2

6

2

14

12

12

12

12

- Not working due to illness or disability

1

4

3

4

4

6

(1)

3

4

4

- Other (military service, other)

(0)

1

(0)

1

(1)

8

9

9

1

4

Share of people who self-declared main activity status ‘paid work’ (including full-time, part-time, ad hoc jobs, self-employment and occasional work) or any paid work in the past four weeks, household members, 20-64 years (%):

- Total

49

43

52

24

21

49

38

46

43

43

- Women

35

32

22

16

12

36

21

27

32

29

- Men

64

55

82

31

31

62

55

64

54

56



BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of young persons, 16-24 years old with current main activity neither in employment, education or training, household members (%):

- Total

65

51

60

77

77

51

52

64

65

63

- Women

79

52

81

81

82

63

67

77

70

72

- Men

52

51

38

74

72

38

36

52

61

55

Share of Roma aged 0-59 years living in households with a current low work intensity (below 20%), household members (%)

52

34

18

59

78

27

38

39

53

44

Share of Roma who are currently looking for work, respondents, 16+ (%)

51

34

31

58

49

20

19

20

41

36

Women, 16 to 64 years, currently not active in the labour market, not looking for work because taking care of small children/elderly/sick relatives, respondents (%)*

31

56

46

35

39

55

44

34

41

40

* Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 in FRA (2019). EU MIDIS II – Roma women in nine EU Member States

3.3.Health

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma assessing their health in general as 'Very good' or 'Good', respondents, 16+ (%)

70

62

83

73

59

66

70

69

67

68

Share of Roma who have some longstanding illness or health problem, respondents, 16+ (%)

25

25

14

22

29

22

8

18

24

22

Share of Roma who were in the past six months severely limited or limited but not severely because of their health in activities people usually do, respondents, 16+ (%):

- Total

22

35

13

24

33

23

16

29

34

28

- Women

25

35

13

30

35

23

18

30

37

30

- Men

19

35

13

17

31

24

14

28

31

26

Share of Roma with coverage by the national basic health insurance scheme**, respondents, 16+ (%)

47

83

79

98

81

89

96

54

95

76

Note: ** This indicator differs from “Share of people with medical insurance coverage” in Table 2. It includes only the national basic health insurance scheme, while the indicator in Table 2 also the coverage by additional insurance of the medical costs.

3.4.Housing

Residential segregation

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma living in households that live in the neighbourhood where all or most of neighbours are of the same ethnic background (household members, %)

83

44

78

44

77

77

57

68

75

67



Tenure status

Share of Roma living in households with the provided tenure (household members, %)

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

- Ownership

91

10

70

22

77

69

14

84

50

59

- Rental from council/social housing

3

52

1

55

7

7

68

3

22

21

- Private rental

2

32

8

9

2

5

3

1

4

7

- Free of charge/other

4

5

22

14

14

20

15

12

25

14

Access to basic amenities

Share of Roma living in households with…

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

… tap water (inside) in their dwelling (household members, %)

77

98

91

98

66

67

86

32

73

70

… a kitchen (inside) in their dwelling (household members, %)

76

99

91

99

85

97

96

69

93

86

… indoor (flushing) toilet in their dwelling, household members (%)

38

95

71

99

51

56

81

19

57

55

… shower or bathroom (inside) in their dwelling, household members (%)

54

94

67

99

58

59

79

20

69

60

… any kind of heating facility in their dwelling (household members %)

96

99

81

75

95

99

25

94

96

92

Overcrowding

Share of Roma living in household that does not have the minimum number of rooms according to the Eurostat definition of overcrowding (household members, %)

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

76

83

92

64

85

88

63

76

84

78




Housing deprivation

Share of Roma living in households with the listed problems in their accommodation (household members, %):

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

- It is too dark (meaning there is not enough daylight coming through the windows)

17

17

18

15

23

25

39

14

30

20

- Too much noise from neighbours or from outside (traffic, business, factory, etc.)

13

28

20

29

18

14

17

10

29

19

- Leaking roof or damp walls/floors/foundation or rot in window frames or floor

33

21

37

26

43

44

66

26

38

32

- Pollution, grime or other environmental problems in the local area such as: smoke, dust, unpleasant smells or polluted water

27

41

28

27

31

24

36

11

33

25

- Crime, violence and vandalism in the local area

9

46

22

42

22

23

11

5

33

23


Discrimination in access to housing

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated when trying to rent or buy housing (respondents, 16+, %):

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

- on any ground in the past 5 years

(20)

66

(44)

49

(53)

27

76

(13)

32

43

- because of being Roma, in the past 5 years

(14)

65

(44)

45

(53)

22

75

(13)

30

41

- because of being Roma, in the past 12 months

(3)

25

(1)

14

(29)

(8)

(5)

(6)

(8)

12


3.5.Poverty

Income poverty

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of persons in households where at least one person had to go hungry to bed at least once in the last month because there was not enough money for food, household members (%)

27

20

48

17

38

20

n.a.

32

31

27

At-risk-of poverty rate (current monthly income below 60% of national median equivalised income after social transfers), household members (%)

86

58

96

98

93

75

n.a.

70

87

80

Share of Roma living in household that are able to make ends meet, household members (%):

- With great difficulty or with difficulty

70

59

90

88

84

80

89

62

76

72

- With some difficulty

17

27

9

9

13

15

7

28

16

19

- Fairly easily

10

10

(1)

1

2

3

3

7

6

6

- Easily or very easily

3

3

0

2

(1)

1

(1)

3

2

2

Share of Roma who have a bank account, respondents, 16+ (%)

43

41

48

79

47

33

14

8

30

35

Note: n.a. - missing value: data not available for the selected group

Material deprivation

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma living in household that can afford to keep its home adequately warm, household members (%)

79

80

45

62

66

88

32

84

80

78

Share of Roma living in household that can afford to pay for a week's annual holiday away from home, household members (%)

13

14

6

6

3

3

(0)

9

6

8

Share of Roma living in household that can afford a meal eating meat, chicken or fish every second day (or the vegetarian equivalent), household members (%)

