52019SC0320

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

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)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(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

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

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 measures and the European framework. The NRCP facilitates the operation of a national Roma platform. At least twice a year consultation takes place with the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities. At least once a year, the NRCP organizes a meeting with the authorities responsible for the strategic planning of the use of EU funds. The process of cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the integrated sets of policy measures In 2015 the working of the Belgian NRCP was evaluated. Adjustments of its composition, tasks, missions etc. were necessary. The reason for this revision stems from the nature of its composition. The current Belgian integrated set of policy measures is a master plan which outlines the challenges associated with Roma integration and specifies Belgium’s objectives for Roma integration. Within the integrated sets of policy measures each authority (federal government, regions and communities) takes action in accordance with its powers. So, in order to optimize, harmonize and coordinate the respective Roma integration policies, coordination and cooperation between the various bodies is needed. For this coordination a working group on Roma issues was set up by the interministerial conference on social integration (2011). This working group was also appointed as NRCP and was composed of federal government representatives, community and regional government representatives, representatives of the federations of Belgian cities and municipalities, representatives of organizations that work with the Roma, representatives of organisations that represent the Roma communities and external experts. In theory, this working group was thus the reflection of a broad representation of stakeholders. In practice however its composition with representatives of the political authorities and civil society undermined its sustainable character and impeded open dialogue. In 2016 the Belgian NRCP became an administrative working group in which the competent administrations of the federal government and the regions and communities are represented. PPS Social Integration chairs and coordinates the NRCP. In 2017 the NRCP worked in the same composition. The NRCP participates in decision making processes regarding DEVELOPMENT of relevant policies. The NRCP is not involved in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies or their IMPLEMENTATION The NRCP facilitates participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of integrated sets of policy measures via the national Roma platform which was created in 2016. The important stakeholders certainly to be involved in the national Roma Platform are: ·civil society organizations, ·research institutions and universities, ·Roma self-organizations, ·Roma mediators and neighbourhood stewards, ·field workers, f.eg. working for the Belgian public social welfare centers, ·administrations, ·advisory boards, ·aid organizations (f.eg. youth organizations), ·social partners, A regular dialogue/cooperation is established between the Equality body and the NRCP through structural dialogue. Also, the equality body is member of the core team of the national Roma platform. There is no baseline against which progress for the implementation of the integrated set of policy measures for improving the situation of Roma can be assessed. There are no measurable targets either.

BELGIUM
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The Belgian education system includes several tools to support diversity in schools. ·In certain cities, Traveller children can attend language classes on-site several days a week. ·In Flanders, the NRIS mentioned additional funds for schools with a significant number of Travellers, in order for them to develop more tailor-made approaches to education. There does not seem to be details available on the use of these funds. ·For Wallonia, the NRIS planned on the deployment of Roma mediators. However, only one Roma mediator has been hired since.	·Extreme poverty even homelessness that many Roma face has negative impact on school attendance. ·The educational system not adapted to mobile lifestyle is a reason for low school participation among Travellers. ·Many Roma face school discrimination, with enrolment denials explained by their so-called “learning lag” or out of fear of “attracting too many disadvantaged children”.
Employment
·The focus is mainly on social services for recent immigrants from Eastern Europe; some authorities hire cultural mediators, and some of them are Roma. ·Some NGOs provided intercultural training for social workers in the public sector. ·Public employment services’ training programmes are available for Roma youth. ·The public sector appeared to be a non-negligible source of employment for foreigners. ·Legal provisions against discrimination in access to jobs and in workplace exist and are monitored. The national equality body reports a deteriorating trend in discrimination based on race, ethnicity or country of origin.	·The mainstream services do not have safeguards to ensure access for Travellers. ·Training for youth should be actively promoted. ·Roma rarely report experienced discrimination in accessing jobs and in workplace, according to experts from the national equality body. ·There are no initiatives to raise awareness or sensitise employers about discrimination against Roma.
Healthcare
·Intercultural mediators funded by the federal government are employed in a number of hospitals; the programme improves communication and linguistic barriers. ·Several projects are developed to ensure access to basic health care services to the most vulnerable groups of population, involving NGOs. Some project target specifically Roma. ·A pilot project concerning healthcare of the Roma run in Sint-Niklaas, with the support of the Flemish government. ·Another noteworthy initiative to counter the obstacles to Travellers’ access to health services is in place on the Travellers’ transit site in Ghent.	·People residing in Belgium without authorisation (many of them vulnerable Roma citizens of other countries or stateless persons) have restricted access to health care, which is limited to emergency medical assistance (EMA). ·Fines for non-urgent health care services under the EMA were introduced, adversely affecting many Roma. ·Many Roma who are entitled to access healthcare services are not aware of the fact. ·None of about a hundred intercultural mediators currently employed in the health sector is of Roma background. The state should support training and employment of Roma mediators.
Housing
·The Flemish Housing Inspectorate (FHI) initiated tackling the slumlord phenomenon. ·Some Social Welfare Offices have launched projects of reintegration through housing for Roma, and some Roma mediator programs have also been launched. ·In Flanders and Wallonia, some public authorities were financially supported in the acquisition and equipment of sites for Travellers. Since 2004, the Flemish Community covers 100 per cent of the accommodation costs of residential sites for Travellers. ·CMGVR (Centre de Médiation des Gens du. Voyage et des Roms en Wallonie) plays a role of counselling and mediation between stakeholders, including Travellers and local populations. ·There are some key cities that have developed strategies to promote the inclusion of migrants, among them Roma.	·Discrimination in housing prevails and remains largely unaddressed. Evictions take place throughout the year, including winter. ·Several of the main cities have witnessed the development of slums inhabited mostly by Roma families (20-50 people). ·Measures to tackle homelessness are generally conceived for single adults and not for families with children, which makes them unsuited for most Roma in need. ·There is neither sufficient, nor compulsory measures organising Travellers’ temporary stay in any of the three regions. ·Whereas the NRIS wanted to build on abandoned dilapidated buildings e.g. in Brussels to resolve housing needs (even if temporarily), squats have been criminalised.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The antidiscrimination law explicitly allows the use of ‘situation testing’ in order to prove the existence of discrimination. ·National Equality Body (UNIA) is active in fighting discrimination; it targets the general society, but also specifically public authorities and private companies. ·UNIA offers a service of individual support and assistance for victims of discrimination and cooperates with local administrations and civil society.	·By the anti-discrimination law, the burden of proof resting with the victim. This is a significant barrier for effective protection. Moreover, very few Roma file complaints of alleged discrimination due to mistrust or fear of retaliation. ·UNIA should engage in proactive outreach to Roma communities through its regional offices to increase accessibility of legal support and reinforce mutual trust. ·There are no official temporary halting sites for Travellers. Local authorities that previously allowed families to stay on their land increasingly resort to forced evictions, often carried out in winter. ·Reports by Roma of ethnic profiling and harsh treatment are frequent. In 2015, federal police in Flanders were using a ‘Gypsy’ tag in their national internal database (UNIA protested).
Fighting antigypsyism
·UNIA includes measures to combat antigypsyism in its 2016-2018 Strategy. ·UNIA has been active against antigypsyism; it has initiated awareness-raising campaigns, made recommendations to national and regional authorities, and supports NGOs. ·NGOs organise activities (campaigns, training for professionals in public services) aimed at awareness raising, sometimes with cooperation with public authorities.	·Antigypsyism has not been more widely recognised at the national level. ·There is a lack of systematic monitoring of acts of antigypsyism. There is also need for prevention and mediation to tackle the growth of hate-speech. ·State authorities should take responsibility to educate relevant officials to prevent and combat antigypsyism. ·Roma are not reporting on acts of antigypsyism. Coupled with the lack of political interest, this leads to under-documentation of hate-speech and hate-crime.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Within the framework of the NRIS, a labour market initiative, started in 2008, and has been continued by the Vorming Centrum Groep INTRO, in Molenbeek; The initiative aimed to improve youth employment, with the involvement of Roma mediators. ·Since 2016, Roma have access to the “integration path” set up for foreigners and people of foreign origin in Wallonia. This support is intended to help them learn French language, to have a basic knowledge of society, to increase their opportunities of participating in society, to find employment, and to support their children’s schooling.	·The participation in preschool education of Traveller children remains a challenge, as currently there are no education services adapted to a mobile lifestyle.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·NRIS, adopted in 2012, advocates for a comprehensive approach including 2020 objectives: participation, access to education, employment, healthcare, housing, migrations monitoring, social integration, political coordination, anti-discrimination and data collection. ·Inter-ministerial working group on Roma inclusion serves as National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) and is responsible for evaluations of NRIS implementation or formulation of recommendations on its adjustments. ·National Roma Platform (NRP) was launched in 2016 with the aim to formulate recommendations to decision-makers, and to participate in the evaluation of the national strategy. ·UNIA is a member of the NRP steering committee and has at least two formal meetings with the NRCP every year. ·Since 2012, the Flemish Department of Interior Affairs has its own action plan: the Vlaamse Actieplan MOE (Roma)-Migranten. Officially, it targets all immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, but according to most stakeholders it is tailor-made for Roma migrants.	·Currently no person of Roma or Traveller descent is directly involved in the national and regional politics outside of informal consultation. ·There are no longer any Roma or Travellers, nor civil society representatives represented amongst the permanent members of the NRCP.
Civil participation and empowerment
·At the federal level, a National Council of Roma, Sinti and Travellers (National Roma Council) was created by the Minister to Equal Opportunities following the production of the national strategy.	·Several Roma organisations and representatives were consulted in the preparation of the national strategy, but their opinions were weakly considered in the final NRIS. On this ground, soon after the strategy was released, several civil society organisations involved in the consultation process distanced themselves from its content. ·Since 2012, no consultation was organised with the civil society concerning NRIS.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·In Flanders, the VZW Integratie-Inburgering is in charge of implementing the Flemish integration policies and decrees (notably the civil integration program: a year of civic lessons and Flemish language classes plus counselling for socio-professional trajectory). They offer information and tailored guidance to local authorities and services with regards to diversity management. Two cities in Flanders have their own Integratie-Inburgering agencies: Antwerp and Gent. ·In Brussels, following different calls for proposals from the Region of Brussels, more and more municipalities get involved into Roma integration projects, notably through their public social assistance centres (CPAS) and Prevention and Proximity Services. ·A call for proposals of the Region of Brussels (end of 2015) offers subsidies for the creation and accommodation of Travellers sites. ·Over the last few years, several municipalities started recruiting Roma mediators, who are often attached to the public social assistance centres or to prevention or proximity services. Mediators are widely reported to play a crucial role in facilitating both the communication with Roma and their inclusion in the wider society.	·There is currently no official site dedicated to hosting Travellers in Brussels. End 2011, one site was inaugurated in Haren, but it closed after a year due to management problems, and it never reopened.
Data collection
·The Belgian Strategy for Roma inclusion distinguishes between the Roma and Travellers communities. ·Ways of data collection differ from one Region to another; Wallonia remains in a relatively restrictive frame when it comes to the production of “ethnic categories”, while the Flemish Community authorises certain forms of data collection.	·Ethnic profiling and data collection are prohibited in Belgium. There is a need for more qualitative research and data, which correspond better to the realities of the Roma and Traveller communities.
Funding for civil society
·Since 2012, Belgium is involved in ROMED, the European training program for Roma mediators. The training cycles are organised in the frame of the national strategy for Roma Integration, with the main objective of fostering the participation and empowerment of the Roma population within the Belgian society. ·NGO’s with a social and/or cultural orientation have access to general public funding to fight exclusion, promote race and gender equality, support social and educative promotion, foster migrant inclusion. In this respect, they focus their projects on Roma inclusion.	·Some important funding measures are only available through public tenders (mainly local authorities, CPAS, Provinces). ·Roma and Travellers NGOs, because of their lack of human and financial resources, have no real access to funding for their activities.
Example of promising practice
Local Roma NGO acts to support school education of both Roma and Traveller children: Mobile animations with Traveller children and school support for Roma pupils. Since 2004, the CMGVR has insured a regular presence on the field with Travellers groups in the frame of a “mobile school support” project. The aim surely is not to replace school itself, but to provide complementary support to Traveller families and children in their learning process (with a focus on reading, writing and calculation). The families who are interested in organizing these classes on-site call upon the educational team of the CMGVR, which then come on site with a mobile home with a capacity of up to ten children. To support Roma children, the CMGVR has developed a project addressed to Roma families willing to learn French, which a requisite for their integration in Belgium. The project is based on the acknowledgement that improving French language skills is a key tool to develop all other competences. These French language reinforcement sessions are organized mostly within school buildings, but always outside class hours.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·To establish fields for Travellers’ residential and temporary stay in order to reduce forced evictions and to improve the relationship with the sedentary population. ·To develop and promote of intercultural mediation to improve the socio-economic inclusion of Roma and Travelers. Intercultural mediators should belong to Roma or Travellers community, have a good knowledge of public and civil society institutions and be fluent in their community language as well as national language. ·To ensure the official consultation and participations of Travellers and Roma leaders/representatives in all policy decisions in which they are an explicit target category. ·To recognise antigypsyism as a specific form of racism in order to establish targeted programs to combat it. ·To recognise Roma as a persecuted and segregated minority in asylum procedures.

BULGARIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Secretariat of the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration Issues, Administration of the Council of Ministers
Strategic document	Bulgaria has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	750.000 (10,56% of 7.101.859)
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the standardized European Social Surveys (EU SILC, Labour Force Survey etc.), Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue), Data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The implementation of the strategic objectives of the NRIS on local level: The positive step is that the existence of a adopted by the municipal council municipal plan for Roma integration is an explicit condition for applying for schemes and programs under the Operational Programs 2014-2020 (OP HRD and OP Science and Education for Smart Growth) mainly under the Investment priority Socio-economic integration of marginalized groups such as Roma. A Mechanism for joint work of the institutions on enrollment in the educational system and prevention of dropping out of children and students at compulsory school age was endorsed by the Government on 4th of July 2017. Increasing the number of qualified Roma, working in the healthcare system. Development of mediatorship and different forms of work in and for the community. The established network of health mediators is an achievement for Bulgaria and the Ministry of Healthcare. The health mediators’ network is growing with each year. In 2016 the health mediators were 195, in 110 targeted municipalities. For 2017 the state budget plans funds for 215 health mediators in 115 municipalities.
The main challenges
One of the challenges we face is the implementation of the strategic objectives of the NRIS on local level. In this regard, the Regional strategies and municipal plans have developed under the methodological guidance of the NRCP. The municipal plans are based on an adequate analysis of the needs and characteristics of the local communities. Last two years most of the municipalities actualized their action plans until 2020. Mayors, representatives of Roma NGOs, local initiatives groups, experts of regional and municipal administrations were actively involved in this process. There is a positive trend towards the better development of local action plans; they have become more specific and targeted to the needs of local communities. But there is still a need for much more explicit and specifically targeted measures from the municipalities to reach to the vulnerable people and to be able to solve specific problems on the ground and to achieve the sustainability. The problems facing the socio-economic integration of marginalized communities such as the Roma have a complex character thus an integrated approach is needed combining interventions in the following areas: improving access to employment; improving access to education; improving access to social and health services, as well as providing decent housing. The challenge is to continue to implement and to update the integrated approach during the current period 2014-2020. A serious problem is the lack of health insurance among the Roma population, which limits the access to healthcare. One of the big challenges is the monitoring of the implementation of the NRIS. We hope that the System of monitoring, evaluation and control of the NRIS will be a reliable tool for developing and improving policies, incl. to assess their effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 56 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Bulgaria, 41 mainstream and 15 - targeted. 54 were implemented by a public authority (51 at national level and three local). One was implemented as "joint partnership" and one – by a different type of entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Bulgaria also reported one mainstream measure as relevant for the area of local action and one in the area of culture, also mainstream. 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
17 measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "education", seven mainstream and 10 targeted. One measure was implemented in a joint partnership and 15 - by a public authority. 14 measures were implemented by a public authority at national level, one by a public authority at local, and one as joint partnership and one by a different type of entity.
The most important success
Since entry into force of the Pre-school and School Education Act in 2016, inclusive education has been a priority education policy. It is an integral part of the right to education and is implemented in accordance with the principle of ensuring access to support for personal development for every child or student according to their individual needs in the view of the possibility of difficulties in the process of education and inclusion and the need for appropriate support. Within education procedures during programming period 2007-2013 was gained experience and lessons learned for implementation of such projects, including the integration of marginalised groups. On that bases support is continuing within Operational Programme “Regions in growth” 2014-2020, Priority Axis 1 “Sustainable and integrated urban development” and Priority Axis 3 “Regional educational infrastructure”. Priority Axis 1 is implemented by Integrated plans for urban regeneration and development (IPURDs) which are defined as urban strategies setting out integrated actions for sustainable urban development, in accordance with Art. 7 of the ERDF Regulation 1301/2013. Integrated plans determine integrated and interlinked projects based on the needs and compliance with the local documents, incl. in the field of Roma integration in education. Target value to be achieved in 2018 under this procedure is 14 395 children benefiting from support educational infrastructure. Under Priority Axis 3 is supported educational infrastructure with national significance and the beneficiaries are the Ministry of culture, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Ministry of Education, municipalities and universities. Target value to be achieved in 2018 is 6304 children benefiting from support educational infrastructure under priority Axis 3 “Regional Educational Infrastructure” of OPRG.
The most important challenge
The education process aims at early discovery of the talents and abilities of each child and student, encouragement of the development and realization, as well as formation of sustainable attitudes and motivation for lifelong learning. The process involves engagement of the state, municipalities, non-profit legal entities and other stakeholders and the parties exchange views on education and at this respect the efforts are permanent. The challenges in measures related to educational infrastructure are mainly in the implementation of project activities, which need to be tailored to the learning process and to be carried out mainly during the summer vacation of the students.
The situation in this thematic area improved
EMPLOYMENT
18 measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "employment", 14 mainstream and four targeted. One measure was implemented in a joint partnership and 17 - by a public authority.
The most important success
In 2017, 46 293 unemployed who identified themselves as Roma were covered by different labour market activities (motivation, active behavior on the labour market, vocational guidance, training and employment) while in 2016 their number was 30 757. In 2017 employment was ensured for 19 144 unemployed Roma, the majority of whom 15 438 started work in the primary labour market (on non-subsidized jobs). Starting work in the primary labour market is a prerequisite for ensuring sustainable employment and obtaining income from work in the real economy. The main factors contributing to the fact that in 2017 the most of unemployed Roma started work in the primary labour market (on non-subsidized jobs) is the economic growth and the improved labour market situation characterized by the increase in employment and decrease in unemployment as well as the labour mediation services provided to unemployed Roma by the labour mediators in the Labour Offices. Initiatives especially targeted at Roma employment also contribute to their integration such as organization of Roma job fairs, provision of labour mediation services by Roma mediators. Roma mediators motivate the economically inactive persons of Roma origin for registration with the Labour Offices in order to be able to use employment and training services. As a result of their work in 2017, 5 596 economically inactive Roma were activated, i.e. registered at the Labour Offices.
The most important challenge
Among the main challenges hindering the labour market integration of Roma are the lack of activity and interest in the job search, low literacy, lack of work experience and qualification, low motivation to work. The basis for the above assessments is the administrative statistics of the Employment Agency and experts’ assessments.
The situation in this thematic area improved
HEALTHCARE
16 measures were reported as relevant thematic area "healthcare", 15 mainstream and one targeted. All 16 were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The biggest success in 2017 is the total number of performed preventive examinations and laboratory tests. With the activities carried out by mobile teams in the country continued approaches for operation in cross-sectoral teams of municipal administrations, RHI, medical professionals and institutions, NGOs and health mediators. This model of integrated joint cooperation could serve as a basis for an integrated approach in the community for prevention of socially significant diseases and solving issues in health, social, demographic and educational aspect.
The most important challenge
Some common challenges and difficulties are highlight concerning the Roma community in general as follows: unregularly health insurance which restricts access to medical care; not enough general practitioners in the Roma community, which delay early prophylactics and detection of diseases.
HOUSING
Three measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "housing", all three mainstream and implemented by a public authority. One was implemented at national level and two - at local.
The most important success
Within the pilot integrated Housing Scheme during programming period 2007-2013 was gained experience and lessons learned for implementation of projects for integration of marginalised groups. On that bases support is continuing within Operational Programme “Regions in growth” 2014-2020,Priority Axis 1 “Sustainable and integrated urban development”. Priority Axis 1 is implemented by Integrated plans for urban regeneration and development (IPURDs) which are defined as urban strategies setting out integrated actions for sustainable urban development, in accordance with Art. 7 of the ERDF Regulation 1301/2013. Integrated plans determine integrated and interlinked projects based on the needs and compliance with the local documents, incl. in the field of Roma integration. Implementation of IPURDs – investment programs and project proposals. The investment programmes should include a list of projects that are selected by the beneficiaries and included in the relevant IPURD. Indicative eligible activities – social housing, social, educational, sports and culture infrastructure, urban environment, energy efficiency measures, urban transport. One of the result under relevant IPURD is to improve housing conditions for marginalized groups, including and Roma, as a major step to combat the poverty and social exclusion.
The most important challenge
An important issue for social housing projects is to achieve support from the local community before applying with the projects. The most important challenge faced for social housing projects is to ensure targeted work with the local community, including awareness raising campaigns in order to obtain the necessary public support and social tolerance for projects aimed at improving the living conditions of vulnerable groups, including Roma
The situation in this thematic area remained the same
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
Seven measures were reported as relevant thematic area "anti-discrimination", four mainstream and three targeted. All seven were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
In 2017 were carried out 1177 trainings in the workplace during which were trained 22 188 police officers from the Sofia Metropolitan Directorate of the MoI and the Regional Directorates of the MoI and the Gendarmerie Directorate of the General Directorate “National Police”. The police presence in areas with compact Roma population has been strengthened. In those places are organized systematically police operations for preventing escalate the tension and timely reaction in cases of received signals for committed crimes and public order violations. The important success is related to the monitoring and control of the respect for rights of children in educational establishments, hospitals, specialised institutions for children and social services. It is of great importance for the improvement of the quality of services provided for children and ensuring the rights of children. Success was achieved also in prevention of child abandonment in maternity hospitals and early prevention of risks of abandonment and negligence of children at risk from the Roma community. This is very important with a view of planning of adequate measures and activities for prevention of birth at an early age. The aim is to reduce the number of children in specialized institutions, guaranteeing their right to grow up in a family environment, and to improve their access to education and employment. The achieved access is due to the inspections that were carried out in 2017, namely: 414 inspections of educational institutions, hospitals, and providers of social services for children, as well as the 72 inspections on general practitioners, covering 151 cities and 120 220 patients, of whom 23 627 children, including Roma.
The most important challenge
Evidently the problems in regions with compact Roma population are mostly from social-economic origin which the potential to spark to different forms of violence, disturbing of the public order and commit crimes of different types, including use of arms and firearms. Reaching all children, including Roma is still a challenge in terms of early identification and early prevention of risks of abandonment and negligence of children at risk from the Roma community. The assessment concerning child protection is based on the activities carried out by the State Agency for Child Protection, inc. conducted inspections.
The situation in this thematic area improved
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
With the Decision N 128/1.03.2018 of the Council of Ministers a Mechanism that reflects the analysis of the data from the System for monitoring, evaluation and control of the implementation of the NSRBRI into the political decisions of the executive authorities was adopted as a part of the National Action Plan under the NRIS.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP Under the T.E.A.M - Together We Achieve More Project, JUST/2015/RDIS/AG/NRP2/8805, 15 persons are employed on civil contracts for the duration of the project as assistants, teachers, trainers, legal expert, external evaluator, IT expert, financial expert. They only worked during the implementation of the project. Cross sectorial coordination The NRCP is in charge of the coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the NRIS. More specifically, the NRCP •monitors the implementation of measures under the policy for Equal Integration of Roma in Bulgarian society and report to the National Council on progress; •acts as a coordinating structure of the administrative activities at national level in the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of integration policy; •provides methodological support and coordinates the activities of regional and municipal councils on Ethnic and Integration Issues. For the effective, everyday operational coordination and cooperation with the NRCP, responsible ministries have designated contact persons at the expert level to work more concentrated on these respective issues. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding DEVELOPMENT of relevant policies. It should be emphasized that the key line ministries and authorities are responsible for decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies, as well as for updating the relevant thematic program operational documents for Roma integration, implementation of the planned measures, monitoring, evaluation and reporting to NCCEII. With the Decision N 128/1.03.2018 of the Council of Ministers a Mechanism to reflect data analysis from the System for monitoring, evaluation and control of the implementation of the National Strategy of Republic of Bulgaria for Roma Integration 2012-2020 into the government decision-making process was adopted as a part of the National Action Plan under the NRIS. The NRCP is participating in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. Development in a positive direction for strengthening the role of the NRCP as a coordinating structure at national level is the growing number of working groups and consultative mechanisms in which the NRCP participate. An important step is the inclusion of NRCP among the structures worked for programming and implementation/application ESIF 2014-2020. Representatives of the unit take part in the working groups preparing the Partnership Agreement and operational programs for the 2014-2020 programming period. Representatives of the NRCP are members of: MCs of PA, OPs, EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms 2009-2014, SC of Thematic Fund Agreements „Reform Fund linked to Inclusion of Roma and Other Vulnerable Groups” and Thematic Fund Agreement for the Reform Fund linked to the Inclusion of Roma and other vulnerable groups, concerning Home Care Services Activity under the Bulgarian-Swiss Cooperation Programme, The National Coordination Mechanism on Human Rights at the Ministre of Foreign Affairs etc. At the international level: the Secretary of the NCCEII is the representative of Republic of Bulgaria in CAHROM, representatives of the NRCP participated in bilateral meetings with MS of the EU dedicated to so-called migration of poverty, the representatives of the NRCP took part of NRCP Network at DG Justice and Consumers, etc. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. It should be emphasized that the key line ministries and authorities are responsible for decision-making processes regarding the development of relevant policies, as well as for updating the relevant thematic program operational documents for Roma integration, implementation of the planned measures, monitoring, evaluation and reporting to NCCEII. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. Through the coordination of the NRCP, NGOs members of the NCCEII were nominated to take part in monitoring and steering bodies under programs and projects such as: Coordination Council for the National Plan for implementing the European Youth Guarantee, working group on Roma issues at the Ministry of Justice on projects financed under EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms 2009-2014 and 2014-2020. The stakeholders are NRCP, NGOs The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are: ·Line Ministries, ·Regional Administrations, ·Municipal Administrations, ·NGOs There is a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. We have regular communication on reporting, ongoing information, participation in equal treatment and anti-discrimination events There is a baseline against which progress for the implementation of the NRIS is assessed. A System for Monitoring, Evaluation and Control of the National Strategy, the project is implemented under the HRD OP and co-financed by the ESF is under construction. There are measurable targets for the implementation of the NRIS.

BULGARIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Full enrolment in primary education is a high political priority. Different field services (education, healthcare, social services, policy, and others) track children not attending school, enrol them and prevent dropout. NGOs and school networks (like Amalipe network of 280 schools) have achieved significant decrease of dropout rate. ·Since 2018, financing of rural schools and schools that work with vulnerable children have been strengthened (additional to per capita funding). ·The government approved a list of specific professions that meet labour demand and provides additional financing and scholarships for related education. ·Free transportation is provided for secondary school students from rural areas. ·Political commitment to change the pre-school compulsory age from 5 to 4 years old, ensuring at least 3 years of pre-school (instead of current 2 years).	·While pre-school is compulsory from the school year when the child turns five, the enrolment rate of Roma children is still low. ·Administrative punishment (reducing financial support or replacing with material one) is used to incentivise enrolment, rather than improving teaching or relation with families; causes of non-enrolment or dropout are not addressed. Many children remain not enrolled. ·New funding of rural schools should take into consideration also quality and results, not only the region and number of vulnerable students. ·There is political support for early childhood education, although there are budgetary challenges in creating enough spaces and eliminating fees and other expenses. Fee-free preschool education is needed at least for the obligatory pre-school age.
Employment
·As public employment services are understaffed, main services accessible to Roma are ESF-funded regional development programmes and a new national funded measure to tackle inactivity and long-term unemployment. Roma mentors and youth mentors support outreach. ·Anti-discrimination legislation is in place but there is no systematic monitoring of discrimination in Roma’s access to employment. There are some initiatives by municipalities and NGOs to prevent discrimination by employers or support victims.	·As monitoring is generally weak, it is difficult to assess actual impact of existing employment measures. There are strategies and plans but some of these seem to remain on paper. ·Public employment services’ capacities and links between social and employment services need to be strengthened. ·Roma mediator program has potential if capacities significantly increase and refocus on field work. ·There is a need for anti-discrimination awareness-raising among professionals working in the employment and social sphere, as well as monitoring and action (awareness raising and incentives) against employer discrimination.
Healthcare
·Health mediators have been trained and employed, and mobile healthcare units established to improve Roma’s access to healthcare. This has been supported by an information campaign. ·Centres for Maternal and Child Health were established with the primary aim to strengthen caregivers’ capacities to provide nurturing care. ·Médicins Du Monde has provided awareness raising sessions and outreach work over family planning, pregnancy, hygiene and vaccination.	·Further steps are needed to decrease the proportion of the uninsured population among Roma (57% men, 59% women- the highest in the EU), to approach that among the majority population (20%). ·Vulnerable groups’ access to free health care services should be further improved, and the present financial disincentives of healthcare providers to spread the information about these opportunities removed. ·Public healthcare should concentrate on drug prevention and on battling measles and hepatitis A, B, and C, HIV, tuberculosis, scarlatina, varicella and dysentery (shigellosis).
Housing
·Nearly 25% of houses in segregated Roma neighbourhoods remain illegal and local authorities may demolish them. Demolitions and evictions overly concern Roma: 89% of demolition orders concerning residential buildings issued by local administrations refer to the only homes of Roma (399 of 444). ·Cadastral maps of Roma settlements are being created (so far in 127 out of 153 settlements with predominant Roma population). ·ESIF are planned for development of social housing: in the previous period, 334 individual social houses were built in 3 municipalities, for the current programming period, more than 27 urban municipalities have plans to build social houses, but the operation has not yet begun (except of few towns).	·Some municipalities have legalised Roma housing (Kyustendil, Dupnitsa and Peshtera), but most of them hardly take action, even if some houses meet the legalisation requirements. Complexity of administrative procedure is another barrier for legalisation. ·There are no mechanisms for housing assistance targeted at the most needy and vulnerable groups and young people who want to start their professional career and start a family in Bulgaria. ·The financial allocation for development of social housing (14.2 million EUR allowing construction of 100 dwellings yearly) is extremely insufficient given the scale of the challenges and the level of destitution in housing. ·Planned ESIF-funded construction of social housing for Roma encountered many obstacles, including opposition of the public or ultranationalists that pressured local governments to cancel their plans. Many local authorities have instead opted for house demolitions.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The Ministry of Education has succeeded in prohibiting the placement of Roma children without disabilities into special schools on social grounds. The new Pre-school Education Act prohibits the formation of segregated classes in ethnically mixed schools. ·The national equality body, Commission for Protection against Discrimination, includes representatives of the Parliament who self-identify as Roma. ·Registration of citizens remains problematic because in many Roma neighbourhoods, the establishment of property rights, the legality of buildings, and the possession of the necessary documents establishing residency remain unresolved and many Roma cannot obtain identity cards.	·Despite adopted measures, the practice of forming segregated classes continues. Monitoring remains a challenge and there are no provisions for the collection of ethnically disaggregated data. ·The national equality body avoids serious cases involving public authorities such as house demolitions and police misconduct, and its interaction with civil society is limited. ·There is no state system for supporting for assisting Roma to file complaints and access legal aid.
Fighting antigypsyism
·There are no specific instruments targeting antigypsyism. ·NRIS recognises the existence of some of the manifestations of antigypsyism (intolerance, hate speech, prejudices and stereotypes). Operational programmes include specific priority axis aimed at fighting stereotypes and developing local communities. ·The National Preventative Mechanism run by the Ombudsman monitors police’s activity towards Roma, but its budget is very limited. In 2016, some 21,486 police officers were trained to work in a multi-ethnic environment, conditions in detention facilities were improved, and special attention was paid to the vulnerable groups among prisoners.	·Antigypsyism should be recognised as a bias motivation for hate-crimes (they consider such crimes currently only as „hooliganism”). ·There is no national plan to combat discrimination and racism or official reporting on racist and hate related crime or other incidents. In cases before the Equality Body no record is kept of the complainants’ ethnicity. ·Despite concerning reports about police violence against Roma, there is no general statistical information available about crimes committed by police officers; no effective mechanism for protecting victims of police violence and very few police officers are prosecuted.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The national employment programme ‘Activating the Inactive’ specifically targets Roma NEETs by active and preventive measures for labour market integration. ·The State Budget 2018 Law limited the possibility of collecting fees for compulsory pre-school education (fees may be collected only for meals; other expenses are to be covered by the state budget).	·Public policies and strategies, including at municipal level, are gender-neutral and do not take into account the vulnerable position of Roma women who often face double layered challenges (restrictions within their communities and multiple discrimination outside their communities). ·Decision-makers apparently lack the needed sensitivity and awareness in terms of gender equality in the labour market, gender-based discrimination and formulation of gender-sensitive policies and programmes, aimed at promoting the opportunities of Roma women. ·The lack of housing assistance hinders the labour market integration of vulnerable people, including youngsters. ·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
·The NRIS was approved by the Parliament the annual reports about the NRIS implementation should be discussed in its plenary. ·The Roma integration has been delegated to the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration Issues (NCCEII), but its mandate and capacities are very weak and does not allow real decision-making on the Roma-related policies or at least coordination of the sectoral policy-making, which is full in hands of line ministries (they do not have specialised units in charge of Roma inclusion). ·Despite Roma inclusion actions are planned by the NRIS and ESIF allocations exist, low capacity of central agencies is barrier to their implementation.	·Involvement of the Parliament demonstrated the political will to forward the Roma inclusion policy and increases the public and political control over NRIS’s implementation, government’s accountability and mainstreaming of the Roma inclusion.
Civil participation and empowerment
·The consultative process and participation of Roma NGOs happens mainly through Monitoring Committees of ESIF Programmes. ·The joint Council of Europe-Commission JUSTROM2 programme focuses on women’s empowerment and access to justice, and two legal clinics are operating as a result.	·Since 2013 the work of the NCCEII has been boycotted by many Roma organisations, demanding a profound institutional reform. NGO participation in the NCCEII is limited and does not have clear criteria. There are predictions of civil tensions increasing specifically with respect to housing demolitions and evictions. ·Parents are said to not yet be sufficiently empowered by the existing „Public Council” arrangements for parental input into the running of the schools.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·A number of Roma have been elected village mayors, vice-mayors or municipal councillors; in many places, Roma leaders or NGOs participate in local policy-making. They play an essential role in development and implementation of Roma inclusion policies at the local level. Roma NGOs took part in local plans’ development and in 79 municipalities NGOs are responsible for delivery of specific actions. ·Local governments can independently decide if they engage personnel aimed at helping Roma - such as health mediators. Education and labour mediators are employed by schools or labour office branches. ·To be eligible to draw ESIF funding, municipalities must develop municipal action plans for Roma inclusion in line with NRIS. By the end of 2016, 194 municipalities had action plans adopted by a decision of the relevant municipal council. ·Several municipalities designed and implemented initiatives that are considered as successful practices in Roma inclusion in Bulgaria.	·Advancing Roma inclusion mostly depend on political will and priorities of municipalities and is usually driven by committed local political leadership or administration; its discontinuity can jeopardise the continuation of the inclusion process. ·The quality of most municipal plans cannot be assessed as high: planned activities do not have funding or rely solely on project-based funding (mostly from ESIF), without commitment of municipal budgets. Often identified needs are not linked to activities or indicators to measure performance are missing at all. ·Smaller municipalities (where Roma usually live) do not have necessary resources and capacities to design and implement Roma inclusion projects and draw ESIF allocated for this purpose. ·Sustainability of local initiatives aimed at Roma inclusion remains a problem, in particular because of dependence on local political leadership and its priorities, and lack of funding.
Data collection
·Roma ethnic self-identification is enabled in the census; members of Roma communities participated in the data collection. ·EU surveys provide a picture about the living conditions, poverty and discrimination of Roma. ·Labour offices collect data on ethnic identity of job-seekers, based on self-identification of Roma to have access to targeted programmes. Also, other governmental agencies collect information on Roma participants of national projects funded from ESIF.	·There is a lack of detailed specific data on impact of mainstream policies on Roma (this also concerns the specific needs of and impact on Roma women). ·Roma often do not declare their ethnic identity because of fear of discrimination (Roma often declare to be Turkish, Bulgarians, Romanians).
Funding for civil society
·Project-based funding is available to some civil society organisations implementing certain aspects of policy.	·The main funding opportunity for civil society is the ESIF for Roma inclusion, but planned systemic measures with bigger funding are not entrusted to civil society (that on their turn, often do not have capacity to meet demanding administrative requirements).
Example of promising practice
The current government gave high priority to advancing pre-primary and primary education. A significant advance has been achieved regarding the enrolment of Roma in primary school and reducing the dropout rate. The multi-institutional framework for full enrolment established in 2017 brings certain positive results. The new model of financing the school system provides hope for better targeting of resources for rural areas schools. Allocation of additional funds for work with children and students from vulnerable groups is important positive step that could help these schools to appoint school mediators and to keep motivated teachers.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Promotion of desegregated, ethnically mixed and inclusive education ·Increasing the number of Roma in secondary education as well as in pre-school education (including through abolishing kindergarten fees) ·Improving living conditions and legalisation of housing in segregated Roma neighbourhoods ·Tackling the residential desegregation and helping inhabitants of segregated neighbourhoods to move out ·Improving Roma’s access to health insurance ·Improving (reforming) the governance of Roma inclusion aimed at better policy coordination and Roma participation

CYPRUS
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Social Welfare Services, Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Services
Strategic document	Cyprus 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):	1.250 (0,15% of 854.802)
Available options for data collection	Cyprus does not collect official statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity regarding Roma.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
Without underestimating the remaining measures, since all do have an impact on the integration of Turkish Cypriots / Roma, we do positively acknowledge the "School and Social Inclusion Actions" under the Thematic Area on Education. Turkish Cypriot/Roma pupils attending Agios Antonios Primary and Secondary Schools benefited from this programme in many ways. Also under the Thematic Area on Housing, housing policy for Turkish Cypriot / Roma is also an important measure for the housing of the Turkish Cypriots/ Roma.
The main challenges
As regards education, the most important challenge identified by the competent authority was to ensure that Turkish Cypriot/Roma children continue their education from pre-primary to upper secondary education, as well as to improve their knowledge of the Greek language in order to be able to attend successfully the lessons at school and improve their results. In addition, as regards the implementation of the Cyprus National Roma Platform, the participation of Roma in the meetings was a strong challenge for the competent authority and their participation was very limited.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The main factors contributing to this is the continuous effort from all competent authorities in order to successfully engage Roma population.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 10 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Cyprus. Four of them were mainstream and six targeted. One of the measures was implemented at local level and nine – at national. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Cyprus also reported two more measures, one of which as relevant for the area of local action.
EDUCATION
In 2017, six measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. Two measures were mainstream and four targeted. All six were implemented by a public authority, five at national and one at local level.
The most important success
The most important success has been the project "School and Social Inclusion Actions". Turkish Cypriot/Roma pupils attending Agios Antonios Primary and Secondary Schools benefited from this programme in many ways. In the framework of the "School and Social Inclusion Actions", the Ministry of Education and Culture with the financial support of the European Social Fund has allocated a substantial amount to the two schools for the year of reporting (2017).
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was to ensure that Turkish Cypriot/Roma children continue their education from pre-primary to upper secondary education, as well as to improve their knowledge of the Greek language in order to be able to attend successfully the lessons at school and improve their results.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of employment. It was a mainstream measure implemented by a public authority at national level. The Cyprus Roma that reside in Cyprus have free access to the labour market. The Public Employment Services (PES) of the Department of Labour offer job seekers (including Roma) assistance in finding employment, through registration, job search services and placement services, which include vocational guidance, counseling and referrals to training programmes and job vacancies. Furthermore, Roma could participate in the following Employment Subsidization Schemes that were promoted by the Department of Labour: ·Scheme Providing Incentives for the Employment of Unemployed Young People up to 25 years old. ·Scheme Providing Incentives for the Employment of Unemployed People over 50 years old. ·Scheme Providing Incentives for the Employment of Persons with Chronic Diseases. ·Scheme Providing Incentives for the Employment of Persons with Disabilities. ·Incentive Scheme for the Employment of Recipients of GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income) in conjunction with the completion of three-months practical training. ·Scheme for the Employment of the Unemployed for Providing Care Services to Disabled Persons.
The most important success
Unemployment in general has dropped significantly since 2015, but we do not keep any record for Roma unemployment. The high growth rate of the economy affected positively the job openings providing, thus, more and better employment opportunities for all citizens.
The most important challenge
Most of Roma living in Cyprus are unemployed and seeking employment through the PES. The PES face difficulties when trying to place them in job positions because the vast majority of them do not speak neither Greek nor English, but great efforts are still made for them to enter employment. Efforts are being promoted towards the implementation of language training programmes for this category of unemployed.
HOUSING
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of housing. It was a targeted measure implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
52 Roma families have been housed
The most important challenge
Avoiding segregation
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
Governance and cooperation
The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the set of policy measures for the Social Inclusion of Roma. The NRCP is responsible for the dissemination of information, co-ordination of contribution for reporting requirements. It calls the meetings of all involved and communicate to the stakeholders any comments, recommendations on issues falling within their competence. Furthermore, the NRCP in 2016-2017 undertook the implementation of the EU funded project for the establishment of the Cyprus National Platform for Roma. Process of cross-sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS: Within regular intervals the NRCP either through meetings with stakeholders, exchange of communication, provide information and awareness on different issues that arise on Roma integration. Also the NRCP gathers all information from stakeholders which may arise due to different reporting commitments. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. Also, through the Cyprus National Platform for Roma, the NRCP facilitated the participation and involvement of the Roma population. The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are: ·Governmental Services: Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Interior, Department of Labour of the Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance ·Local authorities, ·NGOs running social programmes. There was a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP, through the workings of the Cyprus National Platform for Roma, which run in 2016-2017. Additional Information Several actions are undertaken by a wide range of stakeholders that are horizontal such as health care services, poverty reduction and actions for women and children, which however cannot be summarized in this report. It must be mentioned that the Ministry of Health is offering healthcare benefits to citizens based on financial criteria and/or other criteria. In addition, citizens receiving public allowance or guaranteed minimum income are also entitled for healthcare benefits. Cyprus Roma are covered under the same conditions as the rest of the population.

CYPRUS
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The trend of Roma enrolment in pre-primary and primary education is increasing, while the school drop-out rate at these two levels of education is falling. ·An ESF-funded project Actions for Social and School Inclusion (DRA.S.E) aims at educational inclusion of vulnerable groups, including Roma. The project is implemented in 96 schools and provides in-school services or teachers training. ·Several all-day schools organise after-school activities; in some of them Roma children participate. ·The Ministry of Education and Culture offer to Cypriot Roma (Gurbetties) an optional extra-curriculum course “Language, culture and tradition of Roma” in afternoons.	·Rate of early school leaving among Roma remains high. ·Only a few Cypriot Roma attend secondary education, and even fewer complete lower secondary education or even fewer upper secondary education. University education is not achieved yet by Cypriot Roma, researches indicate. ·Roma face racial prejudice in schools and in some cases segregation (together with other migrants, minorities, and Greek-Cypriots from poorer backgrounds).
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are available to Roma jobseekers; to increase their accessibility for vulnerable jobseekers, temporary dedicated work counsellors have been engaged.	·Roma access to public employment services is limited by lack of information, lack of motivation or due to language barriers.
Healthcare
·Low-income residents are entitled for low-cost or even free healthcare. Basic vaccination is provided for free to all citizens. ·To ensure access for vulnerable population groups, including Roma, to health care services, various actions are being carried by Ministry of Health; it takes into consideration the protection of minors, combating exploitation and protecting maternity.	·Continuous access to primary health care, especially for children, as well as access to sexual and reproductive health services should be improved for the Roma. ·Access to water and garbage disposal are grave issues of concern especially in settlements, with concomitant sanitary and health risks. ·In general, a health needs-assessment concerning the Roma community would be useful.
Housing
·The Ministry of Interior has launched a strategy of repairing Cypriot Roma houses, but the process is very slow and with little support of the actual administrative staff. ·	·Roma families are offered housing in formerly Turkish-Cypriot houses maintained by a state property management service. This policy creates segregated Roma ghettos. ·The rent levels in such public housing are very low and do not cover the basic maintenance of the homes, thus, the housing is very dilapidated. ·New pre-fab housings in segregated areas were built to improve the conditions; this creates new segregation conditions. ·Public housing allocation policies are insufficient, in particular, provided housing is not sufficient for larger families.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Equality legislation is in place. Legally, the equality body can accept and investigate complaints from organisations acting in the public interest on their own behalf without a specified victim. However, any such action concerning Roma is not known.	·Segregation and discrimination against Roma in housing and education remains unaddressed. ·Despite offering housing opportunities to Roma returning from the areas not controlled by the Republic of Cyprus in the north, the policy has created segregated ghettos. ·Part of Roma living in settlements face shortcoming of water or electricity supply and are isolated on sites of a former rubbish dump with no access to public transport.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Legislation against racism is in place, as well as a ‘code of practice against racist behaviour’ to help reduce the incidents of bullying and discrimination in schools.	·Antigypsyism in not recognised and no specific initiatives in this area have been taken. ·An integrated strategy to combat Roma exclusion in all areas of life, including measures aiming at the elimination of discrimination and prejudice, with objectives and targets, success indicators and a monitoring system assessment should be developed. ·Hate speech against Roma has not yet been researched and there are currently no specific studies available on this issue.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·An ESF-funded project ‘SEDRIN: School Education for Roma Integration’ was implemented in 2012-2014 with an aim of promoting the education integration of Roma, and addressed also the needs of Roma women/mothers in supporting their children’s education achievements. ·The ‘Hope for Children Policy Centre’ implemented a project ‘PEER: Participation, Experiences and Empowerment for Roma Youth’ in 2015-2016, aimed at promoting the leadership skills and building the advocacy capacity of young Roma.	·Participation of Roma children in preschool education, preferably from the age of 3 years, should be promoted, by identifying and addressing the root causes of Roma children’s low participation rate. ·Access to primary health care for Roma children should be improved, as well as access to sexual and reproductive health services, especially for Roma women. ·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
·In January 2012, Cyprus submitted to the EC in lieu of the NRIS a document “Policy measures for the social inclusion of Roma”. ·The Social Welfare Services (SWS) of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance have been designated as the National Roma Contact Point for the coordination of Roma related policies.	·Since Cyprus promotes the inclusion of Roma through integrated policy measures within the existing structures, separate monitoring mechanisms have not been set up. ·Cyprus has not recognised Roma as a distinct minority group. Therefore, they do not have a separate constitutional parliament representation or do not benefit from minority protection.
Civil participation and empowerment
·During 2016-2017, SWS coordinated the Cypriot National Platform for Roma supported by the European Commission. Its aim was to create a framework for strengthening dialogue on Cypriot Roma issues through the involvement of national authorities, NGOs and Roma individuals. ·Cypriot Roma with the support of Cypriot non-Roma established their own NGO called CYPROM, which is currently the only NGO focused on Cypriot Roma issues in the country.	·Proposals of the National Roma Platforms’ participants have not led to any tangible actions or other policy impact. ·Roma inclusion is not in the focus of NGOs’ work in Cyprus; two universities in Cyprus were engaged in projects focusing on Roma.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Few municipalities have engaged in projects aimed at improvement of Roma living conditions.	·Segregated Roma settlements are mostly neglected by municipalities where they are located. More efforts are needed on the local level to advance in Roma inclusion and desegregation. ·To be eligible for participation in existing measures, Roma must prove that they have resided in Cyprus-controlled area for at least five years.
Data collection
·The population of Roma in Cyprus is small representing about 0.1 per cent of the total population of Cyprus.	·More detailed data on Roma population in Cyprus is missing.
Funding for civil society
·n/a (Roma or pro-Roma civil society is quasi inexistent)	·n/a (Roma or pro-Roma civil society is quasi inexistent)
Example of promising practice
An ESF-funded project “Actions for Social and School Inclusion” (DRA.S.E), launched in 2015, targets schools with highest share of Roma. Within the initiative, these schools receive additional support from the Ministry of Education, enables differentiated teaching and adjusted curriculum, all day school programme or educate lower number of pupils per class and the pupils receive meals free of charge.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Previous actions/interventions aimed at Roma inclusion should be evaluated and lessons reflected in future interventions. ·Clear budget should be allocated for Roma inclusion. ·More detailed data on Roma and their needs are necessary. Future policy-making should be based on a robust needs assessment of the target groups, and actively involve them in the project design, implementation and monitoring. ·Residential segregation should be addressed as part of housing-related interventions. ·Employment policies should strengthen the transition between educational levels and support the acquisition of skills that are adapted to the needs of the labour market.

CROATIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities, Government of the Republic of Croatia
Strategic document	Croatia has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	35.000 (0,84% of 4.154.213): 16,975 (Census 2011)
Available options for data collection	·Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, ·Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue), ·Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys, ·Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), ·Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units), Statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity is collected, but with usual problems (limited ethnically disaggregated census data data available) and the GOHRRNM is finalizing the implementation of an EU funded IPA 2012 project to collect baseline data for the monitoring of NRIS and its AP and improve the on-line system for data collecting. Already preliminary mapping data are yielding important information for policy making and implementation
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
Increase in allocation of state funds for targeted measures, increased reach out of educations measures for a decreasing number of children (decrease reflecting stronger trends of general population), improved employment on a reviving labour market, National investments in legalization of houses enabling access to services have also continued while there is still a general lack of disaggregated data in the area of health. Support to activities in the area of culture, to Roma civil society and remembrance of historical injustices and discrimination of Roma have also continued. Lack of baseline data for monitoring and evaluation of NRIS is tackled through an IPA project, also providing a detailed mapping of all locations inhabited with more than 30 self-declared Roma.
The main challenges
Lack of data, particularly on ESI funds benefitting Roma and on the local level. Further increase in state funds allocated to targeted measures reflects continuing general will to improve the situation of marginalised Roma communities. Also, IPA 2012 funded project “Collection and monitoring of base line data for efficient implementation of the National Roma Inclusion Strategy”, intervention related to the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS with a total value of 680,000 EUR will make a major contribution for further improvement of evidence-based policies throughout the whole cycle, far more precise targeting of marginalized communities and directing the allocated funds to the real needs of the Roma communities in Croatia. In addition, follow up research activities are envisaged under the ESF in order to respond to demographic, social and other changes that are happening not only per se but as a result of envisaged work with Roma communities at the local/regional and national level (including ESIF). In Croatian context, the project is an another milestone in monitoring and evaluation of public policies, being a part of similar pilot initiatives regarding monitoring and evaluation of integration of migrants, and of the implementation of the Constitutional Law on Rights of National Minorities.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 22 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Croatia. Four of them were mainstream and 18 targeted. All 22 were implemented by a public authority at national level. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Croatia also reported one targeted measure as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, five as relevant for empowerment (one mainstream and four targeted), three in local action (one mainstream and two targeted), two relevant for monitoring and evaluation (one mainstream and one targeted), one mainstream relevant for transnational cooperation and one targeted as relevant for the area of culture. 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, eight measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. All were targeted, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Though the overall number of Roma children in youngest age groups continue to shrink, reflecting far stronger trends of the general population, the state investment into targeted measures in Roma education remaining almost the same as previous year (even slightly increased in EUR terms), results in greater involvement of Roma children in preschool, extracurricular and extended board programs, hopefully contributing to better educational achievements in near future, more scholarships in high schools and at the university level, as well as literacy and the first qualification programs. Thus, for example, state funds for extended board programs, Roma teaching assistants, school trips and extracurricular activities of Roma children in 2016 were approximately 263,000 EUR, and 430,000 EUR in 2017. Regrettably, no detailed info is available on usage of EU funds on local level, apart from Medjimurje County (comprising of up to 30 % Roma population in Croatia) report on FEAD (covering 900 Roma pupils (out of total of 1,500) with approximately 91,000 EUR in school year 2017/2018 and individual assistants support provided to children with special needs (10 Roma children out of total 60 beneficiaries, with almost 300,000 EUR from ESF). Significant support is also provided on the local level, but most data is lacking: numerous counties and municipalities are covering travel costs (e.g. Medjimurje County 30,000 EUR for 1,622 Roma pupils in primary schools), textbooks and other materials for all pupils or those most in need, and even assisting in gaining qualifications.
The most important challenge
·Acquiring the necessary knowledge sets and skills required for the completion of elementary education with a view to continuing education; Further encouraging of enrolment to secondary education, coupled with promoting the continuation and completion of schooling ·The development of schools’ network and school enrolment zones and attaining balance between the number of Roma pupils vs. others, including the overall infrastructure leaning also on the education system; in 2017 the number of Roma only classes decreased minimally, from 61 to 60 (51 of them in Medjimurje County, where schools have largest proportions of Roma children (e.g. Kursanec 71.6 %, Macinec 80.4 %, Pribislavec 61.2 %). ·increasing the number of Roma students at the university level, and as a precondition, a number of Roma pupils in 4-year high schools. ·Data availability
The situation in this thematic area improved
Country specific comments: continuous increase of national and probably also local funding. Also lack of full information on funding from ESI funds and other sources (e.g. REF, UNICEF)
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, four measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment, one mainstream and three targeted. All four were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Though the state investment in this area slightly decreased, better conditions at the labour market, providing more openings and opportunities, are also reflected in increased employment of Roma. In addition, to improve employability and to make the right decision on further development of career, CES offers career guidance services to the pupils of final year of primary school. Service includes career informing and career counselling, it's implemented in cooperation with schools and parents. Career guidance represents "the early interventions" and it has preventive form as a help in decision making considering educational programs and profession. Guidance is also available to all unemployed youth which abandoned regular education. Increased numbers are also registered in the area of informing/counselling Roma job seekers, support to employers for Roma employment, and promotional events.
The most important challenge
CES is not collecting data according to ethnicity. The number of unemployed members of the Roma national minority is estimated indirectly through proxies such as the address of the residence, data of the social welfare system and according to the knowledge of Romani Chib or Bayash Romanian language, and therefore data available is very approximated. For some measures it was impossible to determine the exact number of beneficiaries. Roma employment in public service remains extremely low, and also, full information on ESI funded measures involving Roma is not available.
The situation in this thematic area improved
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of healthcare. It was a targeted measure implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Continuous high rate of vaccination of Roma children.
The most important challenge
Providing health care to all Roma. The biggest challenges remain lack of health insurance for a number of Roma as well as distance of facilities from some Roma settlements.
The situation in this thematic area remained the same
HOUSING
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing, one mainstream and two targeted. All three were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Continuous efforts in legalisation of both Roma settlements and individual houses. Both Roma MP and the Ministry of Constructions are the main driving force of these efforts.
The most important challenge
Integrated territorial investments beyond pilot areas of Beli Manastir and Darda.
The situation in this thematic area improved
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION and MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination, one mainstream and two targeted. All three were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Providing baseline data for monitoring of NRIS yielded also numerous information relevant for design of appropriate antidiscrimination measures. As regards Multiple discrimination, worth noting is the success in raising the awareness of Roma population on the need for improvement and additional protection of children and women's rights and their active inclusion in various programmes and activities aiming at empowering and coping with everyday life responsibilities.
The most important challenge
Access to media, particularly with affirmative, positive stories, was the challenge in anti-discrimination. In multiple discrimination the challenge was the active inclusion of women and children in various programmes and activities aiming at empowering and coping with everyday life responsibilities.
The situation in this thematic area remained the same in anti-discrimination and improved in multiple discrimination.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources of NRCP: Due to general restrictions on employment in state service it is not possible to further increase the size of NRCP. However, several persons are employed on project basis, including (young) Roma for the implementation of the National Roma Platform project. Cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS The NRCP is contributing to cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. NRCP is the secretariat of the National Commission for the Monitoring of NRIS implementation and it does coordinate some activities. National Commission for the Monitoring of NRIS is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister (in charge of foreign and European affairs), and consists of equal number of Roma (balanced by gender, region and language (Romani Chib and Boyash-Romanian) and representatives of the line ministries. Commission has a wider Working Group (composed in the same manner as the Commission) which is preparing sessions. Commission and Working Group sessions are usually topical (e.g. housing, education, employment etc), enabling direct conversation and sector policy influence by stakeholders. Whenever needed, external experts or representatives are invited (regional and local authorities, academic community, local Roma representatives etc). The involvement of NRCP in decision making processes The NRCP: -is being consulted and participating in development policies -is participating in decision making processes regarding funding of relevant policies -Is participating in decision making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies Examples of participation include working groups for drafting the policy documents, e.g. drafting law on housing care, integrated interventions developed in OP EHR (ESF) and OP CC (ERDF), membership on board of management boards of OPs for ESF and ERDF, participation in monitoring and evaluation activities, etc. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. -Information dissemination (through regular contacts, mailing lists), -facilitating contacts with other stakeholders (including donors, local authorities), -building capacities, providing grants (e.g. for activities related to antidiscrimination, and traditional Roma culture). Relevant stakeholders: Roma councils of national minorities, Roma and pro-Roma NGOs (with particular attention to youth and women), while mainstream organisations, local and regional authorities and others are encouraged to cooperate with Roma civil society. Stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS: -National authorities (line ministries, county offices, public health institutes, schools etc). -Some regional and local authorities also report and provide data annually. There is a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP: regular contacts. aseline data against which progress for the implementation of the Croatian NRIS or set of policy measures is assessed are being collected through an IPA 2012 project, finalised in August 2018. There are no measurable targets.

CROATIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Compared to the other areas, the biggest progress in Roma inclusion has been done in education. The trend is that Roma participation in education is continuously increasing. ·Affirmative measures for Roma inclusion are in place in all levels of education (except for adult education). ·As an affirmative measure, Roma children are entitled for free of charge preschool education, additional to compulsory one year of pre-school education for all children; this compulsory one year can be provided in kindergarten or elementary school. ·In some schools, Roma assistants are employed with open-term contract and financed by the central government. ·To increase secondary school completion, Roma students are supported with free of charge dormitory and scholarships, which are lowered if a student repeats a grade. ·In certain towns, to fight school segregation, local transportation expenses are completely covered from the municipal budget. All children living farer than 3 km from school are entitled to free transportation.	·Despite positive impact of introduction of one year of obligatory pre-school education, still many Roma children are not in pre-school education before the age of five because of facilities’ low capacity and preference for families with working parents; segregation in pre-school education remains significant. ·The Ministry of education changed the policy and does not support hiring of new Roma assistants by schools. Schools that did not have the assistants previously and showed the need for engaging them only later, must finance them from different projects. ·Residential segregation is one of the main causes of educational segregation. ·Due to the professional orientation services and their previous low academic achievement, most of the Roma are enrolled in vocational schools.
Employment
·The mainstream public employment services are available to Roma jobseekers and Roma are explicit target groups of some implemented measures. ·Public employment services have taken action to prevent employer’s discrimination against Roma. ·Ombudsman office engage to raise awareness and train public employment officers about discrimination.	·Public employment measures are not tailored to the needs of Roma: e.g. do not support upgrade of education though majority of Roma have primary education only. ·Roma mainly participate in public works which does not effectively help re-employment in open labour market. ·Antidiscrimination initiatives have been small scale and there is no information on their effects.
Healthcare
·The overall goal in the NRIS regarding health care is to improve health of Roma population and to improve access and quality of health care. ·The coverage of health insurance in Croatia is broad.	·The ethnic dimension is not used in governmental health data gathering (an issue to address in itself), but indirect evidence and localised studies point at worse health conditions and a shorter lifespan among the Roma than among the majority population. ·Distance and expense of transportation have been indicated as a concern with respect to access to primary care.
Housing
·There is political will to improve living conditions in Roma settlements. ·The process of legalisation started a few years ago with tangible outcomes. ·Some community centres were built and there is a plan for building playgrounds and new community centres.	·More than 50% of Roma live in segregated settlements. Desegregation of Roma settlements is not the focus of the government and of the local and regional authorities. ·Instead of comprehensive, sustainable provisions to end residential segregation, politicians offer settlement upgrades. The local and national authorities should avoid building up any new exclusively Roma villages and commit to a long-term desegregation perspective for existing ones. ·Local and regional authorities should act to legalise informal housings. ·Social housing is mostly available only in large cities, and due to the composition of the stock and allocation policies, it is not suitable to solve the housing challenges of Roma families.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The current NRIS aims to eliminate school segregation by 2020. REF noted a significant progress in data gathering, and some improvement in enrolment in primary school, completion rates up and obligatory preschool, plus official political commitment to end segregation. ·The Ministry of Internal Affairs has some affirmative measures for including Roma in police academy, and the Ombudsperson’s office organises seminars to tackle discrimination for employees of public administration who are professionally in direct contact with Roma.	·High incidence of anti-Roma discrimination indicates low effectiveness of (the enforcement of) equality legislation. Public authorities should reinforce the law and act to raise rights awareness and trust among Roma. ·The anti-discrimination legislation should be amended to place public authorities under a duty to promote equality in carrying out their functions. ·Approximately 40% of 6-15-year-old Roma children are segregated in setting where all or most of the children are Roma. It is recommended that the educational authorities ensure the implementation of desegregation measures to meet the 2020 target. ·Legislation should be amended to ensure that organisations that combat discrimination can bring civil cases concerning an individual person.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Constitution of Croatia recognises Roma as a national minority. ·The most relevant human rights institutions explicitly recognise manifestations of antigypsyism, such as discrimination, hate-speech and hate-crime against Roma. ·Ombudsperson reports provide data on hate crime, including public incitement to violence and hatred, and the data are disaggregated by ethnicity. ·Authorities have improved protection against hate crime through amendments to the Criminal Code.	·The concept of antigypsyism has not been used by Croatian civil society, public authorities or other policy actors. Most of the existing initiatives target rather Roma than the racism of the mainstream society. ·Roma continue to be the targets of racially motivated crime, with violent incidents in areas surrounding Roma settlements going unreported due to the limited trust and mutual understanding between the community and the police, and concerns that ethnic profiling practices are increasing. ·Existing provisions in the criminal law on racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance are rarely applied. Antigypsyism as a bias motivation in cases of violent incidents should be made an integral part of investigations. ·No institution or organization systematically monitors antigypsyism in media. The implementation of the Electronic media act has to be improved.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The situation of Roma women, who may carry double or triple burden of disadvantages in the society, and may be underprivileged within their communities as well, is recognised in governmental policies.	·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT+ issues. ·Access to preschool education should be further improved for Roma families, even in cases where the parents are unemployed; moreover, the issue of segregation in kindergartens should be addressed. ·The NRIS should address the needs of young Roma (between the age of 16 and 30 years) in a way that considers the diversity within this group, e.g. regarding their family and duties.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Upon NRIS adoption, a Committee for Monitoring of NRIS Implementation 2013-2020 was formed. ·Ministries and national-level public authorities (NLPA) are assigned to take a leading role in the implementation of measures for Roma inclusion. They are mandated to report about the progress and results to the Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities (OHMR). ·OHMR, under which the National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) is located, requested an external evaluation of the NRIS and its Action Plan. The findings and the recommendations were the basis for developing a new NRIS action plan.	·Evaluation’s findings showed that the implementation of the NRIS action plan 2013-2015 was unsatisfactory. ·Public funding is sometimes spent for activities that have not been planned in the NRIS action plans, rather funds are allocated on different Roma integration activities upon decision of the OHMR.
Civil participation and empowerment
·One member of the Croatian Parliament is elected to represent the voice of 12 national minority groups, including Roma. One Roma MP has been in Parliament since 2007. ·Roma can form, in special minority elections, Councils of Roma National Minority or be elected as Representatives of Roma National Minority at the local or regional levels.	·Generally, Roma people in Croatia have a low level of education which has negative impact on their participation in available governance structures and awareness of their rights.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Every local and regional government is recommended to develop an action plan for Roma inclusion as long as there is a defined number of Roma inhabitants ·In practice, the leadership on Roma agenda is more often taken by regional government then by local governments. Counties are the ones that are taking leadership at the regional level for Roma integration.	·In reality, many local authorities failed to develop the action plans, or they were developed very late. ·In many smaller communities Roma can use affirmative measures which they are granted based on the national legislation. Governments of small localities do not provide any additional measures which could lead to an improved situation of Roma in their locality.
Data collection
·There is 16,975 Roma in Croatia, representing 0.40 per cent of the overall population, however, according to the recent data collection project developed in support of an efficient implementation of the NRIS, it is said that around 25,000 to up to 30,000 Roma live in Croatia. ·A large-scale project was developed and implemented focused on collecting baseline data for an efficient implementation of NRIS; in the long-run, this will allow measurement of the results of the Action Plan, as pre-defined indicators will be used. ·OHMR developed an online and public platform to report on the implementation of measures for Roma integration. ·Any ministry or other public institution can collect ethnically disaggregated data which is collected in different ways. In some cases, where Roma are using mainstream measures, such as social welfare, the system allows Roma to self-identify.	·n/a
Funding for civil society
·One of the most recent changes, which impact positively the civil society, is that the umbrella of Roma associations in Croatia is financed with 200,000 EUR per year, by the government. ·Croatian Government has Roma targeted initiatives which are financed from the state budget and there are also initiatives financed from ESIF. For example. in 2016, only the Ministry of Science and Education spent almost 1.5 million EUR for measures for Roma.	·Roma associations are funded through smaller local projects and from the local government, from where funding is allocated for basic work. However, funding for Roma civil society is limited due to lack of the capacity of Roma NGOs. ·Roma associations are formally eligible to draw ESIF as well, but in reality, they are usually not main applicants because of their limited capacity (so, in best case they are only project partners).
Example of promising practice
For almost two decades, the Croatian Government has implemented Roma inclusion policies, including affirmative measures. However, their impact was unknown due to lack of data. In response to this problem, the government requested the ministries and other public authorities to collect ethnically disaggregated data and to support them, developed a large-scale project of collecting basic data about Roma. The project helps in assessing the effectiveness of the NRIS implementation, as previously recommended by an external evaluation of NRIS. The government established a commission for monitoring NRIS implementation, including representatives of ministries, public bodies and Roma. The commission is established on a parity basis (equal number of Roma and non-Roma) and chaired by one of deputy prime ministers; deputy chair of the commission is the member of Parliament who is representing Roma national minority in the Croatian Parliament. These measures contribute significantly to a higher accountability of the governmental Roma inclusion policy.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·To tackle the residential segregation; it will have a positive impact on desegregation is education, too. Sole focus on improving living conditions in segregated settings can only conserve segregation. ·To actively address the segregation in education; impact of education of Roma children in segregated setting should be researched. ·To provide adult Roma with opportunities to participate in adult education and complete their secondary studies; financial support to cover related expenses would help. ·To strengthen the intersectoral cooperation between ministries and public institutions to make sectoral measures more effective and ensure that allocated funds are actually spent. ·To recognise the phenomenon of antigypsyism and plan actions to fight it. ·To support development of Roma NGO sector, its depoliticization and financial independence from (Roma) politicians.

CZECH REPUBLIC
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs Unit and Secretariat of the Government Council for National Minorities
Strategic document	Czech Republic has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	200.000 (1,89% of 10.578.820)
Available options for data collection	•Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, •Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue), •Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys, •Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), •Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units)
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
In line with the Strategy of Roma Integration, the Government managed to buy large-scale pigfarm in Lety near Písek. The Museum of Romany Culture became the administrator of the important places of Roma suffering - Hodonín u Kunštátu and Lety u Písku. An important step in the field of education was the introduction of the mandatory final year of pre-school education.
The main challenges
The main challenges for the Czech Government in 2017 were the closure of pig farm in Lety near Písek and the implementation of the measures of inclusion in education into practice.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The driving force behind successful implementation of the above strategy measures was will and determination of the government.
Additionnal comments
Since the Methodology for Monitoring and Evaluation of the implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy by 2020 was adopted in autumn 2016, the Ministries did not have enough options to set their monitoring mechanisms. It is expected that more specific data will be available in the following Report on the Implementation of the Strategy of Roma Integration in 2018
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 101 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in the Czech Republic. 24 of them were mainstream and 77 - targeted. 98 measures were implemented by a public authority (96 at national and two at regional level) and three were implemented by a different type of entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Czechia also reported six measures as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment (one mainstream and five targeted), seven targeted as relevant for empowerment, seven targeted measures as relevant for local action, three targeted as relevant for transnational cooperation, sixteen targeted as relevant for culture and nine measures as relevant for areas not stated explicitly in the Council Recommendation. 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, 26 measures were reported as relevant for the area of education, five mainstream and 21 targeted. All 26 were implemented by a public authority, 25 at national level and one at regional level.
The most important success
From 1 September 2017 another measure of the amendment to the Education Act entered into force. The most important was the introduction of the compulsory last year of pre-school education.
The most important challenge
The inclusion of Romani children remains a main challenge. The School Act measures were put into practice in the course of 2017.
The situation in this thematic area improved
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, 12 measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment, seven mainstream and five targeted. All 12 were implemented by a public authority, 11 at national level and one at regional level.
The most important success
In 2017, the lowest unemployment rate in the EU was in the Czech Republic. The share of the unemployed accounted for an average of 4.6% in 2017. This fact has also been positively reflected in the employment situation of the Roma. The government, or the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, was able to support social enterprises.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was to support social enterprises.
The situation in this thematic area improved
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, six measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare, two mainstream and four targeted. All six were implemented by a public authority, five at national level and one at regional level.
The most important success
In accordance with Strategy of Roma integration up to 2020, the Ministry of Health has implemented several projects to increase the awareness of Roma and residents of socially excluded localities. New courses for doctors were introduced. The courses lead to acquiring knowledge and skills for working with all patients, including minorities, foreigners, patients from socially excluded localities.
The most important challenge
The main task was to raise awareness among Roma, as well as doctors and medical staff.
The situation in this thematic area improved
HOUSING
In 2017, six measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing. Three were mainstream. All six measures were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The success was the submission of a government bill on social housing to the Chamber of Deputies. Unfortunately, the bill did not find political support. The new bill on social housing should be submitted to the government in 2019.
The most important challenge
The biggest challenge was to approve the law on social housing.
The situation in this thematic area remained the same
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
There has been an amendment to the law on advocacy. From 1 July 2018, the free legal aid will be extended, including an increase in the number of legal aid providers in the individual regions of the Czech Republic.
The most important success
There has been an amendment to the law on advocacy. From 1 July 2018, the free legal aid will be extended, including an increase in the number of legal aid providers in the individual regions of the Czech Republic.
The most important challenge
The biggest challenge in 2017 was to extend free legal aid.
The situation in this thematic area improved
Governance and cooperation
Budget for NRCP: The annual budget for NRCP allocated for the year of reporting: 160933€. The budget expenditures in 2017 was CZK 4184266. Human resources of NRCP: there were 7 employees (in full time equivalent) in 2017. NRCP’s role in cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS The role played by the NRCP in cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS: both in charge and contributing to the coordination of the implementation and monitoring. It is the guarantor of the Roma integration strategy. This means that it is both a coordinator and a contributor. The tasks which are being fulfilled by the individual actors of the monitoring and evaluation process of the Roma Integration Strategy up to 2020 are given mainly by the Statute of the Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs. Apart from a system of monitoring the Strategy as a whole, which is based on best practice, for the period until 2020 there will also be created a complementary system for monitoring of fulfilling the Strategy through ESI Funds. This system is inevitably more complex which is given, among other things, by the existence of separate and highly developed structures for management of both ESI Funds as a whole and the individual operational programmes. Basic monitoring and evaluation cycle lasts one year and is always completed when the Government discusses the Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy up to 2020 which will also provide information about the situation of the Roma minority in the past year. The processes of monitoring and evaluation are based on the already established and proven procedures; however, at the same time collection and analysis of the data will be expanded and improved. At the beginning of a calendar year the Office will collect the data on implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy up to 2020 in the past year from all the ministries, regions and other actors, including NGOs and Roma representatives. The system of monitoring the interventions will focus both on evaluation of ESI Funds and on interventions that are financed from the state budget, as has been the case so far in the Report on the Situation of the Roma Minority in the past year. To strengthen the monitoring and evaluation system working groups for the individual thematic areas will be established which will annually evaluate the implementation of the tasks arising from the Strategy. The outputs of the working groups will form the basis for the preparation of the Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy up to 2020. In addition to evaluating the implementation of the given measures, the Report will also focus on monitoring a set of indicators related to Roma integration which is currently being created in cooperation with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. The involvement of NRCP in decision making processes The NRCP: •is being consulted and participating in development of relevant policies •is being consulted regarding funding of relevant policies •Is both being consulted and participating in implementation of relevant policies The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. 1.The government council for Roma Minority Affairs includes representatives of Roma leaders, Roma NGOs, Roma experts who comments and follow the implementation of the NRIS. 2.There are specific WG and committees, which have specific task in relation to specific goals of the NRIS. The WG on Inclusive Education (not only - but also proposes changes and new policies) monitors the implementation of measures in the field of education. The Committee for Cooperation with Municipalities follows the implementation of the NRIS in the field of housing, employment, health and social affairs. The Regional coordinators who are coordinated by the NRCP monitor the implementation of NRIS in relation to the regional and local level with relevant Roma stakeholders. Roma representatives comment on the report on the situation of Roma Minority before it is presented to the government. 3.The Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs and its working bodies provide for Roma civil society an opportunity to participate. Stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS ·Roma NGOs and experts, ·relevant ministries, ·Ombudsperson, ·expert opinions, ·Czech School Inspection, ·Regional Authorities, ·Local Authorities There is a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. A representative of the Office of the Ombudsman is a member of the Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs. There is a baseline against which we assess progress for the implementation of your NRIS or set of policy measures. Baselines are being set up in the first year of the reporting. See the Metodology for Evaluation of the National Strategy for Roma Integration at http://www.vlada.cz/cz/ppov/zalezitosti-romske-komunity/dokumenty/metodika-pro-sledovani-a-vyhodnocovani-naplnovani-strategie-romske-integrace-do-roku-2020-151719/ The measurable targets are described in the Methodology for Evaluation of the National Strategy for Roma Integration.