46

54

33

61

37

29

73

47

38

46

Share of Roma living in household that can afford an unexpected but necessary expense of amount corresponding to 1/12 of the national At-risk-of-poverty threshold for a 1-person household in 2013 (from own resources), household members (%)

19

14

9

6

7

14

(0)

15

10

13

Share of Roma living in household that can afford eating-together with friends, family or relatives or go for a drink/meal at least once a month (in the home or outside), household members (%)

39

64

29

55

20

30

32

28

43

41

Durables

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma living in household that can afford two pairs of properly fitting shoes for each household member (including a pair of all-weather shoes), household members (%)

33

65

22

44

18

32

59

23

34

36

Share of Roma living in household that can afford replace worn-out clothes by some new (not second-hand) ones, household members (%)

34

67

33

50

22

32

55

27

45

40



BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who live in household that CANNOT afford the following items, household members (%):

- TV

6

1

18

1

4

2

10

11

9

7

- Car/Van for private use

49

42

13

35

61

56

28

58

62

51

- Private computer/tablet

42

30

41

57

68

52

36

49

52

47

- Internet access

42

32

41

46

64

51

35

44

57

46

- Landline

29

20

68

59

51

29

35

32

40

36

- Smartphone

46

25

49

21

57

40

44

52

50

42

- Washing machine

27

5

27

4

23

11

20

44

21

22


Indebtedness

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma living in household that was unable to pay the following costs on time at least once in the last 12 months due to financial difficulties, household members (%):

- Rent or mortgage payments for the house

6

38

24

36

10

13

23

13

27

21

- Utility bills, such as heating, electricity, water, gas

52

43

76

52

69

67

29

67

40

55

- Other loan repayments

18

34

16

13

9

14

6

18

30

20

- Debt repayments to a private lender

11

20

12

7

7

16

4

40

29

23

Material deprivation

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who live in household that possesses the following items, household members (%): 

- TV

94

97

80

99

95

98

90

87

90

93

- Car/Van for private use

36

34

83

58

33

25

65

21

27

34

- Private computer/tablet

41

42

22

26

23

27

44

27

34

32

- Internet access

37

33

23

39

25

27

43

24

27

30

- Landline

5

6

11

16

21

4

18

7

8

8

- Smartphone

32

41

25

74

33

36

31

23

24

35

- Washing machine

70

93

68

96

76

87

78

48

78

74

3.6.Discrimination and antigypsyism

Perception of discrimination

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated on any ground 14 in the past 5 years, respondents, 16+ (%):

- when looking for work

26

65

65

35

52

36

76

37

56

43

- when at work

13

20

38

23

17

13

41

20

20

19

- when trying to rent or buy housing

(20)

66

(44)

49

(53)

27

76

(13)

32

43

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

- when being in contact with their children's school

(6)

18

(18)

10

16

15

14

10

16

12

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in the past 5 years, respondents, 16+ (%):

- when attending education

(6)

18

(18)

15

37

(7)

(7)

(9)

16

12

- when entering a restaurant, night club or hotel

7

34

28

25

30

25

15

6

32

21

- when in contact with public administration

8

19

37

9

16

12

27

17

26

16

- when using public transport

6

21

28

16

12

11

15

13

29

16

- when entering a shop

4

18

37

30

15

12

34

10

28

17

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated because of being Roma in all areas, respondents, 16+ (%): 

- in the past 5 years

22

61

61

51

49

32

71

29

54

41

- in the past 12 months

14

32

48

35

37

21

47

21

30

26

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated in the past 5 years in 4 areas (when looking for work, at work, looking for housing, in contact with the school of their child), respondents, 16+ (%)*:

- on any ground

24

58

48

38

44

30

61

26

48

37

- based on skin colour

8

39

19

5

23

15

2

13

39

19

- based on ethnic origin or immigrant background

19

37

44

35

42

22

61

23

24

27

Note: *figure for other grounds (religion or religious beliefs, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, other) were based on small number of cases, therefore not published




Reasons for discrimination

Share of Roma who indicated the following main reasons for the most recent incident of discrimination based on ethnic or immigrant background, respondents 16+ (%)*:

when looking for work

when at work

when using healthcare services

when looking for housing

when in contact with children's school

My skin colour/physical appearance

81

72

82

76

72

My first or last name

16

13

16

17

16

My accent/the way I speak [country language]

23

22

28

16

21

The way I am dressed (such as wearing a headscarf/turban)

7

5

16

(4)

7

The reputation of the neighbourhood where I live (my address)

14

16

19

9

16

My citizenship

3

5

5

(1)

(6)

Other reason

5

6

5

11

(7)

Note: *figures for individual countries were based on small number of cases, therefore not published

Reporting discrimination

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated and reported the last incident of discrimination based on their Roma background in the nine EU Member States, areas of life, respondents, 16+ (%)*

when looking for work

6

when at work

8

when using healthcare services

13

when trying to rent or buy housing

10

when being in contact with their children's school

18

when attending education

15

when entering a restaurant, night club or hotel

12

when in contact with public administration

13

when using public transport

10

when entering a shop

8

 

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who felt being discriminated and reported the last incident of discrimination based on their Roma background, OVERALL, respondents, 16+ (%)

14

15

7

5

18

6

(5)

11

18

12

Note: *figures for individual countries were based on small number of cases, therefore not published

Anti-discrimination awareness

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who heard of at least one equality body, respondents, 16+ (%)

37

52

39

10

45

31

17

23

27

29

Share of Roma who know of any organisations that offer support or advice to victims of discrimination, respondents, 16+ (%)

16

21

8

17

22

15

8

9

16

15

Share of Roma who are aware of a law that forbids discrimination, respondents, 16+ (%):

Total

28

55

31

21

54

31

13

32

51

36

Women

24

54

27

21

53

30

10

28

53

34

Men

32

56

36

22

55

31

17

36

50

38

Share of Roma who are aware of campaigns against discrimination in the last 12 months, respondents, 16+ (%)

11

15

6

14

24

10

(4)

9

16

12

Experience of harassment

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma experiencing harassment due to their Roma background, respondents, 16+ (%):