CZECH REPUBLIC
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Recent reforms introduced inclusive education: programme for mildly mentally handicapped was abolished and children with special educational needs have right for support measures in mainstream schools. They can be enrolled in special schools only if education in mainstream school failed. ·Support activities and projects focusing on the transition of pupils from sixth grade to the final three grades of compulsory schooling and secondary education have been supported under ESIF. ·Staring with 2017 social scholarships have been introduced by the Ministry of Education to reduce barriers for Roma accessing university studies (however, is criticised for being based on reimbursement of costs). ·Some local measures limit discrimination and segregation in pre-school education by using online registration or by redesigning catchment areas.	·The impact of (inclusive) reforms on Roma is not monitored and assessed. ·Social mobility of youth whose parents achieved only basic or vocational education has not improved. The plan to establish a nationwide cut-off score for high school admission examinations will cement the social reproduction of deprivation with disproportionately harmful impact on Roma. ·Educators are unprepared to address the challenge of educating cohorts who are increasingly diverse with respect to their backgrounds and needs. ·While the National Roma Integration Strategy (NRIS) has identified ethnic discrimination and segregation in education as a problem, policy fails to address this aspect. ·Selectivity of the educational system increases and spatial and structural segregation in education, along the lines of both ethnicity and social status, is intensifying; there are no policy measures to address this problem. ·Non-Roma parents pressure schools to intensify segregation, and schools resist this pressure randomly.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are available for Roma, who participate mostly in the public work programmes. ·Government Agency for Social Inclusion promotes coordination of employment and social services at local level and anti-discrimination in employment. ·Anti-discriminatory legislation is in place, job ads are monitored by Labour Inspectorate that fines employers including discriminatory conditions in their ads.	·Roma access to upskilling programmes provided by the public employment services is limited. ·Public work programmes do not support integration in the primary labour market. ·Public employment services’ outreach measures should be strengthened. ·There is a need for effective measures against indebtedness and usury; life-long debt traps and extremely high fees related to distrains are the main barriers for finding formal employment for many unemployed (Roma and non-Roma) who remain dependent on informal job market.
Healthcare
·Health insurance is mandatory, failing to pay does not lead to denial of insurance. ·The new project of the Ministry of Health addressing health inequalities is more extensive than previous annual projects and aims to root the piloted methods in the public administration system in a systematic way. ·The National Institute for Public Health promotes mediation in “excluded localities”; a centre to promote the health of the socially excluded will open in each of the country’s 14 regions.	·Some Roma cannot afford co-payments for medication, or for medication not covered by insurance, or for treatment not covered by public healthcare (e.g., dentists), or for disability-related equipment, or for Emergency Room fees. Travel costs also prevent access to care. ·While education of health workers about communication with Roma has been identified as a priority by the National Roma Integration Strategy, the course the Ministry refers to when reporting its compliance offers just two hours of education about communication with patients in general. More can and should be done. ·Addressing smoking and premature birth are of special concern to the Roma.
Housing
·Housing allowances are considered effective, they are accessible for many low-income households and reflect regionally differentiated housing costs. ·Despite of a lack of national social housing policy, several local governments pilot progressive social housing models. Several NGOs successfully pilot social rental agency models. ·ESIF supports local development of social housing (development of new dwellings in segregated areas is excluded and spatial concentration of social dwellings is limited) and supporting social inclusion services, including prevention of homelessness. ·Positive local experience with “Housing First” pilots is being scaled up by the government, that allocated ESIF funds to replicate it in other municipalities. ·A methodology for identification of residential segregation and suitable placement of social housing has been developed and is piloted by 12 municipalities.	·The Parliament rejected a draft law on social housing that would mainstream and scale-up positive practices piloted on the local level. In consequence, existence of social housing, access to it and in consequence housing conditions of Roma depend on decision of individual local governments. ·In many municipalities, the only option for many Roma is housing in Roma ghettos or substandard, but extremely expensive accommodation (“social hostels”) because of lack of available social housing and unaddressed discrimination in accessing both private and public rental housing,. ·Public spending on housing allowances is criticised for not being efficient as they finance expensive substandard housing. There are efforts to limit access to housing allowances, driven by both economic and populist arguments, which would probably lead to deterioration of housing and homelessness (because of lack of accessible social housing). ·Segregated Roma neighbourhoods and pockets of concentrated poverty remain an unaddressed problem; their number continues to increase.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·A number of significant anti-discrimination cases have succeeded in court. ·2016 amendment to the Education Act promotes inclusive education and desegregation in education.	·Low rights awareness and mistrust within Roma communities have negative impact on anti-discrimination law enforcement. ·Public Defender of Rights office should be empowered to independently file public interest antidiscrimination actions, and provide all victims with access to free legal aid. ·The education reform has had no discernible impact on desegregation yet: every fourth Roma pupil still educated in segregated settings. Government needs to fully commit to a comprehensive program with a fixed timeline to end segregation. ·Residential segregation remains unaddressed problem. Moreover, segregated neighbourhoods’ inhabitants’ access to housing benefits was restricted in 12 cities and towns. These measures and the law enabling them were challenged at the Constitutional Court as violating the country’s basic law. ·As a result of unsanitary conditions and inadequate showers and toilet facilities in residential hostels, Roma families with children suffer from hepatitis A, bacillary dysentery, bed bugs or scabies.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Some of the official documents explicitly use the term “antigypsyism”. ·There have been several initiatives perceived as good practices in fighting antigypsyism, including crime prevention assistants and caretaker/prevention workers. ·Recognition of the Roma Holocaust strengthened by the government buying out the pig farm located at the site of the former concentration camp at Lety u Písku. The victims are being compensated too. ·Crimes motivated by hatred of Roma are reported on.	·There are no official records of the total number of Roma Holocaust victims compensated so far and no integrated data about the Roma victims of the Holocaust in general. It is also important to raise awareness of the Roma Holocaust and expand the learning requirements in the primary schools.. ·Hate crimes are not sufficiently recognised as such by police, prosecutors and judges. ·The forced sterilisations of Roma women are being addressed through negotiations about compensation. The compensations have to happen urgently. ·There are very few examples of public officials being sanctioned for their hate speech against Roma. The same stands for the online hate-speech.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The National Institute for Public Health implements awareness-raising and prevention programmes in socially excluded communities, targeting children and women, discouraging smoking, informing about the prevention of HIV transmission, and promoting healthy diets. ·National Youth Strategy 2014-2020 includes the aim to improve access to education, employment, healthcare and social welfare services for disadvantaged youth, including Roma.	·The issue of compensation for Roma women sterilized without their informed consent, remained unresolved (however, in August 2018, the Prime Minister promised to support a new proposal for compensation). ·Indebtedness of children is rising – this concerns in particular children from poor families or from foster/institutional care, whose parents failed to pay administrative or municipal fees or transportation to school for them. Such children face distrains in the moment of adulthood, excluding them from labour market. ·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
·National Roma inclusion policy is framed by two concurring concepts, mainstream social inclusion and Roma-targeting with distinct governance structures and national strategies. ·Social inclusion concept is promoted by an Agency for Social inclusion (ASZ) with extensive regional structures and participates in ESIF planning, implementation and management. ·Roma-targeted approach is promoted by NRCP, which supports a governmental council for Roma, where several line ministries and Roma civil society is represented; NRCP has also its own grant scheme (approx. 2M EUR yearly) to support Roma projects and regional Roma coordinators. ·2014-2020 ESIF target at addressing the spatial concentration of extreme poverty. Several OPs have dedicated financial allocations and/or calls for projects in such concentrations within a “coordinated approach” managed by ASZ.	·There is an antagonism between the two governance structures and their strategies and activities are weakly coordinated and connected. ·NRCP’s impact on policy-making is limited due its weak mandate and capacity. ·Despite existence of special units at several ministries addressing problems of socially excluded areas, the actual outreach and impact on Roma is not known. The mainstream social inclusion policies should include specific monitoring and assessment of their effect on Roma. ·There have been problems in coordination of different OPs and ASZ in implementation of “coordinate approach”, jeopardising implementation of local strategies largely relying on ESIF.
Civil participation and empowerment
·NRIS identifies the participation as a separate priority. Roma are represented in several governmental, regional and local councils/committees and there is a special governmental council for Roma, chaired by the PM with representation of all relevant ministries. ·Roma civil society is lively and focuses on diverse areas, including Roma women, LGBTI+, cultural visibility (including literature). ·Roma NGOs established an advocacy network “Romanonet” to influence public policies and ESIF planning and implementation. ·There have been several significant successes of Roma’s advocacy efforts, leading to e.g. government’s buyout of a pig farm on a site of former concentration camp for Roma or ongoing legal fight against discriminatory local policies.	·Despite impact of the governmental Roma council on policy-making has improved, it is contingent on NGO representatives’ activity rather than formal mandate. ·Roma’s participation (through NGOs or NRCP) in design, implementation and monitoring of ESIF both at the national and local level is limited, if any, as they are not represented in existing structures and processes. ·Roma NGOs are often excluded from the planning and implementation of the “comprehensive approach” on the local level. ·National Roma platform rather aims at dissemination of information on NRIS in regions, than real participation in policy-making.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Public policies relevant for Roma inclusion are in hands of local government that enjoy great autonomy. ·Tens of municipalities develop, with assistance of governmental ASZ and involvement of local civil society, their local strategies for social inclusion whose implementation is funded from ESIF. ·Municipalities pilot innovative approaches to social inclusion, in particular in field of social housing, social entrepreneurship or employment, and engage in effective mutual learning and knowledge transfer.	·Engagement in Roma inclusion depends on good will, priorities and political support of local governments. ·There are municipalities with open anti-Roma policies, which might be illegal (discrimination in access to public services, deliberate segregation, repression, bans of use of public spaces or suspension of housing allowances). The central authorities seldom proactively and effectively act against such policies and practices. ·Local governments often exclude Roma needs and Roma civil society from local strategies for social inclusion; central government has limited leverage to ensure that they address also Roma inclusion. ·Regional Roma coordinators lack proper methodological guidance; local Roma advisor employed and funded by municipalities lack also clear mandate.
Data collection
·A Map of Socially Excluded Localities provides data of such areas and this map is used for targeting of social inclusion interventions, including ESIF. ·A methodology of identification of residential segregation has been piloted by the Ministry of Labour and 12 municipalities. ·Czech school inspection collects data on discrimination and segregation of Roma children in education.	·There is a lack of public and political consensus on collection and use of ethnically disaggregated data, what hinders their collection. ·Most of the data from the research for Map of Socially Excluded Localities is not publicly available. ·Use of the available data on special concentration of poverty and Roma segregation could be more extensively used for better targeted public policies, in particular for desegregation in housing and education. ·Data foreseen by strategies and ex ante conditionality are not being collected in reality.
Funding for civil society
·Czech NGOs enjoy certain stability thanks to outsourcing of social services by public authorities. NGOs receive public funding for provision of social counselling and preventive services. ·Government finances a Roma museum in Brno, which became a hub of Roma cultural activities.	·Roma NGOs’ dependency on public funding limits their autonomy in advocacy work and open criticism of public policies or practices. ·Emphasis on economic effectiveness and growing competition among NGOs to get public contracts for social services negatively impact Roma and grassroots NGOs. ·Access to funding, in particular on the regional and local levels, is hindered by extensive administrative burden (e.g. erroneous application of SGEI in social services) and lack of transparency.
Example of promising practice
And NGO from Brno IQ Roma Servis has promoted hiring Roma by private enterprises and given an “Ethnic Friendly Employer” award since 2007 to employers who have demonstrated respect for the principle of the equal treatment of an ethnically diverse workforce over the long term and who have ensured that principle is adhered to. The award is given to employers who do not discriminate against Roma, who are open to hiring them, and who perceive the problems Roma face. The project influences the atmosphere in society by demonstrating that Roma want to work, do work when hired, and are worth hiring full-time.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Adoption of measures, policy or laws which will eliminate overdependency of development and implementation of social inclusion measures on the willingness of local administrations to participate in available programmes. ·Desegregation of preschool and primary education. ·Introduce a functional, nationwide social housing system and include socially vulnerable Roma as one of the priority target groups of the social housing. ·Enforcement of the existing Antidiscrimination Act, empowerment of the Public Defender of Rights office to independently file public interest antidiscrimination actions, and provide victims with free legal aid. ·Expand the piloted activities providing health care to Roma communities into permanent national programmes encouraging Roma to take advantage of preventive health care. ·Adopt measures to help persons in debt trap, increase the costs of distraints borne by debtors and adopt law to eliminate child indebtedness and distraints.
DENMARK
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Accessing a personal identification number (CPR) entails access to a number of public services including the public education. ·Children enrolled in public education can receive mother tongue instruction, if one of the parents is an EU citizen. ·In 2016 the Government launched a new strategy to strengthen early childhood education with a specific focus on children from disadvantaged families.	·Roma, both from EU and third countries, face barriers in accessing the CPR and in consequence their children often cannot participate in education. In particular, Roma families who live and work in the streets of big cities (i.e. Copenhagen), do not have contact with the Danish educational system. ·There are inequalities in quality of education across school districts; families with better socio-economic conditions have easier access to schools that score high on national PISA testing compared with more vulnerable families.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are available for persons possessing the CPR. ·There are dedicated employment measures (apprenticeships, trainings) for including ethnic minorities and new arriving immigrants and refugees into the labour market.	·Roma access to public employment services and dedicated measures’ relevance for Roma cannot be evaluated due to lack of ethnic data. ·Despite a lack of data concerning specifically Roma, there are tendencies that ethnic biases occur in the de-selection when applying for apprenticeship in enterprises. Hence, there is a need to study if this also affects Roma. ·Poor Roma arriving from other EU countries cannot get access to the CPR number because they cannot fulfil national requirements to obtain this registration. This creates an additional barrier to accessing the public employment services. ·As for the possibility of adopting affirmative measures in employment of ethnic minorities, the legal system is restrictive and ambiguous; affirmative action toward ethnic minorities should be regulated and promoted as clearly as in case of older employees and persons with disabilities.
Healthcare
·Public health care is financed out of tax revenues and ensures universal coverage free of charge to all citizens and eligible residents. ·To address complex health concerns of ethnic minority groups, the health districts have specific clinics that focus on the health of ethnic minorities and some municipalities have health communicators for ethnic minorities. ·Since 2011, a Red Cross volunteer-based medical clinic for irregular migrants (persons who do not have access to Danish public health insurance) has operated in Copenhagen	·Denmark has not developed official policies or guidelines for health professionals concerning undocumented migrants’ rights to access health care. Undocumented migrants and non-residents are only granted access to emergency health care. ·EU-mobile Roma with precarious livelihoods face multiple health challenges and are underserved by Danish health care. There are no health strategies or initiatives specifically for Roma. ·Language barrier can be a concern, as most patients (some groups, such as children or persons with reduced capacity and others, are exempt) who have a need for interpretation, and who have lived in Denmark for more than three years, are charged for the interpretation.
Housing
·A new strategy “against parallel societies” has been launched to specifically address the needs in segregated areas, but some conditions remain unclear and are controversial (e.g. conditional benefits, levels of benefits for new arrivals, tearing down of housing in ghettos without clear housing replacement actions).	·Specific data collection in the ghetto communities is needed, to better understand the need of Roma families and how they are potentially affected by the new strategy against parallel societies. ·Many mobile EU citizens (e.g. Romanian Roma) resort to rough sleeping since they have difficulties in finding shelter space or accessing any social or private rentals due to the lack of clarity of legal titles, language barriers and insufficient financial means. ·Rough sleeping in camp-like conditions is prohibited according to new legislation. This leads to a criminalisation of homelessness and can lead to a two-year expulsion from the given town.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Direct and indirect discrimination are prohibited; filing a complaint to the Equality Body can be done online. ·There is no segregation in education; in the past, one municipality’s policy of establishing Roma-only classes was loudly criticised by public authorities and deemed illegal.	·There are no public initiatives or programmes established that specifically address discrimination against Roma. The institutional setting is the same as for other ethnic minorities in Denmark, but its impact on Roma is not known. ·Studies indicate that ethnic segregation is connected to social housing, but due to lack of ethnic data, specific situation concerning Roma is not known. ·A comprehensive research to investigate Roma experiences of discrimination within the educational system, employment, healthcare and housing is necessary. ·Recent legislation on public order, despite not mentioning ethnicity, seems to have disproportionate impact on EU-mobile Roma, who face arrests and expulsions.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Danish Institute of Human Rights also works with matters concerning racial and ethnic origin and gender equality, and the Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination (DRC) is an independent organization that works against discrimination.	·There are no public initiatives or programmes to counter antigypsyism. ·Public authorities do not interfere with or criticise politicians for their use of antigypsyist rhetoric. ·There is a need for enhanced data collection on experiences of racism towards Roma.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Preschool (for at least 25 hours a week) is compulsory for children from the age of one from families living in residential areas defined as ‘ghettos’. ·Some municipalities provide prenatal classes for pregnant women from minority groups. ·In 2016, a governmental strategy was launched to promote early childhood education, with a special focus on children from disadvantaged families.	·Families living in segregated neighbourhoods, defined as “ghettos”, may lose partially their entitlement for child welfare allowance if they fail to enrol their children in preschool education. ·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
·The National Roma Contact Point is established within the Ministry of Immigration and Integration. ·Instead of a special strategy aimed at Roma inclusion, Denmark has an integrated set of policy measures within Denmark’s social inclusion policies (NRIS).	·There is very little information (including contact details) available online concerning the Roma Contact point in Denmark. ·No particular initiatives or measures are defined for Roma within the NRIS, who are rather subsumed under general integration initiatives. There are no specific integration tools, safeguards and “outreach” activities to ensure that the Roma population is included into broader integration initiatives. ·Roma inclusion is not mainstreamed as a particular component across ministries and other public authorities at national level.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Prior to the adoption of the NRIS in 2011, the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs consulted several organisations and institutions about this issue. The Ministry of Social Affairs also consulted a few Roma organisations that were active at the time.	·Important NGOs’ recommendations were not included; these recommendations included: recognition of Roma as a national minority; establishment of a national resource centre for Roma; translation of the integrated sets of measures into Danish; and cooperation with Roma organisations in the collection of data on the Roma population’s experience with access to education, health, employment and housing.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·n/a	·The empowerment and participation of Roma in politics is not promoted explicitly at governmental level or municipal level. ·Roma are not mentioned in documents and programmes concerning social inclusion at municipal level.
Data collection
·n/a	·Ethnic data is not available on the national Roma population and there is a general lack of knowledge about their situation.
Example of promising practice
A church-based organisation Kirkens Korshær runs an initiative Kompasset to help EU-mobile populations in Copenhagen, who have only limited knowledge of English and formal work experience record to present when seeking for job. Kompasset assists them with knowing the Danish system, how to register and get employment, what will enable them to access public services such as education or healthcare and integrate into Danish society. The initiative also helps persons in situation of homelessness by providing them with place to rest, store personal items or have shower. Moreover, it provides legal advice and personal support. These services are provided by staff and around 30 competent volunteers, who together speak the main European languages. Users can therefore get advice and comfort in e.g. English, Romanian, French, Spanish, German, Polish, Italian and Bulgarian.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·To collect data (qualitative research) on the national Roma population to gain insight into their situation including their access to education, employment, health care, housing as well as other issues relating to non-discrimination and equality in Danish society. ·To grant EU-mobile Roma the access to CPR numbers (enabling access to public services, including education or employment services, as well as actual employment) and yellow card (requested in healthcare and shelters); in their country of origin they should be provided with the EU health cards that is accepted in Denmark. ·To further research on the current practices of criminalizing homelessness in Denmark which seems to have a dimension of ethnic profiling as in practice it mainly targets non-Danish homeless. In case that unequal treatment of other EU member states is confirmed, to monitor and enforce the compliance with the EU law. ·Services for EU-mobile populations, such as provided by Kompasset, should be expanded and provided in cooperation with employment officials in the Danish municipalities to further assist people in finding work since this could potentially also be a way to reach out to those persons who are more limited in job searching (since they don’t speak English and don’t have a prior working record) to find jobs that do not require such skills.

ESTONIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Estonian Ministry of Culture
Strategic document	Estonia 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):	1.050 (0,08% of 1.315.635)
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups) Statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity is collected
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
In 2017 the Project "Activation and empowerment of Roma integration stakeholders in Estonia- ESTROM" was launched. The objectives of the Project are: ·Identifying of relevant stakeholders for Roma integration at local level. Preparations for setting up local Roma platforms in municipalities where the Roma live in considerable number. Preparations for employment Roma-mediators in future. ·Rising visibility of the National Roma Integration Council as a national Roma Platform and establish cooperation between the Council and local stakeholders. ·Fostering creation and empowerment of Roma organisations in Estonia, especially Roma youth and Roma women organisations through training. ·Ascertaining and fostering young Roma activists to become Roma spokespersons and/or mediators through communicative activities and training. Although the launching of the Project was a couple of months late due the problems with signing the agreement in the system, the Agreement was signed on 23 October 2018 and in November a project co-ordinator was employed by the Ministry of Culture. The activities are carried out in 2018.
The main challenges
The challenges in 2017 remained the same: high school dropout rate, consequently a low education level, low job engagement and high social vulnerability. A fruitful dialogue between the integration stakeholders including Roma, is impeded by the lack of competent Roma spokespersons at all levels, especially at local level, and weak Roma organisations with very limited membership.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Without competent partners among the Roma community and strong Roma organisation(s) it is extremely difficult to enhance Roma integration at all levels. Therefore, we have to put effort to empowering of the young Roma through training. In 2018, we began with regular training courses.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, two targeted measures were implemented in Estonia, one by private sector entity at regional level and one by other type of entity.
EDUCATION
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for this area.
The most important success
In 2017 Roma targeted educational activities were not implemented.
The most important challenge
The biggest challenge is still high school dropout. Only very few Roma pupils graduate secondary school. Study counselling for pupils with different cultural background needs further improvement. The basis of assessment are National statistics.
The overall Situation in this thematic area remained the same.
In Estonia, the majority of the students with special educational needs study in an ordinary class of their school of residence, not in special education institution. According to Estonian Education Information System, the vast majority of Roma children, 38 out of 46, study according to the normal (i.e. not simplified) national curriculum. In school year 2017/18, 55 Roma pupils study in comprehensive schools. Five Roma study according to a simplified curriculum, others study according to normal curriculum. 22 pupils learn at first degree (grades 1-3), 23 learn at second degree (grades 4-6) and 10 at third school degree (grades 7-9). There are 18 different schools where Roma pupils study in 2017/18.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for this area.
The most important success
According to Statistics Estonia, in 2017 unemployment rate was 5.8%, employment rate 67.5% and the labour force participation rate 71.6%. There were no major changes in the employment rate in 2017 compared to 2016, still the figures slightly increased.
The most important challenge
What regards to Roma, there are three big challenges from the perspective of employment: generally low education level, lack of qualifications, as well as stigmatisation in the society. The basis of assessment is the Population Register.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
The 2012–2017 Strategic Action Plan of the Ministry of Social Affairs does not foresee specific employment measures provided based on ethnic origin. All public employment services are provided to the unemployed on an individual basis, based on one’s needs, abilities and objectives. That means that if unemployed, a Roma receives employment services on equal grounds with others. There are no specific labour market services or programmes focused on employment for Roma in Estonia. According to Population Register the Estonian Roma are divided by the type of activity as follows: employed 11% (of all Estonian Roma, not only working age!), on parental leave 2%, students 7%, pensioners 8%, non-working 25%, registered unemployed 26%, under aged persons non-studying nor working 3%, not answered 18%. Services of Estonian Unemployment Fund: https://www.tootukassa.ee/eng/content/services
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for this area.
The most important success
The birth rate has risen, and the life expectancy has increased. In the meantime, the life expectancy has been increasing faster than the European average. As the result of developments over the last decade, the Estonian health care system has become one of the most cost-effective health care systems in Europe. No information about the Roma can be distinguished.
The most important challenge
The objective of Estonian health policy is the increase of life expectancy, in particular the increase in the number of healthy life years by reducing premature mortality and morbidity rates and providing high-quality medical and nursing assistance. The basis of assessment are national statistics.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
All persons staying in the territory of the Republic of Estonia legally or without legal basis are ensured emergency care. Health services provided in the Republic of Estonia are accessible to all. No one is discriminated against on ethnic, religious, moral or other, including non-medical grounds. According to health Insurance Act an insured person is a permanent resident of Estonia or a person residing in Estonia on the basis of a temporary residence permit or the right of residence or a person legally staying and working in Estonia based on a temporary ground for stay for whom a payer of social tax must pay social tax or who pays social tax for themselves in the amounts and within the time limits provided for in the Social Tax Act.
HOUSING
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for this area. The target group of Estonian housing policy includes young families, children without parental care and young people without parental care, disabled people, elderly people, families with many children, people released from prison and probationers, the homeless, owners of returned dwellings and students. Neither national minorities in general, nor the Roma in particular are a specific target group, but all target groups may include the Roma. According to a law local authorities are obliged to guarantee that all target groups are supplied with suitable housing and to reduce homelessness by increasing the proportion of social housing units and housing managed under the fund of social or municipal rental dwellings, including establishing maintenance and repair regulations and deciding other issues which by law are in the power of local government councils. There are no illegal Roma settlements nor spatial segregation of Roma population in Estonia.
No information is available regarding the assessment of the situation in this thematic area.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. It was a targeted measure implemented by private sector at regional level.
The most important success
A visual-anthropological project "Estonian Roma community through the eyes of Roma children" continued in 2017. In the course of the project, Roma children and young people were given cameras and they took pictures of what they considered important or interesting and write a story to accompany their photo. A special web-site was created in 2016 to expose the pictures and in 2017 the bilingual book "Meie, mustlased. We, the Roma" assembling the best photos as well as texts about the Estonian Roma was prepared for print. The book was published in May 2018. As regards multiple discrimination, in 2017 Estonian Parliament Riigikogu ratified Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) which is a step forward to combat violence against women.
The most important challenge
The problem is low understanding of Roma culture and traditions in the society and full of stereotypes. To raise the knowledge and understanding, projects are supported from the state budget. As regards multiple discrimination, in 2017 the percentage of early unofficial marriages apparently continues to be high among Roma. Gender equality is also traditionally a challenge in Roma community.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
No information is available regarding the assessment of the situation in the area of multiple discrimination.
Governance and cooperation
The annual allocated budget for NRCP for 2017 was 0€. The budget spent in the year of the preceding the year of reporting was 4986€. The activities of NRCP are financed from the state budget via the Ministry of Culture. No specific funds were allocated for Roma integration, although money from the State budget (via the Ministry of Culture) was spent for Roma integration activities in 2017. The role of NRCP is fulfilled besides many other assignments. No specific person is employed solely for the duties related to Roma integration. The NRCP is in charge in cross sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. In December 2015 the Ministry of Culture officially formed the National Roma Integration Council which involves representatives from different ministries and local governments as well as representatives of both registered Roma organisations as well as Integration and Migration Foundation. The aim of the Council is to encourage and facilitate dialogue, promote mutual learning and cooperation between the stakeholders, as well as discuss the problems related to Roma integration and find solutions to these problems. Two main tasks can be underlined: first, Roma education, and second, raising public awareness about Roma, their culture, way of life and fighting against stigmatization of the minority. The first meeting of the Council was held in January 2016. Three meetings were held in 2016: to adopt the action Plan, to discuss the organisational issues of the Roma conference and to discuss the NRCP application for EC grant for development of the National Roma Platform. The primary task for the Council is encouraging dialogue between all stakeholders and empowering the Roma as partners for the state and local governments. " In 2017 the Council held 2 meetings. The cross-sectorial coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS takes place through the Roma Integration Council. The NRCP is being consulted and participating in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies. The NRCP is being consulted in decision-making processes regarding funding of relevant policies. The NRCP is being consulted and participating in decision-making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies. NRCP is not facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. A list of the stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS is not available. There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is a baseline against which progress for the implementation of your NRIS or set of policy measures is assessed. All available aggregated statistical data: socio-economical facts, educational data: education level, school dropout rate, school attendance rate. Measuable targets are rise in education level, school dropout rate, and employment statistics.

ESTONIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Within the inclusive education principle all schools must provide individual support to students who need it, the way it is organised is up to the specific school. ·Placement of any children into special schools has largely decreased since inclusive education became the leading principle of the Estonian education system. ·In Estonia, compulsory education lasts until the age of 17 or until finishing basic school; this measure prevents drop-outs without basic school completion.	·It is not possible to determine how many children of Roma origin are currently in the education system, as the Estonian Education Information System only reflects on the students whose parents register them as children with Romani background. ·Pre-school education is not compulsory in Estonia. The kindergarten fee varies by municipality and is normally tied to the minimum wage. ·Secondary education is not compulsory. There are no dedicated actions to support or encourage Roma students to reach secondary or higher education.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services designed upon individual jobseekers’ needs are available to Roma. ·Legal provisions and institutions against discrimination in employment exist.	·Roma often have low trust in public employment services, including trainings, and their effectiveness in finding jobs. ·There are no official reports of incidents of work-related discrimination. Within a research from 2014, a majority of young Roma reported that they had experienced discrimination in accessing jobs. ·There are no specific measures to fight racial discrimination in employment.
Healthcare
·Public insurance is guaranteed for children up to 19 years, students, adults whose social taxes are paid by their employers, pregnant women, unemployed persons, dependent spouses, and pensioners.	·Lack of health insurance (e.g. because of not being registered as unemployed) could be an issue for some in the Roma community.
Housing
·Roma live mostly in integrated neighbourhoods, and there are no reports that they are affected by homelessness.	·There is very sporadic empirical evidence about the housing issues of the Roma community. ·The average Roma housing conditions are reported to be poorer compared with the general population, and there are no special provisions to make sure that municipalities respond to these needs with the help of their own social housing stock.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The practice of placing Roma children to special schools has stopped and educational segregation is not a problem anymore. ·Roma population is too small and scattered to ascertain if there are any distinct patterns of discrimination. ·The survey carried out in 2018 indicated that institutions such as the police or the judicial system enjoy trust among Roma.	·The equality body (Office of the Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner) remains critically underfunded, and unable to fulfill its role. In consequence, for example, the office was not able to participate in a procurement in 2018 to start a planned project aimed at reducing the school dropout rate of Roma children.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Steps have been taken recently to collect data on hate crimes, however it is not expected that these will be disaggregated by ethnicity of victims.	·There has been very limited research performed on existence and extent of antigypsyism. ·Limited transposition of hate speech and hate crime provisions. ·There are no reliable statistics regarding hate speech against the Roma. No media monitoring is being carried out. ·There is a need for clearer rules on hate speech or at least a clear legal definition at national level of what constitutes hate speech should be created. Until then it is not possible to monitor the real situation regarding hate speech.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·In 2017-2018, the Ministry of Culture implemented a project “Supporting the development of a network supporting the empowerment of Estonian Roma youth and women”, including training for so-called cultural translators, aimed at improving relations between schools, local governments and Roma families/communities.	·The enrolment rate of Roma children in kindergartens could be increased by addressing the cultural issues, which are assumed to play a key role in Roma families’ decisions regarding pre-school education. ·The Unemployment Insurance Fund has a special scheme, aimed at improving the labour market integration of young people (aged 16-29), including training opportunities and subsidies for the employers, however, these services rarely reach Roma communities. ·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
·Instead of a special strategy on Roma inclusion, Estonia has an integrated sets of policy measures, which are linked to the national development plan “Integrating Estonia 2020”. ·The Roma integration policy is the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture, where the National Roma Contact Point is placed. ·In 2015, the Ministry of Culture established the Roma Integration Council for dealing with the issues of Roma integration and coordinating information.	·The plan “Integrating Estonia 2020” is not very specific, and Roma are only mentioned in one paragraph. ·The Roma Integration Council generally meets twice a year, but unfortunately, attendance is not high, especially when it comes to the representatives of local governments.
Civil participation and empowerment
·There are three registered (pro-)Roma NGOs in Estonia (one of them is not led by Roma people anymore).	·No local government has an integration strategy aimed at the Roma community. ·Roma are not active in civic organising. In consequence existing (pro-)Roma NGOs only weakly represent Roma interests as they have no or just a few active members.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·The Ministry of Culture plans activities (supported by the European Commission) in municipalities with Roma population to support trust-building, including training of local Roma mediators.	·No local government has an integration strategy aimed at the Roma community. Local governments do not implement any measures to support the Roma community specifically. ·Valga, the local government with the largest Roma community, pointed out that their development plan and budgetary strategy for 2019-2023 states that multiculturalism is the strength of Valga. Yet, it includes nothing specific concerning Roma and there is no action plan aimed specifically at them.
Data collection
·Roma community is relatively small – according to the National Population Register, there are 649 people living in Estonia who self-identify as Roma. 40 per cent of the Roma in Estonia hold Estonian citizenship, 38 per cent hold Latvian citizenship, 14 per cent hold Russian citizenship and 7 per cent who are stateless. ·Several specific studies on Roma in Estonia have been produced. The most recent in 2018, focused on Roma’s participation in the society.	·The conducted studies on Roma have been small and non-representative, thus the findings cannot be generalised to the whole Roma population in the country. ·There is a lack of data on general living conditions of the Roma.
Funding for civil society
·In 2017, the Ministry of Culture started a project “Supporting the development of a network supporting the empowerment of Estonian Roma youth and women”, which is financed by the European Commission.	·Available funding for civil society Is not accessible for Roma NGOs because of their low capacities to apply and successfully administer grants.
Example of promising practice
In 2015, the Minister of Culture as the National Roma Contact Point, established an Advisory Council for Roma Integration, where Roma issues have been taken up which has led to somewhat broader discussion of those issues among stakeholders. In 2017, the Ministry of Culture started a project “Supporting the development of a network supporting the empowerment of Estonian Roma youth and women”, which is financed by the European Commission. That is the first time when government has been more proactive in supporting the Roma community.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Dedicated national Roma integration and development plan should be created. The Government should develop specific measures for the inclusion of Roma in economic and social life, especially in terms of employment and in the school system. ·Local governments should strategically support the Roma communities on the local level. At present, local governments do not implement any measures to support the Roma community specifically. Also, local governments with larger Roma communities should employ Roma mediators. ·More research needs to be conducted into Roma community's socio-economic problems and wellbeing. At the moment, there is a serious lack of research that would give an overview of the living conditions of Roma, the quality and accessibility of medical care, participation in the working environment and educational problems.