- overall (5 acts) in the 12 months before the survey:

Total

12

56

50

30

31

18

20

27

37

30

Women

12

53

49

30

24

18

23

27

36

29

Men

13

59

51

30

40

17

16

28

39

31

- overall (5 acts) in the 5 years before the survey

15

66

58

34

36

22

28

34

46

36

- in-person (3 acts) in the 12 months before the survey

12

55

50

29

31

17

20

27

36

29

- in-person (3 acts) in the 5 years before the survey

15

66

58

34

35

21

28

34

44

36

- cyber-harassment (2 acts) in the 12 months before the survey

(1)

7

(0)

(2)

(4)

(1)

(0)

(1)

6

3

- cyber-harassment (2 acts) in the 5 years before the survey

(1)

9

(1)

(2)

5

(1)

(0)

(2)

8

4

Share of Roma who experienced the following incidents in the 12 months before the survey due to their Roma background, respondents, 16+ (%):

- offensive or threatening comments

10

38

30

16

26

14

7

20

26

20

- being threatened with violence in person

2

12

6

5

12

5

(0)

8

11

7

- offensive gestures or inappropriate staring

7

44

47

26

21

11

19

18

30

23

- receiving offensive emails or text messages

(0)

5

(0)

(1)

(3)

(0)

(0)

(1)

5

2

- found offensive, personal comments on the internet

(1)

4

(0)

(1)

(3)

(1)

(0)

(0)

3

2

Share of Roma who NOT reported the most recent incident of harassment due to their Roma background (of those experiencing harassment), respondents, 16+ (%)

92

89

99

96

86

95

99

91

84

90

Share of Roma who are aware of a family member or a friend being insulted or called names because of their Roma background in the past 12 months, respondents, 16+ (%)

14

57

49

26

36

17

30

19

43

29

Experience of violence

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who were physically attacked due to their Roma background (out of all respondents), respondents, 16+ (%):

- in the 12 months before the survey

(0)

5

5

(2)

7

2

(0)

3

11

4

- in the 5 years before the survey

(1)

10

9

2

9

5

(1)

4

16

6

Share of Roma who NOT reported the most recent incident of physical attack due to their Roma background, respondents, 16+ (%)

-

68

95

(68)

(70)

(77)

-

89

61

70

Share of Roma who are aware of a family member or a friend being physically attacked because of their Roma background in the past 12 months, respondents, 16+ (%)

5

34

21

8

22

7

7

6

25

13

Policing

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who were stopped by police in the past 5 years and they think it was because they were Roma, respondents, 16+ (%)

(1)

12

30

21

20

9

28

2

6

8

Share of Roma who were stopped by police in the past 5 years and they think it was NOT because they were Roma, respondents, 16+ (%)

6

9

18

25

25

24

(6)

2

12

11

Trust

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma who tend to trust the police, respondents, 16+ (%)

41

33

54

24

41

40

27

48

27

37

Share of Roma who tend to trust a country's legal system, respondents, 16+ (%)

22

31

48

17

28

35

16

40

21

29

Early marriages

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

PT

RO

SK

Average

Share of Roma married for the first time before the age of 18 years, respondents, 16+, by sex (%):

Women

37

(5)

49

36

37

23

45

39

13

29

Men

12

(3)

21

16

22

12

11

17

5

12

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 in FRA (2019). EU MIDIS II – Roma women in nine EU Member States

(1)

2013/C 378/01, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013H1224 %2801 %29 .

(2)

NRCPs of the following Member States reported in 2018 about the implementation of their integration measures in 2017: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, FR, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE, SI, UK. Given the late receipt of the DE report, it could only be included in Annex 1 of this SWD, not in the thematic analysis.

(3)

In 2016, the Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) collected information on the situation of Roma in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The 2011 Roma survey covered the same countries, apart from Croatia. However, information on the situation in Croatia was collected in the UNDP/World Bank/EC 2011 Regional Roma survey .

(4)

Meta-evaluation of Roma inclusion interventions, European Commission, Joint Research centre, 2019.

(5)

The analysis by thematic areas looks for patterns of approaches and does not count the number of beneficiaries or the financial resources invested. This is why such a ‘multiple relevance’ approach is methodologically admissible.

(6)

EC (2017). Commission Staff Working Document. Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016). SWD (2017) 286 final/2: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524737373606&uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0286R%2801 %29 .

(7)

FRA (2018). Transition from education to employment of young Roma in nine EU Member States .

(8)

EC (2017). Commission Staff Working Document. Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016). SWD (2017) 286 final/2: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524737373606&uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0286R%2801 %29 .

(9)

EC (2017). Commission Staff Working Document. Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016). SWD (2017) 286 final/2: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524737373606&uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0286R%2801 %29 .

(10)

EC (2017). Commission Staff Working Document. Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016). SWD (2017) 286 final/2: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524737373606&uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0286R%2801 %29 .

(11)

EC (2017). Commission Staff Working Document. Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016). SWD (2017) 286 final/2: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524737373606&uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0286R%2801 %29 .

(12)

EC (2017). Commission Staff Working Document. Roma integration indicators scoreboard (2011-2016). SWD (2017) 286 final/2: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524737373606&uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0286R%2801 %29 .

(13)

FRA (2018). Working with Roma: Participation and empowerment of local communities. .

(14)

Different grounds of discrimination were also asked about in the area of health, but, due to a routing mistake, this domain cannot be considered for this analysis. Results for this domain are considered in the 12-month overall rate of discrimination based on ethnic or immigrant background. Multiple grounds were not asked about for the category ‘other public or private services’, which includes education, public transport, public administration, restaurant or bar, and shop.

Top

Brussels, 5.9.2019

SWD(2019) 320 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Roma inclusion measures reported under the EU Framework for NRIS

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

Report on the implementation of national Roma integration strategies - 2019

{COM(2019) 406 final}


Table of content

Annex I - Country summaries on EU Member States    

AUSTRIA    

BELGIUM    

BULGARIA    

CYPRUS    

CROATIA    

CZECH REPUBLIC    

DENMARK    

ESTONIA    

FINLAND    

FRANCE    

GERMANY    

GREECE    

HUNGARY    

IRELAND    

ITALY    

LATVIA    

LITHUANIA    

LUXEMBURG    

NETHERLANDS    

POLAND    

PORTUGAL    

ROMANIA    

SLOVENIA    

SLOVAKIA    

SPAIN    

SWEDEN    

UNITED KINGDOM    

Annex II - Assessment of the situation in the enlargement region    

Country summaries on the enlargement region    

ALBANIA    

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA    

KOSOVO    

MONTENEGRO    

NORTH MACEDONIA    

SERBIA    

TURKEY    

Annex I - Country summaries on EU Member States

Introduction

This annex provides country specific information on Member States. Country sections contain a summary of reports by National Roma Contact Points on measures implemented in 2017, followed by a civil society country summary. These civil society country summaries on the Member States are based on coordinated civil society reports drawn up by more than 90 Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) and experts across 27 Member States in the framework of the Roma Civil Monitor EP pilot project managed by the European Commission, DG Justice and Consumers and coordinated by the Center for Policy Studies of the Central European University in partnership with the European Roma Grassroots Organisations Network, the European Roma Rights Centre, the Fundación Secretariado Gitano and the Roma Education Fund. The full country reports are available here: https://cps.ceu.edu/roma-civil-monitor-reports . 1  

In line with the terminology of European institutions and international organisations, the term ‘Roma’ is used here to refer to a number of different groups (e.g. Roma, Sinti, Kale, Gypsies, Romanichels, Boyash, Ashkali, Egyptians, Yenish, Dom, Lom, Rom, Abdal) and includes travellers, without denying the specificities of these groups.



AUSTRIA

Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures

General information

Institution acting as NRCP

Federal Chancellery

Strategic document

Austria has at its disposal integrated measures within the general social inclusion policy to improve the situation of Roma.

Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):

35.000 (0,40% of 8.772.865)

Available options for data collection

Austria does not collect any ethnically-specific statistical data (see thematic area 1).

Summary of the reporting year

The main achievements

From 28 September to 28 November 2016, the National Roma Contact Point conducted an on-line participation procedure consisting of a survey module and a consultation module (https://www.romadialogplattform.gv.at/romadialog/de/home). The kick-off took place in the presence of the competent Secretary of State in the Federal Chancellery and the print and TV media, and was promoted through a large-scale communication strategy organised by the Secretary of State’s press office.

The survey included three questions to ascertain what the Roma think about the need for action to promote their inclusion, and the usefulness to Roma of the Roma dialogue platform. Participation was possible without registration. During the consultation, Roma civil society was able to comment on and assess the draft update of the Roma strategy drawn up by the National Roma Contact Point on the basis of the results of previous years’ Dialogue Platform meetings. Registration was necessary for participation in the consultation.

The draft Roma strategy was revised and finalised on the basis of the comments and suggestions received. Many of the comments received from civil society were taken into account in the final strategy. Thus, for example, as a result of the consultation procedure, Roma associations’ own priorities for the policy areas ‘women’ and ‘young people’ were included in the strategy at their request. The updated strategy was adopted by the Council of Ministers in June 2017.

2017 also saw continued enthusiastic participation in the National Roma Contact Point’s Roma Dialogue Platform Meetings. In this way, the National Roma Contact Point was able to address one of its greatest challenges, namely being able to get in touch with members of the Roma community.

The main challenges

At both of its meetings in 2017, the Dialogue Platform focussed on the work of preserving memories and commemoration, as well as extracurricular youth work.

Exhibitions such as ‘Romane Thana’ or ‘Auf den Spuren der Vergangenheit’ (In the footsteps of the past) highlighted the history of the Roma in Austria and during the Second World War in order to achieve high levels of awareness in the majority population.

The Roma strategy has also been put on the current political agenda owing to the particular commitment of the Secretary of State in the Federal Chancellery. .

Thematic Areas

EDUCATION

35 (18 mainstreamed and 17 targeted) measures in the area of education were reported on in 2017. 25 measures were implemented by public authorities and 10 by civil society, with 17 of the measures being local and 18 national. Funding was provided for 33 out of the 35 measures.

The most important success

In line with the strategy to continue working towards the inclusion of Roma in Austria (Federal Chancellery (BKA) 2017), the focus in the 2017 reporting year was on the structural measures in the framework of educational reform that aim, in particular, to improve equal opportunities in education and to increase pupils’ level of education. Moreover, successful measures aimed specifically at Roma men and women, such as learning support and Roma school mediation, were continued during the reporting period. The educational material for the ‘Romane Thana’ exhibition (www.romane-thana.at) also provides an important stimulus within the framework of Austria’s Roma strategy for giving Austrian schoolchildren greater insight into the lives of Roma and Sinti and their history and stories.

In Austria, parents’ level of education and socio-economic status have a comparatively greater influence on education outcomes than in other EU countries. The 2017 Education Reform Act, which is entering into force gradually, takes this circumstance into account. The Act facilitates the allocation of resources based on pupils’ funding needs and their everyday language, which means that schools facing greater challenges get the support they need. Furthermore, schools will have greater autonomy. The individual schools will be given greater control over their own educational-, organisational- and personnel-related affairs, thus catering for schools’ different needs and allowing the available resources to be used more efficiently. It will be possible in future to tailor the organisation of teaching and the provision of education more to pupils’ individual needs.

In order to achieve successful integration and to improve the social participation of children with insufficient knowledge of German, the Federal Government will further develop early childhood language support. Particular attention will be given to language support for pupils who cannot follow mainstream education owing to insufficient knowledge of German. German language support courses and classes will be launched in the 2018/19 school year for non-regular pupils. The objective of the ‘Ensuring basic knowledge and competences’ project is to achieve a swift and sustainable reduction in the proportion of pupils who leave primary or compulsory education without sufficient basic knowledge and competences.

The most important challenge

The expansion of all-day schools is considered an important challenge and a key factor. The Education Investment Act which entered into force in September 2017 provides for total investment of €750 million by 2032 in the expansion of all-day schools. In that way, the childcare rate in all-day schools should be increased from the current 23% to 40%. Providing all-day schools will also improve work-life balance.