FINLAND
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Pre-primary education is compulsory one year before preceding the start of compulsory education. Roma children attain it mainly at the public day-care centres provided by the municipalities regardless of their parents’ working status. ·Two ministries published materials both in Romanes and Finish to support parents in their children’s early education at home. ·The national agency for education has published several surveys regarding Roma education. ·ESF-funded national projects aim at tackling challenges of Roma education; activities include promotion of education, skills and life-long learning among Roma. ·Employment of Roma mediators in some schools has proven positive impact on Roma children’s education outcomes. This new tool is expanding rapidly. ·National Agency of Education has a special Roma unit, which researches on and promotes Roma’s education. ·Roma children are not segregated in separate own schools and classrooms.	·School enrolment depends on residence in catchment area; this is a problem for Roma from other EU countries or third courtiers without permanent housing. ·Despite good quality of the Finnish educational system, Roma children face problems in schooling. Lack of Roma’s recognition and higher absenteeism seems to be causes of their lower performance. ·Roma are overrepresented in special class room settings. ·Support to Roma children’s education should transfer from the project-based approach towards permanent supporting measures and policies. ·School authorities should collaborate more with the local Roma civil society to overcome challenges in Roma children education.
Employment
·The focus is mainly on social services. ·There are several new (ESF-funded) pilot projects to activate Roma, some have a strong outreach element. ·The legal provisions against discrimination in accessing employment and at workplace exist and are monitored. ·Equality Act obliges every public employer to have an equality plan. ·Media campaign was launched to raise awareness on the problem of discrimination and antigypsyism in labour market.	·The approaches developed in the pilot programmes are not transferred to the mainstream employment services. ·The discrimination by employers against Roma is high, but rarely reported. ·The funding for Roma-specific programmes is unstable.
Healthcare
·With the partial exception of undocumented immigrants, access to health care in Finland is extensive, services are of high quality and equitable. ·A study on Roma’s wellbeing “Roosa,” was conducted. It included a health examinations and tests (both somatic and mental). ·Roma policy focus on social and health services towards the Roma with better coordination and culturally sensitive approach.	·The training of health care professionals should include the development of practical multicultural skills. ·Providing better professional guidance and care concerning health care of young families and early childcare. ·Health issues related to domestic violence should be of a higher priority.
Housing
·Local and central policies have been designed to answer Finnish Roma housing needs for decades. ·The gap of equal access to the housing between Roma and the ethnic Finns and other groups has been closing up. ·There are monitoring and negotiation mechanisms in place to balance out accessibility and discrimination issues.	·The cutbacks in the housing allowances have increased the need to replace the housing for smaller and cheaper ones, which, coupled with the location of cheaper housing units pushes some Roma families into poverty hit neighbourhoods. ·There is no permanent and sustainable solution to the problem caused by undocumented immigrants or immigrants without permanent housing or begging Roma people, and not enough willingness to solve the problem, beyond NGOs that assist people living in illegal settlements. ·Despite some improvement, surveys indicate that Roma still experience discrimination in accessing private or public rental housing.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The task of the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is to promote equality and to prevent discrimination. It is an autonomous and independent authority and in 2014 it replaced the Ombudsman for minorities, which since its establishment had specifically promoted Roma issues. ·General obligation (for municipalities, all administrative levels and larger employers) to carry out equality planning was introduced from 1 January 2018. Plans are monitored by the Non-discrimination Ombudsman's office. ·Legal Aid service is available for all citizens. Roma NGOs are familiar with the system and can guide their clients. ·Roma are prominently involved with the existing anti-discrimination campaigns, run mostly by the non-governmental associations.	·Since 2014, Roma issues had no longer been reported in Ombudsman’s annual reports separately; instead they are included in among other cases of discrimination regarding all ethnic groups. ·Discrimination experienced by Roma is considered underreported.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Roma are involved in mainstream campaigns against hate crime and hate speech. ·Authorities have put some efforts into encouraging hate crime victims or witnesses to report the offences to the police (it is however not clear if this information reaches Roma).	·Antigypsyism should be recognised by the state, which could then result in the creation of initiatives to combat the phenomenon, and should be planned and implemented together with Roma associations. ·It is only discrimination as one of the manifestations of antigypsyism, which has been, although as a footnote, recognised by the NRIS. This should be addressed by the Advisory Board on Roma Affairs. ·Large percentage of Roma who face antigypsyism do not report cases to anybody.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The measure on mandatory participation in pre-school education (in force from 2015) improved the attendance rates of Roma children. ·The NRIS for 2010-2017 provided awareness raising initiatives among the Roma on gender roles within the family; moreover, municipalities were encouraged to arrange sport opportunities for Roma women whose involvement is limited in this field due to cultural restrictions. ·The NRIS for 2018-2022 highlights the gender aspect of the NEET youth phenomenon (men are overrepresented ).	·There are no measures supporting NEET youth in attaining professional skills at an older age. ·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
·A permanent National Advisory Board on Roma Affairs (formerly Advisory Board on Gypsy Affairs) was formed in 1956. ·National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) is another structure responsible for Roma inclusion. Both NRCP and Board are under the same ministry. ·National Advisory Board on Romani Affairs is responsible for formulating the National Roma Policy, ROMPO. ·As the representatives of the Ministries are members of the Advisory Board, the Roma Policy is incorporated into the sectoral strategies of each Ministry. ·Another governmental agency relevant for Roma inclusion is the Finnish National Board on Education, where a unit for Roma education - Education Unit for Roma, was established.	·National Advisory Board is composed of representative of ministries and Roma representatives, who are sometimes connected to public authorities. ·National Advisory Board faces criticism for an elitism in Roma representation.
Civil participation and empowerment
·National Advisory Board is appointed by the Government and half of its members are of Romani background. ·A survey was sent out to different NGOs and other institutions working with Roma related issues in order to understand their involvement in the formulation, implementation and the follow-up processes with the current Roma Policy. ·The possibilities to participate in the planning process of policies were predominantly regarded positively.	·The problem with Roma politics and policies is low participation, with exception a small group, often connected to public authorities. ·Power relations play a significant role. Also, the absence of women, youth and “minorities within the minority” in Roma politics and policies was indicated.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·There are currently four Regional Advisory Boards on Romani Affairs (the 5th is under preparation) which are placed under the Regional State Administrative Agencies. From December 2017 Regional Advisory Boards on Roma Affairs operate on a new legal basis (not only governmental decree). ·Their aim is to ensure the hearing and participation of Roma living in different parts of Finland in the decision-making processes regarding Roma issues such as housing, welfare, education and employment. ·Due to the initiatives of Regional Advisory Boards or by the municipalities, there are Local Roma Working Groups active in 20 municipalities. The municipalities invite local Roma and/or representatives of local Roma NGOs a few times a year to meet with the key authorities of the municipalities.	·The top-down approach is not reaching the local Roma; the empowerment from bottom-up is the next step to promote Roma inclusion.
Data collection
·Steering groups of the national surveys on Roma issues, for example on housing, health, education, employment, which have been conducted by different Ministries or other actors, usually include Roma. ·Advisory Board on Roma Affairs along with the Regional Advisory Boards and Education Unit for Roma are estimating the basic data, e. g. how many Roma live in some areas, how many children are attending basic education etc. ·A comprehensive population study “Roosa” was conducted (see “Example of promising practice” below).	·The ethnic registration is prohibited in Finland, so the data is not always easy to find.
Funding for civil society
·Mainly, the Romani NGOs receive funding from the Funding Centre for Social Welfare and Health Organizations (STEA). ·At the local level there is also funding from the municipalities, for example, for preventing marginalization, or to organize events for different groups. ·There is an ongoing national Roma consortium project (2016-2018), funded by the European Social Fund. This project is a transformation of the Roma Policy into the local action plans, meaning that the aims of the project was adapted from the National Policy on Roma. This project followed the principles of participatory practices recommended by the funder.	·The challenge is that many NGOs do not have enough knowledge to apply or do not have administrative capacity to take care of the needed accounting or payroll services, or they do not have their own funding which is demanded.
Example of promising practice
National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) conducted a population study Roma Wellbeing Study Roosa among the Finnish Roma between 2016 and 2018 and published at the beginning of 2019. The aim was to collect comparable data in order to strengthen equal treatment of Roma by developing culturally sensitive, yet universal services within social and health services system. The study was part of a large ESF-funded project Nevo Tiija project aimed at social inclusion and employment of Roma. The Roosa study has been conducted with Roma representatives, because there was still not enough comparable data of the services and the quality of them in Roma context. It included 365 participants and community meetings. Most of the participants participate also in the health examination (blood pressure, heart rate, height, weight, waist circumference, test of cognitive functions (verbal fluency, memory test), hand grip strength test, join function tests, chair stand test, eyesight tests (near and distant vision) and Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) of psychological symptoms. Moreover, a structured face-to-face interview or self-filled questionnaire included questions of socio-economic status, housing conditions, employment, education, health, experiences of discrimination, use of services, and self-reported functional ability and health.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●System of circular representation in advisory boards at all levels is recommended to guarantee diversity among Roma representatives. ●The ROMPO should be better connected to the local level policy-making. A bottom-up approach in ROMPO development would concretize the needs at the local level more efficiently and local actors should be more strongly involved, and resources should be directed to the local level. ●Diversity among Roma is not expressed in the Roma Policy. According to the feedback, there is an absence of women, adolescents and other “minority within minority’s” representation. These points should be stated in the National Roma strategy.

FRANCE
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
France has a series of measures which form part of broader social inclusion policies to improve the situation of the Roma. As it cannot conduct public policies targeting a particular community or ethnic group, it focuses on two groups among those covered by the European framework: ·itinerant or semi-itinerant travellers, mainly of French nationality, estimated to be between 350 000 and 400 000; ·vulnerable European citizens who are economic migrants and who are living in camps and shanty towns, estimated to be between 15 000 and 20 000 people.
Institution acting as NRCP	The Interministerial Delegation for Accommodation and Access to Housing (DIHAL)
Strategic document	France 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):	400 000 (0,60% of 67 024 459)
Available options for data collection	Article 1 of the Constitution states that France ‘shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law without distinction of origin, race or religion’. The French legal framework therefore does not allow for specific measures to be provided for a given ethnic group. In France, no monitoring indicators specifying ethnic origin can be collected by the French authorities. The data collected by DIHAL through a bi-annual assessment of the shanty towns and people living in them in mainland France provides an estimate of the number of people living in illegal camps and shanty towns. The inhabitants are mainly vulnerable Romanian and/or Bulgarian intra-EU migrants.
Summary of the reporting year
N.B.: no specific measures taken in 2017 concerning the situation of the Roma were reported by France. However, this summary includes more general information set out below, as provided by the NRCP in France. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion, it was necessary to specify whether this information concerns public policies relating to travellers or to people living in camps.
The main achievements
For people living in camps, DIHAL supported 73 measures in 22 départements in 2017. In the framework of local and partnership strategies, these measures concerned around 11 300 people (including 5 275 children), thus making it possible for: ·4 680 people to receive comprehensive social support; ·1 250 people to receive support in finding employment, 885 of which actually found employment; ·1 275 children to attend school; ·1 750 people to receive health support. In the case of travellers, the ministry responsible for housing financed 152 places in reception centres and 88 places on family rental land as part of the department-wide schemes dedicated to travellers.
The main challenges
The main challenges were mobilising various stakeholders, measures and funding for people living in camps and travellers, especially at local level.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
With regard to travellers, the entry into force on 27 January 2017 of the Law on Equality and Citizenship which repeals the statutory scheme for travellers. The latter are no longer obliged to have a travel permit (livret de circulation). The specific living patterns of travellers are recognised. Furthermore, the travellers’ departmental consultative committees were reformed by a decree of 9 May 2017. As regards people living in camps, major consultations were also carried out in 2017 with the parties involved on the new framework for action to eliminate shanty towns. These discussions led to the signing of an interministerial instruction of 25 January 2018 aimed at giving new impetus to the elimination of shanty towns and illegal camps. This governmental instruction sets out a renewed framework for action in order to give new impetus to the policy of eliminating illegal camps and shanty towns. This is a humane and demanding policy with regard to the rule of law but also an effective one, with the aim of achieving a long-term reduction in the number of shanty towns over the next five years.
Thematic Areas
N.B.: no specific measures taken in 2017 concerning the situation of the Roma were reported by France. However, this summary includes more general information set out below, as provided by the NRCP in France.
EDUCATION
The most important success
As regards people living in camps, as part of the integration scheme under which children receive support in attending school, at least 1 275 children were able to attend school in 2017. With regard to the national operational programme (NOP) of the European Social Fund (ESF), 28 operations were identified as targeting illegal camps for an amount of EUR 2.8 million. Example concerning the national operational programme of the European Social Fund (ESF NOP) : Project - ‘Connections: Preventing children from dropping out of school - forming links with migrant families who do not have a strong relationship with their children's school in order to help their children succeed’. The project aimed to boost the level of education and facilitate the social integration of this vulnerable non-French speaking migrant population. Its objective was to ensure children’s access to school and to set them on a path to future success. The measure consisted of: -the establishment of a bilingual mediation between schools and parents; -family educational initiatives; -the organisation of intercultural exchanges; -encouraging the development of partnership habits and practices; -the establishment of a bilingual mediation between schools and parents [sic]. Implemented between 1 September 2015 and 31 August 2018, this project mobilised EUR 505 444 of ESF appropriations for an estimated 240 monitored participants. For children of itinerant families and travellers, compulsory education is provided in public or private establishments or schools or by the National Centre for Distance Education (CNED). In 2016-2017, 10 016 itinerant children received distance education. A set of resources entitled ‘Guidelines on the schooling of children of itinerant families and travellers’ was developed by a national working group and made available online in January 2016 on the portal of the Ministry of National Education in order to provide guidance to education staff and professionals in their teaching activities. Under the ESF NOP, 124 operations are identified as ‘operations intended for travellers’ for an ESF amount of EUR 14 million. Example concerning the ESF NOP: as part of the targeted operations, the project ‘The letterbox - a measure to prevent children from dropping out of school’, led by the association ‘la Sauvegarde du Nord’ in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, developed a measure for children and teenagers with the following objectives: tackling illiteracy, promoting children’s personal growth and development, citizenship education, preventing violent behaviour displayed by children and teenagers. This project was implemented from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015 and mobilised EUR 90 275 of ESF appropriations for an estimated 1 190 monitored participants.
The most important challenge
The attendance of children from shanty towns varies depending on the involvement of the parents. As they get older, school attendance and commitment fall significantly, as a result of child marriages and teenagers’ desire to start working.
EMPLOYMENT
The most important success
In the case of people living in camps, as part of the integration scheme established locally and financed by DIHAL, 885 people found employment through the projects for which this information was given in 2017; 1 250 people benefited from employment support measures through the projects for which this information was given. Language training for professional purposes (operational preparation for employment) was set up for people living in shanty towns in the Ile-de-France region. In 2019, this training could be extended to other areas as part of an integration project concerning employment and housing. With regard to travellers, the Travellers’ National Consultative Committee adopted an action plan for the employment and training of travellers at its meeting of 30 June 2017, on a proposal from its working group on employment. The aim of this action plan is to mobilise the Committee’s various partners to improve access to employment and training for travellers through clearly identified objectives and the implementation of practical measures. Since January 2018, the focus has been on access to employment for women within family units, with eight women currently integrated in the labour market through fixed-term integration contracts (contrats à durée déterminée d'insertion (CDDI)) within the Arelia association. This is a remarkable development within the community as this measure was unthinkable three years earlier. These women will also be able to receive sociolinguistic support.
The most important challenge
Access to the labour market for highly marginalised groups with initial training issues, in particular as regards literacy and learning French.
HOUSING
The most important success
For people living in camps in 2017, 2 670 people were accommodated or housed under the support scheme. This support was provided in a number of areas - shanty towns, transit passages or integration villages with the provision of accommodation if necessary, temporary or mixed lodgings, or assistance at home. These solutions are implemented in different ways in order to adapt them to the situations specific to each area. While support to place people in social housing is generally the preferred approach, transitional arrangements are sometimes necessary (rental intermediation, modular housing, making existing accommodation temporarily more secure, etc.). In the case of travellers, the Equality and Citizenship Law was enacted on 27 January 2017, incorporating the entire draft Raimburg Law of December 2013, which reformed Law No 2000-614 of 5 July 2000 on the reception and housing of travellers in order to boost the creation of permanent reception centres and high-circulation areas on land belonging to a municipality or to a public establishment for inter-municipal cooperation. It recognises the travellers’ strong territorial links and encourages the authorities to diversify their range of accommodation by providing family rental land. In addition to adapted housing, this land is an alternative to temporary reception centres and a response to the need for a stable and private area for families that respects their potential mobility. The law makes it easier for Public Establishments for Inter-Municipal Cooperation (EPCI) to establish areas and land and will make it possible to review their planning and operating arrangements. Programmes 177 and 135 respectively include financial support for heads of networks working for travellers and financial support for providing facilities to travellers. Example concerning the ESF NOP: Coordination of local employment integration policies - Development and management of the Inter-Municipal Plan for Integration and Employment (PLIE) in East and South Lyon. The objectives and missions of the PLIE led by UNI-EST were set out in the multi-annual memorandum of understanding linking the cities, the State, the Rhône department (and the Greater Lyon metropolitan area from 1 January 2015), the Rhône-Alpes region, the French Employment Service and the Regional Local Outreach Union. The key challenge for the PLIE in East and South Lyon was to bring together employment, integration and economic players for a joint local development project aimed at the concerted implementation of public employment policies and the development of solutions which would be tailored to the needs of jobseekers most in difficulty, vulnerable workers and businesses (in particular SMEs/VSEs) and would help to reduce local inequalities. The aim of this project was to run an annual programme of around 100 measures, involving almost 5 100 PLIE participants and mobilising EUR 870 000 of ESF appropriations.
The most important challenge
In the case of travellers, there are still obstacles to the establishment of reception centres. The implementation of the departmental plans should, in the long term, permit the establishment of the facilities required by the travellers, including 10 847 places in permanent reception centres, i.e. 28.4 % of places still to be provided (source: DHUP 2018 survey).

FRANCE
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Pre-school education will be compulsory, from the school year 2019/2020, for all children above the age of 3 years. ·Children with academic difficulties, without good command of French or in precarious social conditions are educated in special teaching units at their own pace with a more individualised pedagogy aimed at acquiring skills necessary for mainstream education. ·Children from homeless families and ‘gens du voyage’ are educated in mobile schools to be better prepared for the standard schooling. ·The state provides financial assistance to pupils of the primary education (until the age of 11) to offset the cost of supplies (school bags, pencils, clothes, etc.). ·Roma civil society offers reception centres to provide homework help for children.	·There is a lack of data on how many Roma children from families living in precarious conditions do not go to school, however, existing studies indicate that this number can be significant. ·Access to pre-primary and primary education is conditioned upon administrative procedures that create barriers for Roma, specifically those not speaking French. ·Requests for early schooling very often face refusals from mayors mainly based on the lack of residence documents. ·Education in special teaching units often stigmatises students and contributes to their segregation form the mainstream. ·Efficiency of mobile schools as transition to standard schooling is very variable and no data exist as to evaluate it on the whole territory. Moreover, the existing mobile schools are private and there is very little monitoring by the educational state authorities. ·School dropout has been a national priority once with the 2014 national plan, but young people living in precarious housing are not a target of the plan (moreover, repetitive evictions from housing increase dropouts). ·There is no financial assistance for supplies in middle-schools (starting from age of 11), nor for the children registered after September, which is often the case for precarious families. ·Available mainstream policies are little known among the “gens du voyage” and of EU-mobile Roma living in France, e.g. the use of validation by experience acquisition (VAE).
Employment
·The approach taken is that mainstream public employment services and youth guarantee programme are available nationwide. ·There are small-scale regional projects (mainly ESF-funded) targeted at slums and other poverty-stricken neighbourhoods. ·Cases of discrimination in access to employment or public employment services are regularly monitored by public authorities (Defender of Rights), and reports are fed back to the legislature.	·Mainstream programmes are not tailored to Roma and access is limited by lack of language skills or stable housing, foreign citizenship, or lack of a bank account. ·Employment and training measures should be coordinated with social and housing measures. ·Public employment services’ outreach measures barely exist and should be strengthened. ·Discrimination against Roma in access to employment by public and private institutions remains very often unreported and thus, an unaddressed issue.
Healthcare
·Health insurance is general and the most indigent are offered also supplementary health insurance and can access all the health services for free. Moreover, there is a special regime for foreigners who live in France with no permit residence or right to stay. ·National Centre of Health Insurance created a special centre for EU inactive citizens residing in France.	·The health of the many Roma living in self-managed areas or slums is adversely affected by their environment. Mechanisms range from pathogens to lack of easy access to drinking water and should be addressed. ·Establishment of the special centre for EU inactive citizens made clients’ applications so far more cumbersome and slower; the regulations and administrative practices should be reviewed.
Housing
·There is a refined state programme to eliminate all slums within 5 years. The state policy contains orientations on housing, health, employment and education. The policy should be implemented within local partnerships, under the authority of the prefects.	·There is no consistent policy to eliminate segregation in housing. ·Essential public services are not at all or not adequately accessible, in both managed (for gens-du-voyage) and self-managed (informal sites inhabited by Roma from Bulgaria and Romania) areas. Municipalities tend not to serve the areas, afraid that this would legitimate them. ·The state program to eliminate all slums is encouraging, but as it depends on the good will of municipalities, its implementation is very unequal, and departments in which it is the most needed have failed to start building local partnerships to achieve the goals. ·Social housing is scarce and many times inadequate for gens-du-voyage, whereas housing benefits and social housing for migrant Roma are not accessible due to legal constraints and language/information barriers.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The Defender of Rights has investigative powers and has often presented observations in court cases in matters of Roma rights.	·Few complaints received due to language and social barriers, mistrust and low rights awareness among Roma. Legal aid and advice for marginalised Roma should be available and provided by public authorities. ·Forced evictions are frequently carried out without providing alternative accommodation or addressing the needs of ill and disabled people, infants or pregnant mothers. The policy of forced evictions should end, and instead humane integration that provides for access to services and safe and stable accommodation should be promoted. ·Basic facilities are lacking in most shanties and slums. Many mayors maintain that if they offer such facilities then they cannot proceed with evictions. The NRIS should be revised to ensure that everyone has access to clean water and sanitation. ·Police violence and discriminatory behaviour towards Roma and gens du voyage remains a problem that needs to be addressed by state authorities, with greater protection and legal assistance provided for victims.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The approach taken is that mainstream legislation is sufficient to cover antigypsyism, and the Ombudsperson is expressing public support for the cause. ·School textbooks mention Roma (though exclusively) as victims of genocide during WWII.	·Antigypsyist acts are seldom brought to courts because they affect the most vulnerable and excluded part of the Roma population. ·Government should assign to a public entity the responsibility to set up a monitoring and reporting system of all the manifestations of antigypsyism. ·Anti-Roma hate speech by representatives of the government and politicians is judged by a special tribunal. Civil society raises concerns about the impartiality of this tribunal. ·The education curricula do not address the problem of anti-Roma stereotypes or antigypsyism.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·In the context of fighting against child poverty (affecting Roma children as well), pre-school education will be compulsory. ·The Strategy for the Prevention and Combating Poverty, published in 2018, includes several measures aimed at supporting the autonomy and employment of young people; these measures should benefit socially excluded young Roma people as well.	·Decent housing should be provided for families, including pregnant women and children, who live among unhealthy living conditions, e.g. in polluted areas. ·All the actual initiatives addressing the needs of vulnerable young people, among them Roma (or migrants) are run by civil society associations.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·The Inter-ministerial delegation for emergency housing and access to housing (DIHAL) constitutes the National Roma Contact Point which has the responsibility of coordinating the development of the National Roma Integration Strategy (NRIS).	·The only specific budget managed by DIHAL (4 million Euros/year) is not sufficient to efficiently encourage mayors to implement projects of inclusion/slums clearance. ·Most of the authorities’ actions towards Roma in France are carried out by the Ministry of the Interior without any communication with civil society and in a strictly repressive direction (forced eviction, deportations, police cooperation, imprisonment of juveniles…).
Civil participation and empowerment
·Roma’s participation or empowerment is not supported.	·The legal recognition of diversity, through the adoption of measures aimed at favouring any minority’s specific representation, is constitutionally forbidden. ·The French State does not implement any policy aimed at strengthening the capacity for action and participation of minorities. ·The representation and participation of beneficiaries of integration projects is either lacking or ineffective (as the beneficiaries are in position of dependency on the project implementers).
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Inclusion policies are developed and implemented by few local governments with committed political leadership.	·The French Roma integration strategy published in 2011 has had very little impact local level. ·No regular support by the central government (The implementation of inclusion policies at local level is subject to the political will of local governments and local contexts).
Data collection
·No data on Roma is collected in France, as minorities are not recognised.	·Lack of data disable any monitoring or assessment of public policies on Roma.
Funding for civil society
·Most of funding for civil society is provided through outsourcing of social services in slums by public authorities.	·There are no specific funds or budget for civil society allocated to Roma or Roma NGOs. ·Roma organizations have weak structures and financial capacity. Therefore, they are not able to tender for the provision of social services (only these are reimbursed). ·ESIF management passed from the prefectures (representing the state) to the regional councils, in consequence, the ESIF became dependent on the political orientation of each region. ·Almost no funds are available for inclusion policies/actions for Roma people. The annual budget of the DIHAL undergoes a decline of one third to the level of 3 to 4 million EUR annually (compared to 30 to 40 million EUR per year for evictions of slums).
Example of promising practice
On 25 January 2018, the current government adopted an inter-ministerial circular giving a new impetus to the policy of slums’ clearing. This new policy sets the objective of clearing the slums until 2025. This new circular completes another one of 2012 and gives concrete advice and guidance to the prefects on how to use the regulatory and financial means and tools to achieve sustainable results.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●To provide financial and other incentives to the mayors to initiate necessary projects for progressive and sustainable clearance of slums. To encourage prefects to substitute mayors who fail in their role of taking such initiatives. ●To strengthen the participation of the beneficiaries in development of projects aimed at their inclusion; such participation will help to better adjust planned activities to their needs and thus to more efficient and sustainable results. ●To adopt specific measures to ensure access of Roma children living in precarious conditions to education, including fighting abusive request from authorities during the enrolment process and not evicting families with children, at least during the school period.

GERMANY
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community
Strategic document	Germany 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):	105.000 (0,13 % of 82.800.000).
Available options for data collection	Data broken down according to ethnicity are not collected. Since the end of the Second World War the Federal Republic of Germany has not collected demographic or socio-economic data based on ethnic origin. This is mainly because of the persecution of minorities under National Socialism. In addition, there are legal obstacles to the collection of ethnic data: under Article 3 of the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, individuals are free to belong to a national minority. Membership of a national minority is an individual and personal decision which cannot be registered, reviewed or contested by the State. Moreover, the number of foreign Roma living in Germany and their residence status cannot be given, because although nationality is recorded in the Central Register of Foreigners, ethnicity is not.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The Federal Republic of Germany continues to comply with the decision of principle not to collect any demographic or socio-economic data based on ethnic origin (see the relevant comments under 'General information’). Therefore, reliable information specifically relating to Sinti and Roma on the four main areas of the EU framework – education, employment, health and housing – is obtainable only to a very limited extent. One of the most significant achievements in the reporting year is the visibility of the minority in society. The efforts and individual projects of the minority organisations themselves, which regularly forge links with the majority society by presenting the history and culture of the minority to a wider audience, are important factors here. The activities of the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma received institutional support amounting to EUR 558 000 in the reporting year. The documentation and cultural centre of the German Sinti and Roma association in Heidelberg also received institutional support amounting to EUR 1 385 000 in 2017 through federal funds from the budget of the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media (BKM). In addition, the numerous treaties and conventions concluded with Germany’s regions (Länder) help to enhance cooperation between organisations representing minorities and the regional (Land) governments. The foundation of the European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture, with the support of the Federal Government in Berlin, also marked an important achievement after many years of political discussions and will help to increase the focus on Sinti and Roma art and culture. Considerable progress was made in the reporting year, particularly with regard to combatting anti-gypsyism. The numerous measures are listed individually or presented under 'Anti-discrimination’. During the reporting year, the adoption of the National Action Plan against Racism, compilation of the first separate records of crimes against Roma and Sinti people, intensive technical discussions in the German Lower House (Bundestag), and the creation of a research unit studying exclusion, discrimination and persecution of Sinti and Roma from a historical perspective (the Antiziganism Research Unit) at the University of Heidelberg, were of particular significance.
The main challenges
The fight against anti-gypsyism was one of the notable challenges in the most recent reporting year. Not only have the four key areas of the EU framework been taken into account, but the fight against ideologies of inequality and related discrimination in all sectors of society is now a central concern of the Federal Government. Anti-gypsyism is being tackled in the Federal Republic of Germany through the efforts of an array of federal, regional and local authorities. The issue has also been discussed intensively at the political level. Moreover, it should be noted that the fight against anti-gypsyism remains a key concern for the members of the national minority of Sinti and Roma people in Germany.
Thematic Areas
EDUCATION
The most important success
The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs saw the implementation of the federal ESF programme ‘Parental opportunity II - Winning families over to education early’ as a major achievement. This programme promotes the training of workers to serve as parental support volunteers. It relies on the preventive impact of family education, thereby contributing to family welfare and reducing inequality of opportunity, poverty risk and social exclusion. Almost 65 % of the trained parental workers report that they have improved their knowledge of educational outcomes and opportunities. In addition, almost 80 % of those taking part in the training programme confirmed that they have strengthened their intercultural skills. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research believes that the issues of social cohesion and integration with heterogeneous learning groups was at the forefront within the education sector in 2017, again because of increased migration. This has repercussions in terms of placing teaching staff on a more professional footing and also how mainstream systems are designed and funded. Baden-Württemberg rated the implementation of the 2016 syllabuses as its key achievement: on the one hand, the subject of Sinti and Roma became a substantive and compulsory part of syllabuses; on the other hand, the new syllabuses helped to further increase the permeability between the school system’s different educational programmes. 27 % of the participants in the ‘Adult education for Roma and Sinti’ project in Hessen found employment by virtue of participation in this project in 2017. The project is highly regarded in the Roma community. The promoter’s long-standing activities, the employment of mother-tongue staff, intensive work with parents and families, holistic support and extensive streaming in education embody the successful efforts over many years. Rhineland-Palatinate rated as one of its key achievements the successful placement of young people in vocational training in skilled trades and/or culminating in an entry qualification under the ‘Business coaches’ action. Individual counselling and accompaniment for young people along with the development of training organisations and training places were the main contributory factors here. For Schleswig-Holstein, one of its key achievements was the fact that all pre-school and school language support measures in the various types of school, as well as the programmes at the point of transition between school and working life, are open to all children and young people regardless of their residence status, ethnic or social background, or language skills. The number of newly arrived migrant children and young people from Roma families, most of whom have no knowledge of German, has risen in the wake of the refugee situation since 2016. The Schleswig-Holstein Schools Act also lays down compulsory education for the people in question regardless of their residence status. Under the multi-level system in SchleswigHolstein, children and young people with no knowledge of German receive additional teaching in ‘German as a second language’ (DaZ). These courses are taught in dedicated ‘DaZ’ centres. Roma people from Member States of the European Union are also participating in the action on educational counselling for integration in schools, with three female educational counsellors in total employed at the centres to provide support for migrant Roma. Following basic classes at the DaZ centres, continuous language support geared to the individual needs of the student is then provided in ‘development classes’. All language training is designed to enable students to participate and integrate within mainstream education and facilitate educational attainment reflecting individual capabilities.
The most important challenge
The Federal Ministry of Education and Research had stated that educational staff face major challenges as a result of the rise in migration (including forced migration). Further action is needed in terms of both skills (e.g. in managing diversity, multilingualism, interculturalism, discrimination) as well as capacities (shortage of teachers, educators, social workers). Anxiety among migrant participants about their livelihood was an educational challenge for the ‘Adult education for Roma and Sinti’ project in Hessen. The heterogeneity of young people and their diverse needs in terms of assistance is a challenge for the ‘Business coaches’ action in Rhineland-Palatinate. However, individual support is the right way to address the different needs of young people on a targeted and sustainable basis. In order to increase the individual educational opportunities of all its students, Schleswig-Holstein will, as a matter of principle, strive for greater educational participation and equal opportunities, in particular for disadvantaged children and young people with different needs in terms of assistance. In this context, it became apparent that the challenge was one of reaching out to children and young people and their parents from the Roma migrant group. A key factor here involves the language barriers which, on the one hand, make it difficult for families to find out about what is available, and, on the other hand, make it much more difficult for staff in educational institutions to reach out to families.
The situation in this area seems to have improved. This is according to an assessment based on statements from the responsible departments and the Länder.
Here, Rhineland-Palatinate points to the ongoing evaluation of the regional programme (indicators) on the basis of the cooperation agreement of 6 December 2016; Hessen cites the evaluation of project promoters; and SchleswigHolstein references the assessment from the competent department, namely the Land’s Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
EMPLOYMENT
The most important success
The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs stated that all employment data refer to participating migrants as a whole and not specifically to participating Roma (there is therefore no specific breakdown according to ethnicity, because no such data are compiled). A key achievement of many of the federal ESF programmes is the way they reach out to specific target groups and mediate on behalf of people with a migrant background. To date, these ESF programmes have successfully provided many of the target groups with advice or qualifications or placed them in the mainstream labour market or in education. The programmes are characterised by a high level of acceptance. Other success factors include comprehensive delivery and network structures in some programmes, or the development of cooperative associations with employment services and business networks. As a result of the measures implemented in Hamburg in the reporting year, access for Sinti and Roma to the mainstream system there had improved. Two-thirds of all those taking part in the training project for Roma young people and young adults in Hessen were successfully placed in further skills training or employment. In the national school leaving examinations in December 2017/January 2018, four young project participants passed their school leaving certificate, and one did so with a distinction in English. The completion of work placements has become firmly established through many years of lobbying, the close monitoring of the placements themselves and the positive experiences of the participants; today, there are virtually no exclusions from the project because of a work placement being refused. The project is highly regarded in the Roma community.
The most important challenge
Where participating migrants have a specific need for support in accordance with the orientation of the funding guideline, the challenge reported by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs was to reach out to this target group and encourage its members to take part. This entails a wide range of problems stemming from the often difficult living conditions facing migrants. Hessen also indicated that the livelihood-related problems facing participants posed an educational challenge for the region’s training project for Roma young people and young adults.
The situation in this area seems to have improved. This is according to an assessment based on statements from the responsible departments and the Länder.
Here, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs references a comprehensive monitoring system and also, in some cases, appropriate scientific monitoring of the respective ESF programme and feedback from the implementing projects’ promoters. Hessen’s assessment is based on the evaluation of project promoters.
HEALTHCARE
The most important success
The Federal Ministry of Health explained that the ‘Migration and Health’ web portal offers the fundamental benefit of quick and easy access for migrants to existing multilingual health information and helps to improve the take-up of existing care provision by migrants, thereby also contributing to better social integration. The key achievement in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania was the continued operation of its psychosocial centre after securing the relevant funding. The framework agreement between Lower Saxony and the regional associations of public health insurance funds to promote publicly recommended preventive vaccination is worthy of special mention.
The most important challenge
The decentralised healthcare structure means that the regional authorities in Schleswig-Holstein have limited influence. Their support for humanitarian aid in medical emergencies is therefore paid to rural and urban district authorities, above all to support established local services and structures. Requests from eligible groups of applicants for the available regional funding fall short of expectations. This is because non-governmental organisations and groups of volunteers who provide counselling services are not sufficiently aware of this option. The Land government is seeking to remedy this through better outreach. In terms of implementation, the authorities in Lower Saxony often have no information about children who are resident within their jurisdiction. Take-up is low.
The situation in this area seems to have improved. This is according to an assessment based on reports from municipalities.
HOUSING
The most important success
The Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community regards social housing assistance and the ‘Social city’ programme as its key achievements. In terms of social housing assistance, the Federal Government compensates Länder wishing to build social housing. These funds were increased to around EUR 1.5 billion in 2017. The federal budget for the ‘Social city’ programme was increased from EUR 150 million to EUR 190 million for 2017, among other things to address the specific challenges in disadvantaged areas. The integrated approach to social space under the ‘Social city’ programme is the key factor in successfully improving the living conditions of people in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, including Roma. In addition to investments in construction, inter-departmental cooperation between relevant stakeholders is another notable success factor. At the federal level, interdepartmental cooperation was improved further in the reporting year, above all in relation to the inter-departmental ‘Social city’ strategy. Baden-Württemberg saw its key achievement in the reporting year as the broadening of the previously established definition of households that face particular difficulties in respect of the provision of social rental housing to include other groups facing potential or actual discrimination (over and above any lack of financial capacity) in the rental market. Saxony-Anhalt saw active participation in the ‘Neustadtmiteinander’ and ‘Support for the participation and integration of Roma in Halle’ community projects as a boost to community development.
The most important challenge
With regard to social housing assistance, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community is aware of tensions within the housing and real-estate markets in a number of cities and regions in Germany. These tensions became more acute in 2017. Such significant gaps in the housing market have many causes: to a large extent, population growth as a result of migration within and from outside Germany in recent years has contributed to the housing shortage. With reference to the ‘Social city’ national programme, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community sees the challenge as being the fact that a significant proportion of the population living in Germany is at risk of poverty despite an improving economy. Above-average numbers live in disadvantaged urban areas and regions like the areas covered by the ‘Social city’ project; many of the people affected have a migrant background. Municipalities now face fresh challenges in the context of new migration from EU2 countries, including Roma people, and current inflows of refugees. This development has evolved in the longer term, not just in the reporting year. Saxony-Anhalt saw the influx of a large group of people within a short timeframe into what was already a low-income housing area as a challenge in terms of implementing the ‘Neustadtmiteinander’ and ‘Support for the participation and integration of Roma in Halle’ community projects. Neither the Federal Government nor the regional and local authorities can estimate how the situation will evolve in this field. The evaluation of the housing market is based primarily on research by the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR). The evaluation of the ‘Social city’ programme is based on the programme’s second interim assessment.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
The most important success
Baden-Württemberg makes special mention of the University of Heidelberg’s 'Antiziganism Research Unit’: Germany’s first research centre on this topic. Regular outreach and low-threshold support services available to Roma people and other residents in Saxony-Anhalt are helping to overcome prejudices. Schleswig-Holstein’s anti-discrimination office is a direct contact point that dispenses advice to people in Schleswig-Holstein and provides them with support in cases of discrimination or disadvantage. Here, advice on rights stemming from the General Act on Equal Treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz - AGG) takes centre stage. Moreover, the anti-discrimination office, where necessary, dispenses supplementary or additional advice to people affected. Under SchleswigHolstein’s Civil and Police Law (Bürger- und Polizeibeauftragtengesetz), the anti-discrimination office is also responsible for raising awareness about discrimination and its prevention in society. The rising number of consultations shows that the office's services are becoming more firmly established. However, one of the main tasks is still to raise the profile of the anti-discrimination office further in order to allow greater numbers of people to gain access to its free and impartial advice. A key success factor was the adoption of the General Act on Equal Treatment. Thuringia saw its most notable achievements as cooperation with the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma in signing the Joint Statement (http://zentralrat.sintiundroma.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/gemeinsame-erklaerung-ueber-die-zusammenarbeit-zwischen-der-thueringer-landesregierung-und-dem-zentralrat-deutscher-sinti-und-roma.pdf), the Thuringia State Government’s openness on the issue and the aim of combating group xenophobia.
The most important challenge
Rhineland-Palatinate identified the challenge of recruiting sufficiently high numbers of external experts/speakers for its ‘Vocational training coaches’ and ‘Network discrimination-free Rhineland-Palatinate’ projects. In the experience of Schleswig-Holstein’s anti-discrimination office, when dispensing advice it is becoming ever clearer that the statutory provisions of the General Act on Equal Treatment to protect against discrimination in civil law cases are simply unknown to those people at fault of discrimination. This often occurs because, for example, limitations on the scope for action are misunderstood for reasons of private autonomy, or staff in companies and administrations know too little about the provisions of the General Act on Equal Treatment. Here lies one of the focal points of the Anti-Discrimination Agency’s preventive campaign: clarifying the legal bases and obligations in multiple lectures and talks.
The situation in this area seems to have improved, according to an assessment based on Länder evaluations.
Here, Rhineland-Palatinate cites the regular evaluation of the measures and Schleswig-Holstein points to the activity reports of its anti-discrimination office, which are published on a regular basis by the Land Parliament.
Governance and cooperation
Within the framework of its responsibilities, the National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) contributes to the cross-sectoral coordination of the National Roma Integration Strategy’s implementation and monitoring. In terms of the role of the NRCP, account should be taken of the division of powers between the Federal Government and the Länder, as derived from the federal structure of the Federal Republic of Germany enshrined in Article 20(1) of the Basic Law. In addition, the principle is that each senior Federal authority organises its budgetary affairs separately and also keeps separate accounts (‘Ressortprinzip’). This principle of governance, laid down in Article 65(2) of the Basic Law, stipulates that the Federal Ministers shall carry out their duties autonomously and under their own responsibility in the context of the political guidelines laid down by the Federal Chancellor. Therefore, the NRCP in Germany cannot unilaterally define the strategic approach in the main policy areas of the EU framework. Germany’s integrated package of measures to implement the EU framework was jointly developed by the relevant federal ministries. Each of these ministries implements the package of measures under its own responsibility. The NRCP has regular substantive exchanges with the relevant implementation bodies, for example within the framework of the advisory committee of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community on matters relating to German Sinti and Roma people. Implementation is monitored through annual progress reports. The NRCP is consulted in decision-making processes relating to the development and implementation of relevant policies in connection with the National Roma Integration Strategy. For the reasons outlined earlier, the NRCP is not involved in the decision-making processes concerning the financing of these relevant policies. The participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy is supported by the NRCP, which has regular exchanges with Sinti and Roma civil society organisations in Germany. The national minority of German Sinti and Roma people also has opportunities for political participation, for example within the framework of the Advisory Committee on the Issues of the German Sinti and Roma within the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community, and meetings with representatives of the indigenous national minorities within the Bundestag’s Internal Affairs Committee. In addition, the civil society organisations of the German Sinti and Roma people and the Ombudsman for Relocation Questions and National Minorities, which addresses the interests of German Sinti and Roma in the political arena, are in close touch. The following departments, Länder and municipalities took part in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy for the 2017 reporting year: Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community; Foreign Ministry; Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth; Federal Ministry of Health; Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Commissioner for Culture and the Media; the federal states (Länder) of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia, and the Deutsche Städtetag (German Association of Towns and Cities) with the cities of Augsburg, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Cologne, Mannheim, Munich and Saarbrucken.

GERMANY
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Since 1990 mediators and school counsellors are trained and placed in schools to facilitate the increase of Sinti and Roma student’s performance. ·Sinti and Roma organisations have partnered with government agencies to establish very few kindergartens for Roma children from Romania and local Sinti.	·Roma both from other EU member states and from third countries face strong barriers to education such asrequired documents, language barrier, lack of information or specific support that disadvantaged students need or discrimination. ·Children from EU-mobile or third country families, including Roma, are often placed in special schools due to poor language skills, performance or behaviour interpreted as “generally retarded development”. Because of direct and structural discrimination, Sinti children are also place into special schools. ·Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has potential to increase inclusive schooling and reduced the placement of students in special schools. Nevertheless, this process is being implemented very slowly and no substantive results can be observed. ·The Conference of Ministers of Education (KMK) shall establish a permanent coordination body on education between the state ministries, Sinti and Roma organisations and key stakeholders.
Employment
·ESF-funded programmes targeting migrants, young people and long-term unemployed people and other disadvantaged job-seekers. ·There are several local projects to integrate people with non-formally acquired skills, especially refugees and migrants, into the labour market. ·There are several local dedicated programmes in deprived areas especially for youth.	·Public employment services are generally tailored to typical mainstream job-seekers (who are generally better skilled), rather than persons belonging to vulnerable groups including disadvantaged Sinti and Roma. ·There are no safeguards to ensure that the available ESF programmes reach disadvantaged Sinti and Roma, and no monitoring of how Sinti and Roma access these. ·There is a need to increase public employment services’ capacity in basic skills training and mentoring and to strengthen the links between existing pubic and NGO-provided employment services. ·Measures to improve disadvantaged Roma’s access to job quality to escape the trap of low-paid precarious jobs and of labour trafficking are needed. Language trainings for EU-mobile citizens or third-country nationals are needed. ·There is no significant governmental effort to directly monitor or address employers’ unequal treatment toward Roma, while there are several NGO-led anti-discrimination initiatives.
Healthcare
·Formally, health insurance companies are obliged to accept people without insurance coverage, including legally resident Roma from EU or third countries. ·In North Rhine-Westphalia a three-year model project of five clearing centres was launched with a total of around 2.5 million EUR since mid-2016. Their mission is to clarify conditions for individual access to a health insurance. Clients are German citizens, other EU citizens, asylum seekers and third country nationals with secure or without status. Many of the clients are Roma. The model has been adopted by a few other cities for a currently limited period of time.	·The new law that limits access of non-citizens to social benefits (Leistungsausschlussgesetz), which came into force at the beginning of 2017, and severely restricts access to the healthcare. ·In practice undocumented migrants and a large number of EU citizens without health insurance (including Roma from Bulgaria, Romania) have difficulties to access health care, face full costs of medicines or they cannot access healthcare at all. ·As a temporary solution due to the current restrictions to the access to comprehensive statutory health insurance/coverage, the example of North Rhine-Westphalia clearing centres have proved helpful and could be emulated elsewhere. ·The restrictive 2017 legislation which has adverse effects upon many migrants in Germany including Roma should be reconsidered to improve their access to healthcare.
Housing
·Support for access to housing for Sinti and Roma varies widely according to the policies of individual states and cities in terms of their overall housing policies, their recognition of a need of specific protection of Sinti and Roma. ·Some municipalities provide support to housing within local/regional housing projects; these include, for example, the housing access strategy of the city of Dortmund, which carries out housing brokerage for this target group in cooperation with landlords. ·In principle, there is access to both social housing and housing subsidies regardless of nationality. ·The “Soziale Stadt” programme, which has been running since 1999 and which uses federal, state and EU funds (ERDF and ESF), supported in few cases urban development of areas with a German Sinti and Roma population (despite the programme does not specifically target Roma).	·Initiatives supporting the housing situation of Sinti and Roma, and of citizens from Romania and Bulgaria in general depend on specific local/regional commitment and are exceptions. ·Rapidly decreasing social housing stocks and weak policies for affordable housing hit all groups with weak position on the housing market, including disadvantaged Sinti and Roma. ·New coming non-German Roma do not have access to housing allowances in the first 5 years, if they are not officially employed. ·In the field of housing, the Federal anti-discrimination law allows for an exception for unequal treatment in the rental of housing, if it serves “the creation and preservation of socially stable resident structures and balanced settlement structures and balanced economic, social and cultural conditions”. Under this pretext, homeowners often can refuse to accept Roma or other migrant or ethnic minority tenants.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) was adopted in 2006 and represents a full transposition of the EU Racial Equality Directive into the German law. ·In 2019, an administration court in Cologne ruled in favour of young Roma because he was placed and kept in special school against his will.	·The AGG does not provide effective protection against discrimination in education and in access to housing. ·Associations cannot file actio popularis and are only empowered to provide counsel to victims in court cases but not to file collective actions. Recommendations from many quarters have called to make it possible to take collective action in discrimination cases. ·Inadequate safeguards to prevent ethnic profiling, use of excessive force and discriminatory behaviour by police towards disadvantaged Roma. ·The right of asylum has been considerably limited for Roma since the countries of the Western Balkans have officially been classified as “safe countries of origin”; strong antigypsyism in the countries of origin is not a reason for providing asylum.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The phenomenon of antigypsyism is recognised by the state as a specific form of racism and the term is used in official communication. The federal government has put the fight against antigypsyism on the agenda of several national plans and strategies. ·The federal programme " Live Democracy!" has funded several projects aiming at fostering participation of Sinti and Roma. The Federal Agency for Civic Education (FACE) has taken various measures to deal with the history of Sinti and Roma in Germany, their persecution and current discrimination. ·Following guidelines set out by the Ministry of the Interior, since 2017, antigypsyist criminal offenses are recorded separately in Political Crime Statistics. ·The federal and state governments have set up the "jugendschutz.net" competence centre for youth protection on the Internet, which for some years now also documents cases of online antigypsyist hate speech.	·Civil society reports that racist and especially antigypsyist motives have been ignored by police investigations, and racial profiling remains a serious problem in police authorities. Police authorities have used antigypsyist terms in press releases, public appearances, when alerting the public, or calling for assistance in searches. ·The prosecution of antigypsyist hate speech in election campaigns has not been carried through by the German judiciary so far, despite itis punishable as “incitement” under the German Penal Code. ·There is a discrepancy between hate crime reported by CSOs and the police statistics; this discrepancy should be addressed by strengthening the police’s monitoring. ·There is no official monitoring system for antigypsyist offenses and (online) hate speech. Offenses falling under the “antigypsyist” category have only been recorded since 2017 and monitoring structures have not yet been sufficiently established.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Programmes of the Ministry for Employment and Social Affairs aimed at supporting disadvantaged youth without school leaving certificate in accessing employment or vocational training are available to disadvantaged Roma and Sinti young people. ·The federal foundation “Early Assistance” provides the federal states with funding with the aim of establishing links between health care services and families, and to train family midwives who work with migrant families.	·Roma/Sinti women are not targeted by large scale/national measures.There are only sporadic/local initiatives targeting Roma and Sinti women (in the field of health care, first of all). ·Vocational training and employment programmes reach only very few young Roma and Sinti; counselling services can only support the application process. ·Although children from the age of one have a right to access day care facilities, the number of available day care places is insufficient; this phenomenon severely affects immigrant disadvantaged Roma families.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Federal Parliament has structures that regularly debate issues concerning Sinti and Roma with NGOs representing these groups. ·In 2015, an Advisory Committee for Questions of German Sinti and Roma was established at the Federal Ministry of the Interior. ·The federal government promotes a mainstream approach and does not develop social inclusion policies targeting specifically disadvantaged Sinti and Roma; instead the policies in place have all sorts of target groups defined on social criteria. ·Ministries at regional (Länder) level are responsible for programmes aiming at promoting social integration of disadvantaged Sinti and Roma; several regional states have concluded agreements with Sinti and Roma organisations for a better safeguarding of their minority rights.	·The NRCP has no mandate to initiate or coordinate programmes with the federal states or local administrations (as the federal government claims that this would violate the principle of subsidiarity and constitutional autonomy of states in certain policy fields) and rather fulfils communication functions in relation to the EC, governmental agencies and civil society; the coordinating role of the NRCP should be strengthened.
Civil participation and empowerment
·At federal level, programmes have been set up in consultation with Sinti and Roma organisations to promote the equal treatment and empowerment of disadvantaged Sinti and Roma, and to fight antigypsyism. ·Sinti and Roma organisations participate in civil society networks and consultation procedures at all levels.	·The Central Council is advocating for a permanent working group on Sinti and Roma at the Conference of Ministers of Education and Culture and for Sinti and Roma participation in broadcasting councils and state media authorities. ·In some cities, Sinti and Roma organisations expressed criticism on lack of involvement in decision processes, on the process of distribution of funds and the ethnicization of certain fields of intervention as health and education.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Municipalities have large autonomy in development of social integration policies and policies aimed at inclusion of disadvantaged Sinti and Roma and receive only restricted support from the federal and state governments. Therefore, local Sinti/Roma inclusion policies vary greatly according to the local governments' commitment and budgetary situation. ·The biggest efforts in policy coordination with cities have been in the field of immigration from South-Eastern Europe.	·There are few municipalities and city-states where the disadvantaged Sinti and Roma population needs are addressed in a comprehensive manner; such cases include Berlin, Munich, Dortmund and several others. Some municipalities established permanent administrative structures and permanent funding from local resources of services supporting of inclusion of disadvantaged Sinti, Roma and immigrants. ·Some larger cities have developed their local inclusion policies in reaction to challenges brought by high proportion of newly arriving socially disadvantaged citizens from South-Eastern Europe – both Roma and non-Roma; elsewhere the immigration is treated as a policing issue.
Data collection
·Because of the historical experience with the Nazi persecution of minorities, no data on ethnic origin is collected in Germany; this prohibition includes data on Roma and Sinti; most of the civil society supports this approach.	·There is no information on participation of Roma and Sinti or the impact of policies and programmes aimed at promotion of equal treatment and social inclusion, nor is it clear if they have prompted any change in the overall social climate that would enhance the participation of Sinti and Roma; evaluations of mainstream and targeted actions’ impact on Sinti and Roma should be conducted while respecting the legal ban of ethnic data.
Funding for civil society
·The federal and regional associations of German Sinti and Roma are in regular contact with the federal and state governments and receive regular funding from the federal government and from the regional governments. ·The Central Council has concluded binding contractual agreements between state governments and German Sinti and Roma organisations establishing states’ implementation obligations, including funding, under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. ·FEAD provide funding to civil society organisations’ activities aimed at helping immigrants from EU, Roma included, to access services, education, and avoid homelessness. ·The federal programme Live Democracy!, the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future (EVZ), the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and regional governments are funding projects aiming to promote participation of Sinti and Roma. ·German institutions finance also specific initiatives such as the RomArchive – the Digital Archive of the Roma (funded by the German Federal Cultural Foundation) or European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture (funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).	·Funding application procedures are as rule too complex for grassroots organisations so that they are often excluded from funding opportunities. ·Institutional and long-term funding opportunities for migrants and minority organisations should be strengthened.
Example of promising practice
In Spring 2019, the German government decided to establish an Independent Expert Commission on Antigypsyism. The expert commission will investigate the diverse causes, manifestations and effects of antigypsyism in politics and society; develop strategies to combat antigypsyism and make policy proposals and recommendations to the parliament and government. Furthermore, it will commission studies that cover all socio-political spheres of life in which antigypsyism manifests itself. In order to already take concrete steps against the historically and structurally deeply embedded antigypsyism, the National Action Plan against Racism defines combating antigypsyism as one of the key priority areas, and the Family and Youth Ministry funds 5-years lasting project to combat antigypsyism with several million Euro in the program “Live Democracy!”, several projects are run as empowerment projects by Sinti and Roma organizations.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●Increase the fight against antigypsyism and provide long-term funding for preventive measures. ●Establish a monitoring structure for all antigypsyist incidents, even where they do not constitute a hate crime. ●Strengthen the protection against discrimination by extending the anti-discrimination law to all relevant areas, improve victims’ access to assistance and introduce instruments for collection action and victims’ representation in judiciary. ●Support cultural and political life of Sinti and Roma. ●Build a participatory process to develop a post-2020 German Roma strategy.