Compulsory education to the age of 18, which has applied since the summer of 2017, is particularly significant in terms of improving the educational outcomes of low-skilled young people. The current rate for young people dropping out of education or training in Austria is 7.4% (2017), which is much lower than the EU average. Austria’s comparatively good figures are due to the fact that more attention has been paid to prevention in recent years. The ‘National Strategy against dropping out of education and training’ is an important instrument in this area.

2017 saw the continuation of the ‘Adult education initiative’ which, since 2012, has enabled young people and adults without sufficient qualifications to access further education paths. It was also decided to continue the support programme until 2021. The purpose of this agreement under Article 15a of the Federal Constitutional Act (B-VG) is to support educational measures in the area of basic education as well as educational measures for the subsequent acquisition of school-leaving qualifications.

The basis for the assessment is the 2018 country report for Austria, SWD(2018) 218 final.

·2017 Education and Training Monitor, Country analysis

·2018 National Reform Programme (Federal Chancellery (BKA))

EMPLOYMENT

21 (9 mainstream and 12 targeted) measures in the area of employment were reported on in 2017. 10 measures were implemented by public authorities and 11 by civil society, with 10 of the measures being local, 19 national and two regional.

The most important success

The specific measures in the field of employment, which are funded under ESF Austria, constitute the most important financial and substantive achievement in Austria’s Roma strategy.

The most important challenge

The main challenge is to set up a functioning implementation structure and to provide NGOs with know-how for these specific projects, in particular taking account of the principle that the target group’s participation is required.

The basis for assessment is the ESF project database and the projects’ quarterly reports.

The situation in this thematic area has improved.

HEALTHCARE

14 (11 mainstream and three targeted) measures in the area of health were reported on in 2017. 9 measures were implemented by public authorities and 5 by civil society, with 6 of the measures being local, 7 national and 1 regional.

The most important success

The Austrian healthcare system is considered one of the best in the world. It is important to maintain these high standards and also make them accessible to marginalised groups. Therefore, outreach activities are organised for Roma men and women. Barriers to access are overcome, for example, through multilingual information materials.

HOUSING

12 (eight mainstream and four targeted) measures in the area of housing were reported on in 2017. Nine measures were implemented by public authorities and three by civil society, with seven of the measures being local, one national and four regional.

The most important success

In principle, the housing situation in Austria is satisfactory, and there are no ghettos, even in conurbations. The widespread existence of extensive social housing plays an important role in this respect. It was also possible to provide persons of no fixed abode with safe places.

In connection with homelessness, various bodies provide temporary accommodation, and also night shelters in winter.

The most important challenge

To provide the growing population with affordable housing options proactively and over the long term.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

20 (five mainstream and 15 targeted) measures in the area of anti-discrimination were reported on in 2017. 11 measures were implemented by public authorities and nine by civil society, with 11 of the measures being local and nine national.

The most important success

From 28 September to 28 November 2016, the National Roma Contact Point conducted an on-line participation procedure. The results show that in terms of Roma inclusion, 39% of the participants in Austria see the need for action with regard to combating discrimination. Thus, the thematic area of anti-discrimination comes in third place after the policy areas of education and employment. This clear outcome and the related call for intensified measures to combat discrimination demonstrate a clear consciousness and awareness of discrimination on the part of Austrian Roma. This is seen as a success.

Over the following year, in addition to the exhibition ‘Auf den Spuren der Vergangenheit’ (In the footsteps of the past) in Vienna’s Laudon Schloss, various seminars and workshops were organised on the subject of raising awareness of anti-Roma prejudices and awareness-raising measures with the objective of making people more conscious of anti-gypsy discrimination and racism in general.

Anti-discrimination workshops organised by the National Contact Point in cooperation with the Ombud for Equal Treatment (Gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft) have been included in the strategy as a direct result of the participation procedure, and are held regularly.

The most important challenge

Following the results of the on-line participation procedure, the National Roma Contact Point will have to consider the central question of which target group-specific actions in the area of legal knowledge and access to law enforcement can bring about an effective improvement. To that end, the National Roma Contact Point is in close contact with the Austrian Ombud for Equal Treatment and the Roma community to develop targeted measures.

The basis for assessment is the 2017 Anti-gypsyism report (- https://www.romadialogplattform.gv.at - Antiziganismusbericht 2017 ( http://www.romano-centro.org/downloads/Antiziganismus_in_Oesterreich_2015-2017_web.pdf ))

MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION

12 (six mainstream and six targeted) measures in the area of multiple discrimination were reported on in 2017. Eight measures were implemented by public authorities and four by civil society, with five of the measures being local, six national and one regional.

The most important success

Anti-discrimination measures go hand in hand with combating multiple discrimination, and therefore the measures for this set of problems are addressed together.

From 28 September to 28 November 2016, the National Roma Contact Point conducted an on-line participation procedure. The survey results showed that in terms of Roma inclusion, 39% of the participants in Austria saw the need for action with regard to combating discrimination, and 12% also saw a specific need for action in the area of women’s empowerment. Thus, as a result of the consultation procedure, Roma civil society’s own priority of ‘women’s empowerment’ was included in the strategy at their request.

The most important challenge

Following the results of the on-line participation procedure, the National Roma Contact Point will have to consider the central question of which target group-specific actions in the area of legal knowledge and access to law enforcement can bring about an effective improvement. To that end, the National Roma Contact Point will cooperate with the Austrian Ombud for Equal Treatment and the Roma community to develop targeted measures.

Furthermore, empowerment activities for vulnerable groups such as women and children will provide training courses specifically to raise their awareness of discrimination by public authorities and also of domestic violence, and to combat the latter if appropriate.

The basis for assessment is, in particular, the work of civil society and its experience reports, which provide important input in shared discussion fora, of which the Roma Dialogue Platform is an example, as well as the 2017 Anti-gypsyism report.

Governance and cooperation

The NRCP is responsible for the cross-sector coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the National Roma Integration Strategy (NRIS).