GREECE
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Special Secretariat for Roma Inclusion, Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity
Strategic document	Greece has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	175.000 (1,63% of 10.757.293) The data collection in Greece is based on territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units).
Available options for data collection	Territorial/ Spatial mapping-based approach (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units) focusing on areas (settlements, neighbourhoods) where Roma population lives according to available data by municipalities is another option for collecting information disaggregated by ethnicity The Special Secretariat on Roma Social Inclusion officially carries it out with the cooperation of municipalities. The total update is to be finalized by next September and is envisaged to be carried out every three years. It will soon be uploaded on the internet site that is currently under construction. Nevertheless, entry to database is restricted to public official users. It is currently available at the site of the former NRCP, the National Centre for Social Solidarity (EKKA) ( http://database.roma-ekka.gr ) Data disaggregated by ethnicity is not collected.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The main achievements of the Special Secretariat and consequently the NRCP were: ·the specification into operational measures of the objectives presented in the National strategy particularly in the areas of Housing and improvement of living conditions ·Developing a mechanism for Cooperation between the ministries of Central government, the regional authorities and especially the municipalities. Within this context, a considerable number of municipalities have submitted Local Actions Plans for Roma Inclusion. ·The specification of policy interventions was matched by funds both by national sources and EU funding. ·Strengthening of consultation procedures between Roma associations and with active individuals especially the youth within settlements ·Guaranteeing the support of further manpower for the Special Secretariat through EEA grants.
The main challenges
·Strengthening the participation of local government ·Planning the effective implementation of the interventions ·Further involvement and mobilization of the Roma community and especially the youth ·Resolving the issues of identity papers for all Roma ·Certifying with the appropriate legislative framework the occupation of Roma mediators
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Local government needs to further address the problems faced by Roma communities and to take a more active role in the process of social inclusion. A help desk was developed within the Special Secretariat in order to assist local government and furthermore a sensitization campaign focusing on local actors that will be developed in the near future will further assist towards this direction. In order to guarantee the development of efficient and effective interventions in cooperation with the relevant bodies involved and to foresee impediments required quite some time for the specification of policies. A sound monitoring mechanism needs to be developed in order to respond promptly to possible problems and to secure that good practices are reinforced. The involvement of the Roma community, and not only representative associations, is a key factor for change and inclusion. This aspect has two major elements: a) all levels of government must act on their obligation towards the excluded community and to build trust by responding to their needs and b) individuals must feel empowered in order to demand their rights, take active part in the improvement of their communities and understand their obligations. The lack of identity papers or issues regarding public documents has hindered the inclusion process and threatens to undermine the effective implementation of interventions. An inter - ministerial committee had been set up to address this issue through the collaboration of relevant agents. Roma Mediators have been playing a very active and significant role and the work of mediation needs to be officially acknowledged. In collaboration with the Roma Association, the Special Secretary is working towards the development of the definition of prerequisites for the official recognition of this as formal occupation.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 34 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Greece. 21 of them were mainstream and 13 targeted. 33 were implemented by a public authority (26 at national level, one at regional, five at local and one transnational). One measure was implemented by private sector at national level. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Greece also reported 11 measures as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, six as relevant for in empowerment, eight as relevant for local action and three – to monitoring and evaluation. 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, ten measures were reported as relevant for the area of education, seven of them mainstream and three targeted. All were implemented by a public authority - one at local level and nine at national level. Five of the measures were reported under sub-area "reduce early school leaving", three under eliminate any school segregation and one in "promote the availability and use of extracurricular activities", "widen access to second-chance education and adult learning" and "provide support for the acquisition of skills that are adapted to the needs of the labour market".
The most important success
·The collaboration between different kind and level organizations (public services, regional authorities, schools, hospitals, etc.) and Roma collective bodies with the significant help of Roma intermediators ·Getting Roma enrolled to school, participation and completion of school education ·improvement of learning outcome (literacy, numeracy and complementary objects) ·Individualised support ·Inclusive teaching and learning methods ·Attention to promote access to and quality of early education is considerable, which serves to prevent later school leaving and improve educational outcomes. ·Educational activities in Roma settlements. ·Teachers with helpdesks aimed at covering the cognitive / linguistic gaps of Roma children and in general enhancing their progress. ·Access to and quality of early childhood education and care ·Parental involvement and teacher training ·Promote participation and completion of secondary and higher education ·Widen access to second-chance education and adult learning
The most important challenge
1.The ongoing settlements of a great number of Roma families in isolated and degraded camps in the outskirts of the city, under conditions of extreme poverty with no access to basic facilities consists a severe violence of their basic human rights against all relevant international treaties for adults’ and children’s rights. The factors contributing to this are related to: ·long lasting discriminating policies against Roma populations, ·stereotypes and biases against Roma ·no access of Roma representatives to decision making bodies ·changes in the labour market led to the elimination of traditional Roma jobs ·high influx of immigrants and refugees who compete Roma jobs (i.e peddlers) 2.As for educational issues: ·The recognition of the central importance of early education. ·increased funds allocated to building kindergartens and legislative changes to introduce or extend compulsory preschool education ·Early school leaving strategies, which target Roma, who continue to be over-represented among early school leavers. Teachers and others professionals devotion was important for the results of the programme. ·Flexibility and adaptability of educational content and teaching methods to the specific needs of pupils from vulnerable social groups. ·Pursuing active desegregation measures to provide good quality education to Roma children in a mainstream setting ·Integration measures. ·Inclusive education and individualized support. ·Proper monitoring, sustainable funding and relevant teacher’s education. ·Education and smooth adaptation of refugee children ·More attention must be paid to offering second chance education and adult learning, ·Facilitating the transition between education levels ·Training programmes should correspond to real labour market needs to effectively improve employment prospects ·A key barrier to staffing the faculties with teachers is the binding condition for the employment of teachers by contract, which requires a service invoice and OAEE insurance. The majority of teachers from the relevant ranking list are unable to respond to the specific contract status, as most of them are either unemployed and the hourly allowance is rather unprofitable for them, or they are employed in other IKA insurance work. The assessment is based on the regular reports drafted by the Programme to the Ministry of Education.
The overall situation of this thematic area improved.
In the area of education emphasis should be given on incentives to reduce school leakage and on improving conditions for the development of skills to facilitate the integration of Roma pupils into local society and the productive process in the context of Intercultural Education. The promotion of intercultural education will be achieved mainly through the implementation of actions to enhance the teaching of the Greek language (literacy, numeracy and complementary objects) and developing students' skill
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment, all of them mainstream. All were implemented by a public authority at national level. Three of the 11 measures in this area were related to sub-area "eliminate barriers, including discrimination, to (re) entering the labour market". The rest were related to "support first work experience", "support self-employment and entrepreneurship", "support individual job-seekers, focusing on personalised guidance and individual action planning" and "promote employment opportunities within the civil service".
The most important success
·The introduction of legislation, in order to facilitate the entrance of Roma people to labour market via individual/personal companies/ entrepreneurships – provisions for tailor made needs ·Access to public services via public work ·Innovative projects at local level for servicing local communities’ needs
The most important challenge
·Activation of Local Authorities and openness to Roma population and the participation of Roma. ·The assessment is based on the previously existing programme/ legislation. ·The overall situation of this thematic area improved.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare, three of them mainstream and two - targeted. Four were implemented by a public authority and one - by a private entity. Two were implemented at local level and three - at national. Two of the five measures in this area were related to sub-area "improve access to free vaccination programmes targeting children", two - to "promote awareness of health and healthcare issues" and one - to remove any barriers to access the healthcare system accessible for the general population".
The most important success
The vaccination of Roma children in the settlement of Riganokampos within the Municipality of Patras was the most important success. Electronic child data and vaccines have been recorded there for further action, when required or needed.
The most important challenge
·The large participation of Roma children in vaccination actions within camps was the most important challenge. ·The assessment is based on the previously existing legislative framework.
The overall situation of this thematic area improved.
With the creation of Community Centres, the situation in some settlements - camps improved. Efforts need to be put in order to promote children to primary education, so to ensure the inclusion of this particular population group.
HOUSING
In 2017, four measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing, two of them mainstream and two – targeted. All were implemented by a public authority, two at national level and two - at local. Two of the four measures in this area were related to sub-area "ensure access to public utilities (such as water, electricity and gas) and infrastructure for housing in compliance with national legal requirements", one to "eliminate any spatial segregation and promoting desegregation" and one to "promote non-discriminatory access to social housing".
The most important success
·The introduction of legislation, in order to facilitate the implementation of relevant (housing relocation) actions ·Introduction of measures based on social housing principles
The most important challenge
·Activation of Local Authorities ·Participation of Roma ·Availability of land/proper area for relocation The assessment is based on the previously existing programme / legislation.
The overall situation of this thematic area improved.
Governance and cooperation
The Special Secretariat for Roma Inclusion in included in the budget line for the Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity. All employees in the Special Secretariat (except two special advisors) are seconded from the national pubic administration. It is ongoing administrative procedure for transfer of employees in the Secretariat on a permanent basis. The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. Focal point in charge of coordination and monitoring sectoral policies with impact on Roma or having targeted Roma. Founding law of the Special Secretariat describes the build up of an Experts Council with delegates consulting from Ministries, Local administration, Independent authorities and Roma organized civil society (associations). The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding DEVELOPMENT of relevant policies. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are: ·Central public administration, Line Ministry, Regional authorities, Local authorities, Equality Body, Roma civil organizations There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is a baseline against which to assess progress for the implementation of your NRIS or set of policy measures: Action plan for implementation of national strategy for Roma inclusion is to be finalised. The national mechanism for coordination, monitoring and evaluating the social inclusion and social cohesion policies including Roma. There are measurable targets: Action plan for implementation of national strategy for Roma inclusion is to be finalised. The national mechanism for coordination, monitoring and evaluating the social inclusion and social cohesion policies including Roma. Local action plans and the Special Secretariat's database /platform provide updated data for Roma situation in several fields based on territorial criteria facilitating targeting and evaluations.

GREECE
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 increase the proportion of Roma children in pre-school education, since school year 2018/2019, at least two years of pre-school education (from the age of 4) have been compulsory for all children. ·In each city there are nurseries (for 8 months old up to 4 years old) which are free of charge for poor families. ·In the last three years several measures targeting Roma children’s education have been implemented, including reduction of the class size attended by vulnerable social groups, social worker in schools with Roma, pilot operation of Parents Schools in selected schools or actions to tackle early dropouts. ·Within the Social Solidarity Income framework beneficiaries aged 40 or more have to complete compulsory education.	·Participation of Roma children in preschool education remains low, due facilities’ unavailability in segregated settlements, lack of assistance in enrolment and low awareness of parents. ·Many Roma cannot access available pre-school education facilities; they often face difficulties in proving their eligibility to nurseries for poor families (e.g., as working informally, they are and not able to provide income statement). ·Drop-outs from primary and secondary education remain a problem that has not been effectively addressed; it concerns also pupils before completing compulsory education. ·Marginalised or vulnerable Roma are quasi not participating in available lifelong learning programmes. ·Segregation of Roma pupils remains a problem. Despite official policy of desegregation, there are many indirect methods of segregation in education, such as the operation of single-cultural schools, with Roma-only students.
Employment
·Newly introduced public employment services are tailored to Roma jobseekers; they have been designed in cooperation of several line ministries and the Special Secretariat for Roma Integration. ·Roma departments in local community centres support access to services and promote employment. ·Specific measures to legalise informal economic activities (such as vending) have been adopted.	·Access to public employment services is limited by lack of literacy skills among Roma. ·Job opportunities available for Roma are mainly limited to the social economy and self-employment ·Despite adopted measures (such as subsidies or campaigns), the gap in (formal) employment rate of Roma women (22%) and men (82%) remains huge. ·Mechanism for monitoring cases of discrimination against Roma in employment is weak.
Healthcare
·New laws (2016 and 2017) made free access to all public health structures for the provision of nursing and health care as well as family doctors available to uninsured and vulnerable social groups as well. ·Social services, Roma departments and hospitals’ social services improve Roma’s access to healthcare; in about 50 municipalities trained Roma mediators are employed. ·Based on request of central authorities, regional authorities developed reports about the health-related needs of the most marginalised Roma settlements; based on the reports specific measures have been planned, including development of sanitary facilities or employment of teams of specialists and mediators.	·The geographical distribution of primary healthcare services in the country does not match local needs, especially of the Roma. Availability of primary and secondary health services in general should be strengthened. ·Roma’s use of the medical services remains limited, in particular in the field of prevention, dental care or vaccination. ·Key specific health challenges to address among the Roma include depression, addiction, premature pregnancies, dental problems, in general diseases associated with poor diet and stress.
Housing
·A new strategic approach has been fostered by the state, introducing new regulations, among others with the aim of relocation of people from camps and settlements into better settlements (safety, access to infrastructure) or into desegregated setting, improvement of infrastructure, creation of a self-management and protection system of the residential complexes, and rent subsidy for finding a home in the integrated parts of cities. ·No forced evictions against Roma are implemented.	·For two decades no state policies have been implemented to improve the housing situation. Along with effects of the financial crisis, the situation has considerably worsened in terms of dilapidation and segregation. ·Roma’s housing needs are not always included in the priorities of the municipalities either due to the stereotypes and prejudices of the local community or due to objective legal, technical and financial difficulties that the local authorities deal with. ·Roma generally have limited access to housing in non-Roma neighbourhoods due to discrimination and prejudice. ·Getting access to housing related subsidies and programmes in practice is very difficult for illiterate and marginalised Roma living in informal housing. This is even more important as families who will be resettled from camps will have difficulties to cover their housing costs.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Race Equality Directive is incorporated into domestic law and a National Council against Racism and Intolerance was established as national equality body in 2015. ·Government has attempted to address segregation in education and since 2015 has reminded school authorities of their obligation to ensure unobstructed access of Roma children to schools.	·The law in place does not provide Roma with effective protection from discrimination. There is a need for effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws; and a more comprehensive national strategy to combat racism and discrimination that pays particular attention to antigypsyism and aligns fully with the NRIS. ·Major gaps in anti-discrimination law implementation mean that segregation in education remains high. Authorities must bring an end to persistent segregation and ensure full compliance with the existing law and judgements of the European Court of Human Rights condemning school segregation of Roma in Greece. ·Police misconduct remains a problem, which could be addressed by setting up an independent body to investigate alleged cases of racial discrimination and racially motivated misconduct by the police.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Greek legislation condemns racism and discrimination. ·The government and independent authorities such as the Ombudsman address the issues of discrimination, racism and intolerance with more sensitivity.	·Institutional setting is in place, but there is no indication that these mainstream institutions protect Roma victims of racism. ·Antigypsyist motivation is not reported in cases of discrimination and hate crime against Roma. In the Annual Report 2017 of Racist Violence Recording Network, there is only one reported case against Roma among 120 incidents of racist violence in Greece. ·Hate speech, including by politicians, is neither being reported nor sanctioned. The far-right Golden Dawn parliamentary party and other formal and informal right-wing organisations, present a constant threat to the Roma population in Greece. ·Regarding media, relevant authorities do not take any action to prevent making references to the ethnicity of crime perpetrators, if they are Roma (this is not happening if the perpetrators are non-Roma). Journalists need education and Roma participation in relevant institutions needs to increase. ·There is a need to work on positive narratives and contributions of Roma to the Greek societies.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The School Meals programme addresses the needs of children of vulnerable groups; all schools attended by Roma pupils are participating in the program. ·To address the NEET youth dropped out from education, a pilot programme of information and personalised guidance was set up (Second Chance, evening schools, apprenticeship programmes) and implemented by local governments. (Roma Departments of Community Centres). ·Plans have been elaborated to promote Roma women’s employment in the social sector. ·Supporting services in several public hospitals employ trained Roma mediators, who provide young Roma mothers with counselling on infant care and reproductive health issues.	·Substantial measures should be taken, beyond powerless and non-systematic efforts, to inform Roma communities about the serious consequences of early marriages (especially in the cases of girls). ·Special measures should be launched to support young Roma women who dropped out from education because of childbirth. ·Vaccination coverage among Roma children should be increased; the past programmes have been done mostly by NGOs on a project basis and funding, but information about vaccinated children is not available. ·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
·Special Secretariat for the Social Inclusion of Roma was established in the end of 2016 to oversee the NRIS implementation. ·The institutional framework for the new actions (Special Secretariat) is based on well skilled and experienced staff, which has gathered enough evidence for a relevant policy design. ·The Special Secretariat develops the National Action Plan for the Inclusion of Roma in cooperation with line ministries and provides technical support for local action plans for Roma inclusion.	·Due to the financial and sovereign debt crisis, as well as the refugee crisis, the issue of Roma integration has slipped the radar of decision makers in Greece, especially since 2015. ·Many measures aimed at Roma inclusion are still in stage of planning and diverse ambitious plans have not materialised yet.
Civil participation and empowerment
·The number of non-registered Roma without the right to vote has significantly dropped since 2004 (registration became condition for welfare); attorney offices provide assistance to remaining unregistered persons in registrations. ·Meetings of the National Roma Platform are organised at the central, regional and local level, promoting the participation of Roma people. ·The Special Secretariat established a mixed Task Force which aims to train Roma communities to evaluate policies concerning their social integration. ·Roma empowerment at the local level was found to be more successful in municipalities where the community was consulted when taking the decision on how the funding will be spent. Especially important are programmes focusing on entrepreneurship, trainings and education in political participation.	·Political representation of the Roma community is not developed as their problems are generally not recognised as distinct from the problems of the Greek society at large.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Municipalities provide information about the situation of Greek Roma to the Special Secretariat that acts as a consultation platform. ·According to the Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Social Solidarity, 35 municipalities have developed their Action Plans for Roma inclusion and 49 out of 240 Municipal Community Centres have established Roma departments. ·A Roma mentoring network is being set up to address access issues to benefits and programs.	·Local authorities lack the financial and human resources necessary for effective exercise of their legal responsibilities and tasks. ·There is a large disparity between municipalities in terms of their approach to Roma integration. Roma living in settlements are especially excluded from municipal programmes, as well as public and political participation. ·National authorities need to overcome local resistance to Roma inclusion policies at the local level.
Data collection
·The Special Secretariat aims to set up an electronic platform including data on Roma (censuses, living conditions, available services, projects) provided by the municipalities, regions and Roma organisations and inputs from the public. This platform will be a part of the geo-information system on social inclusion. ·The NRIS includes an “inventory of Roma settlements” comparing the situation in 1998 and 2008. (By the document, the number of individuals living in such setting increased by 8 to 10 per cent between 1998 and 2008.)	·There are no official statistics about Roma and the census does not collect data about the Roma ethnicity.
Funding for civil society
·From the central government level, Roma NGOs obtain funding via the general Public Investment Programmes aimed at funding efforts and projects that strengthen the economy, support the modernisation and promote the social cohesion of the country in a long-term horizon. ·Additional sources of funding are the EU funds, EEA/Norway grants, as well as international private foundations operating in Greece.	·There is a lack of credible information on funding dedicated to Roma NGOs. ·There is no specialized fund at the central government level for projects tackling issues of Roma integration.
Example of promising practice
The holistic approach and integrated approach to planning the policies, with measures both included in the NRIS and promoted in the local-level policy-making supported by the Special Secretariat for Roma Integration is considered promising. This approach is reflected in a consultation process at the central level, which is coordinated by the Special Secretariat and includes all relevant ministries, civil society and experts, including also Roma and their associations. At the local level, the Special Secretariat assists the local authorities to organise similar process with involvement of Roma and to plan complementary measures addressing problems that Roma face in different fields (employment, education, healthcare, housing) through integrated interventions.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●Active participation of Roma in decision-making at all levels should be further supported in all stages (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation). ●The central government should develop measures that will ensure that local authorities assume their responsibilities in Roma inclusion at the local level. ●The position of Roma women should be strengthened in Roma communities and in general; problems of early marriage and motherhood should be addressed and girls’ participation in education supported. ●Roma’s employment should be supported through development of social economy, high-quality occupational counselling and linking the (re)training to the professions in higher demand at the regional labour markets. Such schemes should not be Roma-only, but support ethnical mix.