In its decision of 8 January 2012, the Austrian Council of Ministers noted with approval the setting-up of the National Roma Contact Point in the Federal Chancellery. Since then, the NRCP has carried out its tasks as defined by the EU framework in a comprehensive manner. In particular, it coordinates the drawing-up, further development and implementation of the political measures to support Roma integration. As it has been established in the Federal Chancellery, the NRCP has competence to coordinate all policy areas and levels of government.

In 2017, the Federal Government updated the National Roma Strategy during the 46th meeting of the Council of Ministers.

From 28 September to 28 November 2016 an on-line consultation procedure took place in Austria to draft an updated Roma strategy (= an integrated package of measures). In the context of internal administrative follow-up and finalisation of the draft, the comments and assessments received from Roma civil society resulted in the further development of measures in the policy areas of ‘women’ and ‘young people’. That took place together with, and at the initiative of the National Roma Contact Point.

The NRCP’s participation in decision-making in relation to the implementation of the relevant policies depends on the policy area.

The NRCP facilitates the participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of the NRIS. The Austrian National Roma Contact Point, as the coordinating body, already set up a national Roma Dialogue Platform in June 2012. This platform regularly brings together representatives of the Federal, regional and municipal authorities with civil society associations and science and research experts, providing opportunities for open, inclusive dialogue. Anyone is welcome to participate. In the case of the authorities, representatives from the Ministries for the policy areas specified in the EU Framework regularly take part, but so do representatives from other ministries, as well as regional government representatives (all the Federal Länder are invited), representatives of the Austrian Association of Cities and Municipalities and representatives of municipal authorities. Dates and minutes of meetings are widely published/posted on the Roma website of the Federal Chancellor's Office.

Initially, 30 to 40 people took part in the four- or five-hour meetings of the Roma Dialogue Platform. Since then participation has increased steadily. In 2016, the number of participants reached 50 to 80 people. To ensure that Roma civil-society associations from outside Vienna can also take part in the Dialogue Platform, the Federal Chancellery refunds travel costs upon application. The platform brings Roma-specific concerns to the attention of the authorities, facilitates networking and promotes cooperation and exchanges of experience. The benefit of this has been confirmed by Roma civil society during the on-line survey. The regular presence of representatives of the authorities responsible for (Roma) integration offers Roma civil society easy access to the relevant administrative departments. The focus at meetings will be on the Roma view of the topic under discussion.

The Roma Dialogue Platform was instituted on 27 June 2012, and 18 meetings on subject areas specified in the EU Framework have been held since then. The meetings were initially chaired by the National Roma Contact Point. The 15th to 18th meetings were facilitated by an external facilitator. Since then the Platform has expanded constantly. Around 70 people participated in the 18th Platform meeting. In 2017, participation in the development and planning phase of the platform meetings was extended. For the first time, experts from Roma civil society and representatives of the authorities were involved already at the development and planning stage. The purpose of these ‘planning teams’ is to identify relevant issues and contact persons for the respective platform topic and to come up with common goals for the platform meetings.

Together with representatives of civil society, the concepts behind the dialogue platform have been developed further through building on experiences gained so far. This approach has increased the relevance of Dialogue Platform meetings to civil society. The long-term goal is to develop Roma civil society's ownership of the platform. The platform is intended to provide a stage for the expression of Roma-specific points of view on relevant topics, with the aim of generating as extensive Roma involvement as possible in civil society dialogue throughout Austria.

For more intensive, subject-specific dialogue, an expert group was also formed from members of the Dialogue Platform to deal with the representation of Roma in the media in the context of combating anti-gypsyism. The setting-up of the expert group was initially intended to inform and raise the awareness of opinion multipliers. On the basis of a planned status analysis, Roma civil society should itself, together with media experts, identify measures and objectives. Methods should also be identified for addressing newspaper and television editors and journalists effectively and raising their awareness. Setting up an expert group to discuss the representation of Roma in the media enabled more an in-depth participatory discussion at expert level of a subject area which civil society considers important.

Roma associations, Roma activists, representatives of the Federal, regional and municipal authorities, representatives of the scientific community, and non-Roma NGOs from policy areas relevant to the NRIS all take part in the Roma Dialogue Platform.

Roma associations, Roma activists, representatives of the Federal, regional and municipal authorities, representatives of the scientific community, and non-Roma NGOs from policy areas relevant to the NRIS are involved in monitoring and assessing the NRIS.

There is ongoing, regular dialogue/cooperation between the equality body and the NRCP. Officials from the Ombud for Equal Treatment take part regularly in the Roma Dialogue Platform meetings at the Federal Chancellery. There were two such meetings in 2017.



AUSTRIA

Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor

SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS

Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Education

·To reduce the number of early school leavers, education became compulsory until the age of 18.

·The Roma school mediation or extra-curricular tuition provided by Roma NGOs in public schools is highly appreciated by beneficiaries and school principals.

·Several measures have been adopted to support vulnerable children’s transition to higher levels of education. For example, job-coaching supports students in the last year of compulsory education and in 2018, an ESF call for proposal was launched to support transition from secondary education to higher education or professional education.

·In Viennese public schools, classes in Romani language are offered to a small extent. Currently, four teachers for Romani language were employed by the school authority.

·The Federal Ministry of Education supported the development of teaching resources on Roma and Sinti during the Holocaust and on Roma history and culture aimed for 5th grade children.

·Despite clear evidence on the low educational level and the high demand from civil society for Roma targeted educational programmes, the implementation of the NRIS did not bring much progress and did not set ambitious objectives in this area. Recent reforms of the educational system jeopardise achievement of NRIS’s targets (e.g. cutting the available budget for the extension of pre-school education).

·Austrian education system is highly selective. Pupils with education problems risk to finish in special schools for disabled children or in integration classes.

·Children, whose parents are unemployed, have lower chances to access public kindergartens or all-day primary schools because children of parents who work have priority. This often applies to Roma children. Moreover, fees for these represent an additional barrier for poor.

·Some public and school authorities deny school access to immigrant Roma children due to their families’ non-permanent legal status.

·Further targeted measures to increase the share of Roma youngsters completing vocational training, upper secondary school and higher education should be adopted.

Employment

·Mainstream public employment services are accessible to Roma.

·There is an increase in range and number of ESF-funded Roma-specific programmes aimed at employment offered by NGOs since 2015.

·Legal support and provisions against discrimination exist.

·Recent immigrants often face language barriers in using the public employment services and employment.

·There is no systematic monitoring of discriminatory practices, except by NGOs.

·Enforcement of legal provisions against discrimination is not actively promoted.

Healthcare

·Access to healthcare beyond emergency care for people without health insurance (many of them migrant Roma) is there but concentrated in Vienna and Graz.

·In 2018, a national health research institution together NGOs applied for a research project to identify specific barriers faced by Roma in early childhood interventions and to develop training for health care professionals.

·Despite various barriers that Roma face in access (discrimination, language barrier, fees, low literacy and trust), NRIS does not consider healthcare a priority and Roma-targeted programmes are not in place.

·In cooperation with Roma civil society, health literacy among Roma should be fostered and prevention measures should be promoted in the communities.

·For health care professionals, awareness raising as regards the situation and the concerns of the Roma should be put on the agenda.

Housing

·The vast majority of Roma have access to secure and affordable housing, whereby municipal housing, social benefits and housing allowances play an important role.

·There are no indications that Roma are discriminated in the access to municipal housing, nor that there is a concentration of Roma in a certain area or housing complex.

·The NRIS does not address housing.

·Roma migrants find themselves in a disadvantaged position in the area of housing compared with non-Roma migrants or the non-migrants (including being homeless or living in informal dwellings, and facing discrimination).

·Access to municipal housing is only possible if certain criteria, among them local connections are fulfilled, which puts migrant Roma in disadvantaged position.

·For people living in informal dwellings, access to basic amenities is not secured.

HORIZONTAL MEASURES

Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Anti-discrimination

·Racial Equality Directive is implemented through comprehensive federal law on equal treatment.

·Low penalties provided for in the Equal Treatment Act do not fulfil the Directive’s requirement to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”.

·Several cases of ethnic profiling and discriminatory behaviour by police and judiciary have been reported, and police are very rarely sanctioned for such behaviour.

·Occasionally, repression is used against migrant Roma with the aim to make them move back to their country of origin.

·Awareness raising and training on combating anti-Roma prejudice and discrimination should be provided for law enforcement agencies.

Fighting antigypsyism

·State recognises antigypsyism, there is a chapter on combatting antigypsyism in the NRIS, specific objectives and activities.

·Relevant legislative framework is in place.

·State financially supports Roma NGO to publish a report on acts of antigypsyism every second year.

·Ombudsperson for equal treatment is active and supports the civil society report on antigypsyism by providing equality data – data on cases motivated by antigypsyism.

·Roma genocide is becoming more visible and recognised.

·There have been no efforts to counter antigypsyism on the local level.

·A public system for monitoring of antigypsyism is not in place. Some cases are brought to court because of the civil society monitoring report, however, not all of them are being investigated and sanctioned properly.

·There is a need for funding to fight racism in general. The National Action Plan on Integration should include a clear provision on combatting racism.

Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma

·The NRIS provides for counselling services for Roma women.

·Despite the ESF Roma programme in the field of employment does not include specific reference to youth, in practice it improved the outreach to Roma youth.

·Roma youth were invited to join the No Hate Speech Committee and to participate in an informal setting for exchange on youth topics between the administration and representatives of youth organisations.

·While the NRIS includes a higher enrolment rate of Roma children in pre-school education as an objective, there are no measures planned in this field.

·During the revision process of the NRIS, in 2016, Roma NGOs claimed that there would be need for Roma-specific youth work; however, this point was eventually left out from the strategy.

·The NRIS does not include health as a priority area, while Roma women’s and girls’ health issues should be addressed in a sensitive and targeted way.

·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT+ issues.

STRUCTURAL MEASURES

Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Stakeholder involvement at the central level

·NRIS implementation is coordinated and monitored the National Roma Contact Point (NCCP) under the Federal Chancellery.

·In 2016, NRCP organized an online consultation on the NRIS in order to enhance engagement with the Roma civil society, yet it triggered a low response rate.

·ESF-funded programme for Roma empowerment in the labour market brought a significant extension to Roma-targeted projects.

·The areas of health and housing were removed from the NRIS in 2016 without justification, while in education there is a commitment to the existing projects.

·Mainstreaming and coordination of Roma inclusion across relevant ministries is rather weak. The NRCP’s capacity is limited (one person).

Civil participation and empowerment

·Empowerment and strengthening Roma civil society are explicit agendas in the NRIS. NRCP organises activities to achieve this objective and funding for NGOs’ development is planned.

·Autochthonous Roma are represented through an Ethnic Group Advisory Board, which can consult the federal government and ministers in issues regarding Roma and make suggestions to improve their situation.

·The NRCP increases contacts between the civil society and the central level, through the Dialogplatform meetings, which was established in 2012.

·There are various Roma NGOs with different activities and representing different groups of Roma.

·Ethnic Group Advisory Board for Roma was not involved in NRCP development.

·Most of the Roma living in Austria originally come from another country. Due to the growing restrictions to acquire Austrian citizenship, many Roma are not allowed to vote or be represented in the Ethnic Group Advisory Board for Roma.

Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level

·On a small scale, there is funding for some Roma-related projects that is given out of the budgets of the state governments.

·Occasionally, the representatives of the state administrations and cities attend the dialogue platform organised by the NRCP.

·At the local level there is little awareness about the NRIS and little awareness about the responsibility for local level implementation.

Data collection

·Data on ethnic minorities is not collected in Austria in the overall census due to historical reasons.

·In the field of employment and education there is some data available about migrated/migrant Roma in Vienna.

·In education, there was a participatory study on the educational situation of Roma in Austria led by NGOs.

·There are very few available data on the situation of the Roma in Austria.

·The policy on Roma integration is mostly not evidence-based and it is hardly possible to measure progress if there is no data.

Funding for civil society

·There are two funding programmes that explicitly target Roma: the funding for Ethnic Groups (Federal Chancellery) and the ESF-funding for Roma-Empowerment in the labour market (Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection).

·Grants are awarded according to the principle of result-based funding.

·Recognised ethnic groups, including autochthonous Roma, receive funding to uphold their organisational structures and to implement projects. In 2014 and 2015, Roma received around 11 per cent of the total budget for all the six ethnic groups. The total budget for all the ethnic groups is around 3.8 million EUR every year since 2009.

·Funding for anti-racist activities is hardly available in Austria and many Roma NGOs had or still have a strong focus on promoting Roma culture.

·The target group of the funding instrument for ethnic groups is the Ethnic Group of Roma, which means that only the so-called autochthonous Roma and Sinti could benefit. Therefore, the majority of Roma living in Austria, who migrated from former Yugoslavia and other European countries since the 1960s are not directly targeted.

·Other relevant programmes such as the Nationale Integrationsförderung (National Funds for Integration) do not contain a reference to Roma or the NRIS and there is only one Roma-specific project funded out of this important programme.

Example of promising practice

Within the field of employment some promising practices have been developed by civil society within the ESF-funding on “Roma-Empowerment in the Labour market”. For example, it allowed to extend the Roma School Mediation Program in Vienna (employment of 3 Roma school mediators) which was well received by school directors and teachers and Roma pupils and their families. Furthermore, the work of a Roma social worker at local level could be extended to one full employment position which also brought useful insights into the obstacles faced by Roma women and men in the labour market. However, sustainability of these initiatives will be dependent on transfer of these initiatives into relevant institutions and political and financial support from the respective institutions (e.g. Regional School administration and support from Ministry of Education and Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs). Furthermore, along the lines of the EU Framework and National Roma Inclusion Strategy, the initiatives should strongly interlink with other policy areas, in particular in fields like health care and education.

Most important priorities to be addressed

·Youth-work and youth empowerment for Roma should become a priority, in order to ensure the support to further education and training for Roma youngsters.

·To ensure sustainability of ESF-funded promising practices, in particular with regard to Roma school mediation program, social work provided by local level Roma organisations, seminars for administration on antigypsyism and other resourceful initiatives.

·To invest in building up data on the situation of Roma for improved planning of the post 2020 Roma strategy and engage beyond EU funded project work dedicating national funds for Roma civil society initiatives promoting Roma inclusion.

·Projects promoting education and interlinking with other areas, e.g. employment, health should be prioritised with a strong antigypsyism and gender/diversity approach.

·Roma history and culture as well as antigypsyism should be further introduced into school curricula and should be dealt with in connection with other topics like diversity, social exclusion, minorities or equality.

·State institutions should foster research on the history of the persecution and annihilation of Roma, Sinti, Yenish and other people stigmatised as “Gypsies” before and during the Nazi regime and research on antigypsyism in post-war era.    

·The Federal government and the city of Vienna should decide on building a memorial at a central location in Vienna that enables commemoration and that gives visitors information.


BELGIUM

Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures

General information

Institution acting as NRCP

The Belgian NRCP is an administrative working group in which the competent administrations of the federal government and the regions and communities are represented. PPS Social Integration (federal administration) chairs and coordinates the NRCP.

Strategic document

Belgium has an integrated set of policy measures within the broader social inclusion policies for improving the situation of Roma

Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):

30.000 (0,26% of 11.365.834)

Available options for data collection

The country does not collect statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity

Summary of the reporting year

The main achievements/challenges

The main achievement is the continuation of the national Roma Platform. The main challenges were securing active participation of Roma communities and keeping the political commitment to Roma integration.

It is also important to bear in mind that in its integrated sets of policy measures, Belgium recognizes that the Roma are a disadvantaged group that are extremely vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty. Social exclusion refers to a process in which people do not (or no longer) manage to participate in society. There is a break in one or more areas of life, and the generally accepted standard of living is no longer achieved. Poverty is often the result of this process. Due to its multi-dimensionality, the fight against poverty and social exclusion therefore requires an integrated approach at several policy levels. The integrated set of policy measures opts for this necessarily integrated approach and must be seen as a thematic sub-plan with a targeted approach within the more general strategy of fighting poverty and social exclusion. Here also the federal poverty reduction plan must be mentioned.

Thematic Areas

In 2017, 27 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Belgium. 10 of them were mainstream and 17 targeted. 11 were implemented by a public authority at national level, 15 by a public authority at regional level and one as a joint partnership.

Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Belgium also reported two mainstream measures as relevant for poverty reduction through social investment, three targeted measures relevant for empowerment, three measures relevant for monitoring and evaluation (one mainstream and two targeted), one targeted measure relevant for the area of culture and five relevant for other areas not specified in the Council Recommendation (one mainstream and four targeted).

In line with the integrated approach to Roma integration, some of the measures implemented are relevant for more than one thematic area. This is why the total number of measures reported as relevant for individual thematic areas is higher than the total number of implemented measures.

EDUCATION

In 2017, four measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. All four measures were targeted, implemented by a public authority at regional level.

No information is available to assess the situation in this thematic area.

EMPLOYMENT

In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of employment. It was a targeted measure implemented by a public authority at national level.

No information is available to assess the situation in this thematic area.

HEALTHCARE

In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of healthcare. It was a mainstream measure implemented by a public authority at national level.

No information is available to assess the situation in this thematic area.

HOUSING

In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing. Four measures were mainstream. All five were implemented by a public authority; four at regional and one at national level.

No information is available to assess the situation in this thematic area.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION

In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. One measure was mainstream. Two were implemented by a public authority and one by joint partnership. One measure was implemented at national and one at regional level.

No information is available to assess the situation in this thematic area.

Governance and cooperation

No specific budget was allocated to the NRCP.

The tasks related to the implementation of the integrated sets of policy measures are included in regular tasks of the employees of concerned administrations.

The NRCP is contributing to cross-sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the integrated sets of policy measures. In particular, the NRCP has a role in:

·Monitoring and annual reporting on the implementation of the integrated sets of policy measures.

·Making recommendations on needed changes and the adjustment of the integrated sets of policy measures.

·Ensuring the link between the integrated sets of policy mea