HUNGARY
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of Human Capacities
Strategic document	Hungary has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	750.000 (7,65% of 9.797.561)
Available options for data collection	·Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, ·Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the standardized European Social Surveys (EU SILC, Labour Force Survey etc.), ·Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue), ·Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys, ·Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), ·Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units)
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
European Union programmes running in Hungary are consistent with each other, targeting specific target groups. The programmes aim at eradicating child poverty and helping socially disadvantaged groups into a better position, as well as at improving access to quality public services such as integrated education and primary healthcare, in addition to community development and the elimination of housing segregation and discrimination against Roma. In order to reduce the number of people living in poverty, the Hungarian government primarily implements complex programmes and integrated territorial and equal opportunities programmes focusing on disadvantaged regions, in addition to the comprehensive economic and social policy measures. Hungary approaches the EU2020 poverty reduction target at an appropriate pace, and it will probably fulfil the commitments as one of the few Member States. In the field of education, we consider the creation of Sure Start Children's Houses, the operation of after-school learning centres (so called "tanoda"), and the development and financing of special colleges for the Roma as main results. In the reporting period, 112 Children's Houses supplying 2578 children, 270 after-school learning centres and 11 Roma Special Colleges were in operation/ At the end of 2017 the Government adopted a Government Decree on the establishment and operation of the Council of Roma Special Colleges and about the amendment of certain related Government Decrees. The legal regulation laid the foundations for the operation of Roma special colleges based on a single set of technical criteria. The Council of Roma Special Colleges has made its initial technical standpoint based on a single set of criteria through its procedure of qualifying the existing special colleges as Roma special colleges. The Government Decree made the procedure for qualifying as a special college formalized. The new regulation came into force on 01 December 2017. In the area of employment, we created the Workplace Protection Action Plan, we support enterprise development and we continue the Social Land Programme. We launched the Youth Guarantee Programme that makes it easier for young people to find a job. We also consider the launch of new developments within the complex programmes for segregated areas as a significant achievement.
The main challenges
Currently, we consider the targeting of interventions to be one of the main challenges: to provide quality services to the most vulnerable living in disadvantaged regions and often in segregated areas. Territorial and social differences in the level and quality of services available still considerably impede social inclusion. Special attention is paid to segregated areas where the accessibility of services is usually even more limited. Another challenge is to ensure the sustainability of those services that proved to be effective in an experimental phase, in (pilot) projects.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Regular and systemic functioning of services that proved to be effective in the framework of projects requires the provision of appropriate financing and institutional circumstances for long-term sustainability. During the last years several important interventions of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy were transferred from project-based financing (usually co-financing by European Structural and Investment Funds) to funding from the national budget. Such interventions are for example the operation of Sure Start Children's Houses, after-school learning centres and Roma special colleges. The assessment is based on information from the annual monitoring report of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy (Hungarian abbreviation: MNTFS). Available (in Hungarian language): romagov.hu
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 56 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Hungary. 51 of them were mainstream and five targeted. All 56 were implemented by a public authority, 54 at national, one at local level and one unassigned to a specific type of implementing partner. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Hungary also reported one mainstream measure as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, one mainstream measure as relevant for empowerment, three mainstream measures as relevant for local action, three as relevant for monitoring and evaluation (also mainstream), and one measure was reported as relevant for the area of transnational cooperation. 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, 13 measures were reported as relevant for the area of education, 12 mainstream and one targeted. All thirteen were implemented by a public authority, one at local and twelve at national level.
The most important success
The Hungarian Government puts great emphasis on the prevention of early drop-out and fosters access for all to inclusive and high-quality education to prevent the reproduction of poverty and create better future opportunities. Several programmes have been implemented to provide support for early childhood education and institutions exposed to students drop-out to foster opportunity creation in public education and social inclusion and integration related public education measures. As a result of these projects, until 1st of March, 2018 25 Roma kindergarten nurses have been admitted; supporting activities have been carried out in the field of preventive, qualitative and inclusive early-childhood education, which are partly hosted by the kindergartens; methodological support has been provided to public education institutions and service providers support education and teaching beyond school lessons or the school system. The early signaling and pedagogical support scheme for the prevention of drop-out has been successfully adopted and operating since 2016 (legislation: Government Decree 229/2012 (VIII. 28.) on the implementation of the Act on National Public Education). The scheme is aimed at drawing attention to those situations and areas in need of development that could contribute to the prevention of school-leaving on the student-teacher level and the institutional development and management level. The key factor of the warning system is prevention. Several measures have been implemented to prevent early school-leaving and to promote school success in different age groups. In the framework of HRDOP-3.1.2 project a pedagogical methodology related to school-leaving without qualifications has been developed and promoted. 30,000 educational professionals around the country will be prepared to apply the inclusive and complex educational method. Since 2016, schools have the opportunity to employ child carers and social workers. Between 2016 and 2018 over 289 after-school learning centers (tanodas) have provided support to 8500 disadvantaged pupils in their development, compensating their disadvantages. The ”Bari shej – Nagylány - Fátă máré” programme aims at mitigating early school-leaving among Roma girls and enhancing their chances of further education with efficient tools. In 2017/2018, 780 Roma girls got involved in this programme. In addition to these, various scholarship programs provide support for the promotion of school success among disadvantaged students in secondary and higher education as well as in vocational education and training. Furthermore, the so called “Special colleges for Roma” aim to increase the number of Roma students obtaining higher qualifications, ensure skills development and talent management opportunities for disadvantaged – primarily Roma – students, provide career counselling, mentoring and tutoring, start professional collaborations and provide scholarship grants. In the academic year 2016/2017 the number of students involved in the special college program was 324, while the number of related colleges was eleven. Around 1,090 persons obtained a higher education degree (or at least a pre-degree certificate) from among the members of special colleges.
The most important challenge
The main challenge is territorial inequalities in providing quality education. The assessment is based on the information from the annual monitoring report of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy (MNTFS).
The situation in this thematic area is improved
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, 13 measures were reported relevant for the area of employment, 11 mainstream and two targeted. All thirteen were implemented by a public authority at national level
The most important success
The Government pays particular attention to improve job creation at companies, while also supports certain disadvantaged groups in terms of employability, especially the – long-term - unemployed from disadvantaged areas, unskilled employees, youth, women and mothers with children. Several programmes promote the enhancement of employment opportunities, the creation of better, long-term and sustainable job opportunities and the increase of employability by developing basic and digital skills of the most vulnerable on the labour market. The Job Protection Action Plan is running since 2012 with the aim to preserve jobs and protect the employment of disadvantaged employees. Until 2017 150 thousand employers received support for the employment of 907 thousand employees. The Youth Guarantee Labour Market programme improves employability of the youth below the age of 25. During the last years 80,899 NEET persons participated in the programme, and 53,772 were employed within its framework. EDIOP-5.1.1 programme contributes to permanent employment opportunities of groups with labour market disadvantages and to their return to the open labour market. Out of the 100,633 participants 29,903 persons had basic or lower secondary qualification; 22,907 are employed (including self-employed persons); 9,207 received a qualification or a certificate. The "Chances are increasing - training and employment” project is a unique initiative aiming to reduce social exclusion and improve the employment prospects for Roma women who particularly suffer social prejudice and labour market discrimination. In the framework of this project, 1,100 Roma - primarily Roma women – are being employed in public services and provided with the necessary training. The Government also puts emphasis on strengthening the employment potential in organizations that combine business and social aspects. The projects EDIOP-5.1.3-16 and HRDOP-1.11.1 aim at creating and/or extending sustainable job opportunities with due respect to social objectives. Assistance is also provided to social cooperatives, in order to enable further progress for people involved in public employment. (There are approx. 3000 social cooperatives operating, out of which 300 have been organized on the foundations of public employment.) The Ministry of Human Capacities has been implementing a social land programme for decades, with two main components: horticulture and small animal husbandry subproject, and procurement of equipment for agricultural activities, to help enter the market. The number of people reached by the programme is approx. 31,000. In order to enforce the aspects of social inclusion in employment and to involve employers in this process, since 2016, in accordance with Government Decision No. 1548/2015 (VIII. 7.) the Economic Forum for (the Promotion of) Social Inclusion is operating with the involvement of 45 companies.
The most important challenge
The main challenge is the territorial differences in employment opportunities – the shortage of labour in several parts of the country while the scarcity of job opportunities in other – generally disadvantaged – areas. Another challenge is to extend social economy activities and to ensure the sustainability and continuous operation of social economy organizations. The assessment is based on information from the annual monitoring report of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy (Hungarian abbreviation: MNTFS). Available (in Hungarian language): romagov.hu
The overall situation in this thematic area is improved.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, nine measures were reported relevant for the area of healthcare, all mainstream, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The Hungarian Government fosters the improvement of health conditions through programmes which provide quality services, equal opportunities and better access to quality health care services for everyone. Within the framework of an EU funded project, in order to increase the prevention capacity of the healthcare system, 61 health promotion offices (Hungarian abbreviation: EFI) were established in Hungary in 2013-14. 20 and 18 offices are located in districts previously categorized as “most disadvantaged” and “disadvantaged”, respectively. The fundamental objective of their operation is to contribute to decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, to reduce early and avoidable mortality and to improve life-styles, attitudes and habits. Furthermore, Practice I and Practice II programmes address the problem of vacancies in family doctors' districts. 112 doctors participated in the former, and 289 in the latter programme. In the districts staffed this way, 184,931 persons have access to medical services. Two Swiss-Hungarian cooperation programmes were implemented recently. One with the aim of developing primary healthcare provision that focuses on prevention and the care of patients, the other with the aim of improving working conditions of district nurses working in Roma communities. As a result 4 communities of practice have been set up with the participation of 24 basic-care practices in the Northern Great Plain and Northern Hungary regions. 36,000 people, including nearly 10,000 from the Roma minority, attended complex screenings and life-style counselling. By 1 March 2017, 11,200 adults of whom nearly 40% were from the Roma minority had been screened. To develop the health literacy of the population, improve health-consciousness through health communication tailored to target groups, foster prevention, implement awareness-raising and the rolling-back of drug consumption and addiction several programmes have been implemented (e.g. HRDOP-1.8.7, HDROP-1.8.9) with a particular view to the inclusion of communities and families. For all girls in the affected age group, vaccination against Human papillomavirus (HPV) is available free of charge. As a result of the communication support of the vaccination campaigns, after the HPV campaign of 2016, HPV vaccination coverage grew to 75.7%. Data of sufficient quality and detail should be provided in order to explore inequalities in health due to regional differences, and to improve the scope and assessment of interventions. Relying on the mortality and tumour disease indices and maps available in the relevant system (ISMDI, Hungarian abbreviation: HaMIR), a detailed health picture can be drawn for each county and district.
The most important challenge
The main challenge is the territorial inequalities in the quality of and access to health care services. The resource requirements of the maintenance period of the health promotion offices also proved to be a challenge. Another challenge is that the legal status and tasks of health promotion offices have not yet been enshrined in law. ISMDI is implemented in collaboration between the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State and the Government Office of the Capital City Budapest. As a result of the current organisational restructuring, the way ISMDI is maintained and updated annually may change. Information from the annual monitoring report of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy (Hungarian abbreviation: MNTFS). Available (in Hungarian language): romagov. hu
The overall situation in this thematic area is improved.
HOUSING
In 2017, seven measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing, 6 mainstream and one targeted. All seven were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Several projects aim to reduce regional differences and inequalities in access to quality public services. Three projects are intended to improve access to high-quality public services and to develop the quality and efficiency of individual services, focusing mainly on the fields of public education, higher education, adult education and non-formal learning. The project named “An unlimited opportunity” aims also to slow down the marginalisation process in the involved disadvantaged regions and to reduce the developmental differences between the regions and launch incentives designed to improve life chances. The Government Resolution 1391/2016. (VII. 21.) on the settlement of the situation of Tiszabő and Tiszabura localities, prescribes that a complex action plan must be prepared - with the involvement and the cooperation of the Interior Minister, the Minister for National Economy, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister in charge of the Prime Minister’s Office - on the social inclusion strategy of these settlements and for the long-term resolution of the problems. To boost social inclusion in Miskolc a working group has been established which adopted an action plan, which the General Assembly of Miskolc City included in the Local Equal Opportunities Programme. One of the most significant elements of the document is the establishment of a Social Housing Agency, which would be put in charge of thirty social rental apartments within one year. There are several Operational Programmes (HRDOP, CCHOP, TSDOP) that contribute to the improvement of the situation and housing conditions of citizens living in colony-like living environments. “The eradication of segregated life situations with complex programmes” project has an ESF and ERDF root with the intention to promote the social inclusion and integration of disadvantaged citizens who live in segregated living environment and in extreme poverty through the promotion of human interventions, access to services and infrastructural developments and investments. Settlements involved receive continuous professional support to complex settlement programmes, to increase the efficiency of the projects and to enhance their social acceptance (HRDOP-1.6.1.) By the end of February 2018 supporting decisions had been made for 82 applications, which will bring the programme to over 34,000 people in 155 dwellings. TOP projects were implemented with the focus on social urban rehabilitation and supporting infrastructural investments in settlements. The improvement of housing conditions is at the core of infrastructure development besides that within the projects settlements have the opportunity for the construction of community buildings/rooms, the construction of offices for social workers or for the self-governments of national minorities, the development of public spaces, the installation and development of CCTV surveillance systems and the modernization of the public utility networks owned by local governments.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge is that there is a large number of segregated areas in the country, all requiring a complex multi-disciplinary approach with the involvement of several sectors. The assessment is based on information from the annual monitoring report of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy (Hungarian abbreviation: MNTFS). Available (in Hungarian language): romagov.hu
The overall situation in this thematic area is improved.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, five mainstream measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The Ministry of Human Capacities supports the public tasks related to the identity of Hungary’s national minorities, including the Roma minority, from the central budget. The National Roma Self-government (Hungarian abbreviation: ORÖ) receives resources (267.2 million HUF) allocated to the operation and media support of the national self-governments of minorities. The National Roma Self-government maintains 9 institutions, out of which 4 are intended to preserve Roma traditions and develop the Roma culture, 2 institutions perform public education functions and 3 ones perform tasks that are closely related to social inclusion. In 2017 1,138 municipality and territorial minority governments for the Roma received a grant. Pursuant to Article 31 (1) of the Act on Equal Treatment and Promotion of Equal Opportunities, the Hungarian local governments are obliged to prepare a Local Equal Opportunities Programme with a SWOT analysis and action plan on how they improve social integration and social cohesion, which must be revised every second year. Resources are allocated from the national budget for ethnic purposes. The amount of financial resources for these purposes increased by 20% in 2018. The "Ethnic Minority Grants" are to preserve the identity, to foster the native language, traditions, tangible and intangible heritage of ethnic groups, and to organize events of national or regional importance essential for cultural autonomy as well as language and cultural identity. In 2018 36% of the winning applications were submitted by the Roma community. In the SIOP-1.2.6. project the Multifunctional Ethnic-Roma Methodology, Education and Cultural Centre has been established with the objective to promote cultural, educational, methodological and artistic diversity, to provide support for the sustainable local communities and to strengthen social cohesion. HDIOP-1.3.4 project aims the extension of activities carried out by the institution. The “Get involved in news reporting” talent support program provides disadvantaged young people between the age of 18 and 30 with at least secondary school qualifications, primarily Roma people the chance to work for MTVA (Media Services and Support Trust Fund) with a scholarship for one year. Since 2015 about 8 disadvantaged young people got the opportunity each year to become acquainted with the world of media including news reporting. The Prime Minister’s Office evaluates the experiences of the operation of the Roma rapporteur system so far and assesses the opportunities for the maintenance and expansion of the rapporteur system in order to promote social skills of those working in public administration at local level to improve access of Roma and disadvantaged people to public services. The amendment of Act CXL of 1997 facilitates social activities and activities intended to create more opportunities or serve territorial cohesion in museums, public libraries and institutions of non-formal education. The professional concept is focused on community development. A priority objective is to offer everyone the opportunity to participate in creating cultural values and to ensure that professionals assisting the activities of community platforms and self-educational communities are accessible even in the most disadvantaged settlements. Textbook and curriculum content on poverty as well as on disadvantaged social groups, the Roma national minority and the Roma Holocaust were reviewed. 262 textbooks (currently in use at schools and managed by the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development, OFI) were analysed. Only 67 of the surveyed textbooks contained references to the Roma culture; according to the surveyors, these references often required correction or addition. As for the remaining 195 textbooks, 141 were found to provide an opportunity for the introduction of the topic.
The most important challenge
No challenge was reported for this thematic area.
The overall situation in this thematic area is improved.
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, one mainstream measure was reported as relevant for the area of multiple discrimination by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Several projects aim to reduce regional differences and inequalities in access to quality services. Hungary has a so called “segregation map” which shows the settlements where the percentage of very low-educated and unemployed people living concentrated is higher than 25 or 50 percent, respectively. Based on social surveys we are aware of the fact that these indicators are rather high among Roma so we can conclude that in the settlements we are focusing on we reach a large number of Roma. In order to promote social inclusion, the settlements are also obliged to prepare a “local equal opportunities plan” based on these segregation data. We can identify 1384 segregated settlements/areas, with 84 401 dwellings and 276 244 inhabitants. More than 30 percent of the people living in these areas are children under 15. More than 270 thousand people face multiple discrimination as a result of low-education, unemployment and living in segregated and inadequate living conditions and having no access to high-quality public services. Several programmes foster the fold up of these disadvantages. To reduce disadvantages and avoid multiple discrimination Roma women face, the Hungarian Government implemented two projects which target especially Roma girls/women with the aim to reduce their social exclusion and increase their opportunities and chances. The project Bari shej – Nagylány - Fátă máré” aims to mitigate early school-leaving among Roma girls and to enhance their chances of further education with efficient tools. "Chances are increasing - training and employment” project which is a unique initiative, improves the employment prospects for those suffering social prejudice and labour market discrimination.
The most important challenge
As a result of the reforms of the institutional background as per Government Decree 1312/2016. (VI. 13.), ongoing consultations are held between the involved sectors, the managing authority and the background institutions.
The overall situation in this thematic area is improved.
Governance and cooperation
The NRCP is in charge of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. The NRCP is participating in decision making processes regarding development of relevant policies. The NRCP is participating in decision making processes regarding funding of relevant policies. The NRCP is participating in decision making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. There are two main consultative fora: Roma Coordination Council & the Evaluation Committee for the National Programme to Combat Child Poverty. The main stakeholders are the civil members of the committees and are selected in an application process.

HUNGARY
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Preschool education is obligatory from the age of 3. Additionally, governmental programmes aim at increasing the number of kindergarten teachers and their training in social inclusion and integration. ·Two programmes aimed at reducing early school leaving have been implemented, including remedial schools, second chance educational models, and tutoring. Further, one program aims to reach youth that have already dropped out. ·The state supports a portion of the salaries of staff in “Sure Start Children’s Houses”, offering early childhood programmes for disadvantaged children. The children’s houses have been proven to improve social skills, vocabulary, and motor coordination. ·Higher education scholarship programmes funded from “Human Resources Development Operational Programme are targeted for Roma students (yet, only traditional church schools and universities are eligible for funding).	·The curriculum of the social inclusion and integration training needs to be reviewed, as it is possible that the curriculum may support nationalist and populist ideologies and narratives. ·The scope of existing early childhood programmes is limited, it does not address the real needs of families, and there is inadequate support from the government. ·Career guidance services in schools fail to assist Roma students or their families in becoming familiar with available professional or further education options. ·The policy of “freedom in the choice of school” and the growing number of church-maintained schools has led to increasing educational segregation through increasing the phenomenon of “white flight” often to church-maintained schools and churches establishing ghetto schools to serve disadvantaged groups and communities. ·Dual education was initiated together with the lowering of mandatory schooling to 16, leading to higher rates of early school leaving and reduced career opportunities.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services and EU funded ALMP targeted at the long term unemployed are accessible to Roma jobseekers. ·Basic skills training is available in temporary measures, but not as a standard employment measure. ·There are some notable public initiatives of internships in public organisations and some NGO activities to address employer discrimination.	·Public employment services and measures are not tailored to the specific needs of the Roma, outreach efforts are limited. ·Employment and training programmes are seldom linked to social services which is likely to reduce their impact. ·Roma are overrepresented in public works schemes that do not effectively help reemployment in the primary labour market. ·Legal prohibition and monitoring of employer discrimination exist but are rarely enforced. Public employment services does not explicitly address employer discrimination.
Healthcare
·Specialist outpatient care in poor rural regions was improved with EU funds. ·In Hungarian healthcare (both ambulatory and in-patient), out-of-pocket informal or "gratuity" payments are widespread, even the norm. This is likely to put the poor, many of whom are Roma, at a disadvantage in terms of access, and care quality.	·High and growing number of unfilled general practitioner and health visitor positions disproportionately affect impoverished regions with more than average Roma, rendering access to healthcare hard. ·The scope of the targeted programmes is inadequate to fill the gaps in universal access to primary care, whose underfinancing affects rural regions where most Roma live. Financing and salaries should be adjusted, to ensure that all missing positions are filled. ·A reform of healthcare financing, making informal payments less pivotal is overdue. ·Discrimination in healthcare remains a problem; cases remain latent and hardly addressed by existing institutions; complaint mechanisms should be closer to the community. ·Drug abuse (especially designer drugs) is rampant among marginalised groups, also affecting many Roma. The government's policy response is under resourced.
Housing
·The social urban rehabilitation schemes funded under TOP target the increasing of the social housing portfolio, as one of the tools of desegregation. ·Mainstream housing programmes target rather the middle class. ·In municipalities with committed local governments, ESIF-financed local projects do accomplish minor and major results.	·Coverage of housing affordability programs which would address extreme forms of housing poverty and prevention of evictions is low. ·The portfolio of municipal social housing is minimal at the national level as well but is almost completely missing in disadvantaged (small) settlements. The poorest, including the Roma, are increasingly pushed out of social housing. ·Vast majority of Roma living in low-status residential zones, segregated areas and substandard dwellings mostly are left out of major development and ESIF-funded initiatives; successful exceptions represent minimal progress at the macro-level. ·Housing benefits are allocated by municipalities and prove to be insufficient to veritably alleviate affordability-related difficulties and to establish housing security. Moreover, the poorest, including the Roma, are forced out of family housing allowance scheme, as they are unable to meet eligibility criteria.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·A wide range of anti-discrimination principles is defined in the Hungarian legislative system. The legislative framework meets the key EU anti-discrimination directives and the laws guaranteeing the requirement of equal treatment. The Equal Treatment Authority has a quasi-judicial scope of action, with capacities to apply decisions and sanctions of public administration and it is entitled to sue. ·The law which exempted religious run schools from the legal requirement of equal treatment and allowed churches to run segregated schools was amended in July 2017, with a stipulation that schools organised on such principles may not lead to unlawful segregation. It is too soon to assess impact of this modification.	·Challenges remain due to ambiguities in the legislation. Legal awareness of issues concerning equal treatment is especially low among the Roma. ·In 2015, the government adopted a policy decision and set out details of its plan for the 2014-2020 period for “a significant breakthrough in the elimination of segregated housing in Hungary”. However, the programmes only reach a small fraction of people living in such segregation. ·Roma are subjected to both ‘over-policing’ and ‘under policing’ and police operate ethnic profiling. ·Evictions of the poorest tenants with arrears or unsettled legal title disproportionately affect Roma. To prevent Roma from moving in, some local authorities buy up available real estate or pressurize people who intend to sell to a Roma buyer. ·Some local authorities refuse to register Roma moving in the village; consequent lack of documentation makes access to benefits and services difficult.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The strategy does mention some measures to reduce antigypsyism, including training of professionals in public services and the role of media in deconstructing prejudices. ·A Working Group Against Hate Crimes prepared a list of indicators to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to recognize and assess bias-motivated crimes during criminal proceedings. The representatives of National Police Headquarters agreed to integrate the list into the police’s system of training on hate crimes. ·Even though the problem of 'incitement' as a concept has already been articulated at the level of international courts, the police and the prosecutor’s office hardly ever use this classification in practice.	·Amendment to the Criminal Procedures Act related to the definition of hate crimes and vulnerable groups should be made compliant with Directive 2012/29/EU. ·There is a need for training intercultural competence for civil servants, judges, police officers, prosecutors, journalists etc. which is currently missing. ·Data collection (including survey, research etc.), monitoring and reporting on manifestations of antigypsyism is missing. Underreporting of racially motivated crimes against Roma remains an unaddressed problem.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The NRIS names three national programmes that aim to improve the labour market situation of Roma women; a series of national programmes aimed at preventing the early school drop-out of Roma girls have been implemented. ·The NRIS conceptualises both young people and the Roma as disadvantaged on the labour market. ·The health visitor (district midwife) is an exemplary and complex service, which plays a pivotal role in providing care for expectant mothers and supporting children from infancy until they reach the age of compulsory education.	·More publicly available information would be needed on the exact results, efficiency and spending of the programmes targeting Roma women and girls. ·The Youth Guarantee Programme uses active labour market tools to facilitate the employment of young people below the age of 25; however, the ambition of reaching and including young Roma is not expressed as a priority. ·The professional control of the child protection system and the cooperation between social and child protection services should be improved in order to prevent children from being removed from their (non-abusive) families struggling with poverty and housing insecurity - which is one of the most crucial children's rights issue in the country, affecting disproportionally Roma children and families. ·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
·The ministerial commissioner supervising funds for Roma affairs, assigned by the Minister of Justice, was the former Chairman of the National Roma Self-Government, a representative of the governing party. ·Roma Coordination Council is “responsible for providing a forum of dialogue and cooperation for promoting the effective inclusion of the Roma population.” The council counts 29 members “mostly delegated by Roma organisations, but also includes representatives of the Academy of Sciences, churches, employers, trade unions and civil groups among others.	·Trust is scarce in the overlapping leadership of National Roma Self-government and state commissioner's role. Poor advocacy performance, and active investigations against the super-powered Roma leader regarding misuse of ESIF. ·Mostly due to the lack of necessary staffing, the Equal Treatment Authority carries out very few ex officio procedures, whereas vulnerable groups have low familiarity and capacities to file complaints.
Civil participation and empowerment
·In 2013 the Anti-Segregation Round Table began running, mostly with civil society and educator members. However, the representatives of the civil society have left the table to protest against its ineffectiveness. ·Most Roma organisations undertake tasks related to education, social services, culture and sports; some NGOs with significant capacity has engaged in legal protection to outstandingly high standards.	·Recent regulations labelling some civic organisations and NGOs as “foreign agents” has had stigmatizing and discouraging effects.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Few municipalities with committed political leadership become champions of desegregation, sometimes in cooperation with local Roma minority self-government. ·Since 2017, regional Roma platforms have been established in several counties, aimed at seeking for solutions for local problems. Impact of these platforms has not been assessed. ·The development of an Equal Opportunity Plan is compulsory above certain settlement size, but is rarely guiding genuine planning activity of local governments.	·Although the local elections regulations allow to run as representative of national minorities with 'preferential' voting, the scheme is poorly exploited at municipalities with higher proportion of Roma. ·Local governments often act as active agents of hard and subtle forms of social exclusion. ·ESIF-supported local developments are the main vehicle of local inclusive development which, however, rarely lead to transformative mainstreaming effects in needs assessment, decision making, planning, and implementation of developments.
Data collection
·The collection and management of nationality and ethnic data is governed by the Data Protection Act. ·The number of Roma people in Hungary as estimated by the national census usually differs from the number identified in research, primarily due to methodological reasons. The method of the 2011 census allowing double self-identification resulted in increasing number of Roma, closer to the professional and scholarly estimates.	·Some problems to access to ethnic data (e.g. Central Statistical Office provides primary data on Roma against a fee) can be experienced but data collection is not the primary obstacle to more robust Roma inclusion in Hungary.
Funding for civil society
·ESIF are the most relevant funding sources for Roma. EEA/Norway Grants and the Swiss Contribution support "civil funds" for the implementation of small-scale local projects. ·Non-state donor support from large corporations as part of their CSR strategy is increasing, as are private foundations, some of which also compete with civil society as applicants for funding.	·The Government officially complained about the civic consortia's decision-making mechanism for managing the EEA/Norway grants and the future continuation of this grant is unclear. ·Some of the main pro-Roma Roma human rights NGOs had to close their activities due to lack of financial resources. In sum, Roma empowerment through independent and bottom up civic mobilization has not advanced in recent years, it has rather stepped back.
Example of promising practice
Scholarship programmes have shown to be effective in supporting education of disadvantaged students, including Roma. A noteworthy programme is Bari Shej, aiming to prevent Roma girls’ early school leaving. The programme is run in partnership with various local stakeholders and institutions all over in the country. It is funded from ESIF (EFOP 1.4.4-17, project title “Bari Shej – Nagylány – FataMáré”) with 8.4 million EUR (2.66 billion HUF) to be used within a period of 24 months to help 1,780 young girls facing disadvantages through 89 selected operators. There are other scholarship programmes with significant outreach to disadvantaged Roma, such as “Útravaló” scholarship that in the 2016/2017 school year supported 4,028 beneficiaries; or Arany János programme that supported 1,088 children in the 2015/2016 school year. The largest programme is the Szabóky Adolf vocational training scholarship programme that provided scholarships to as much as 35,990 children between 2016 and 2018 and funded more than 270 after school study clubs supporting disadvantaged students; the programme was funded from ESIF with 23.23 million EUR (7.35 billion HUF). This programme is however criticised as it pulls Roma students to vocational training, where students receive higher support under more favourable conditions than in general secondary education. This has negative impact on Roma’s future educational and professional career; nevertheless, it demonstrates effectiveness of targeted support to Roma students.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●To address consequences of lowering the age limit of compulsory education (this lowering to 16 years has significantly contributed to the rise in the number of early school-leaving cases), ●To support Roma students in transitions from primary to secondary education and from school to work, ●To actively address growing segregation of Roma in education. ●To bring Roma closer to the labour market through coordinating actions with possible employers or promoting good practices in the field. ●To specifically target low-status residential urban zones and segregated rural areas with substandard dwellings by major long-term integrated programmes for renewal, upgrading and moving people out from urban and rural ghettos. ●To increase coverage of housing affordability programmes which would address extreme forms of housing poverty and prevention of evictions. ●To promote rental programmes through increase of the supply of social housing and affordable private rentals to promote moving to areas with labour demand and enhance regional mobility.

IRELAND
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) scheme is a universal childcare programme with the stated objective of providing children with their first formal experience of early learning prior to commencing primary school. ·The Child and Family Agency (TUSLA) has taken positive action measures through regional pilots to assist Traveller/Roma children’s retention in the education system. It has also committed to provision of 10,000 EUR per year to support ten Travellers/Roma to be trained as social care workers. ·A positive development is the forthcoming legislation to include Travellers culture and history into the school curriculum. ·National Action Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education has set a target to increase the number of Traveller new entrants to third-level education.	·Ethnic data is not currently collected by the ECCE scheme and therefore Travellers/Roma children’s access, participation and outcomes remain unclear. ·The use of restricted attendance timetables and home education for Travellers in difficulty with their schools or for whom school places are not found is an increasing concern. ·The provision of segregated education for Traveller children remains a challenge with two Traveller-only schools continuing to be funded by the Department of Education and Skills. While one school has indicated they will close in June 2019, the other has not. ·There is a need to offer Travellers/Roma high quality education programmes with clear pathways back to full provision and these must be stringently monitored and evaluated. ·Specific educational supports cut between 2008 and 2012, must be reinstated to assist in addressing the persistently low levels of educational attainment of Travellers/Roma.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services and social services are available for Travellers/Roma. ·There are new plans to adjust services based on the needs of Travellers/Roma and to support hiring Travellers/Roma in public sector. ·The anti-discrimination legislation is in place and is monitored.	·Mainstream strategies are not sufficiently tailored to Travellers/Roma needs and access and effectiveness may be limited; better coordination across government departments would improve their effectiveness. ·Access to employment services is often limited for Travellers/Roma with no permanent residence. ·Implementation of the new plans is delayed.
Healthcare
·Public health care services in Ireland, provided by the Health Service Executive (HSE) are free of charge for holders of a medical card. ·A discussion paper on National Traveller Health Action Plan (NTHAP) was developed and consulted at four regional meetings with stakeholders. The proposed framework is expected to include the establishment of a new planning advisory body for Traveller Health (PATH) and resources for NTHAP implementation. ·Traveller-specific health infrastructure, including Traveller Health Units and 25 dedicated Traveller Primary Health Care Projects throughout the country have proven to be extremely successful and effective initiatives.	·Habitual Residence Condition (HRC) continues to pose a barrier to many Roma seeking to access health care and other social services. The HSE should review the legislative and policy restrictions preventing Roma with no income from accessing a medical card. ·No dedicated high-level official has been appointed in either the Department of Health or the Health Service Executive (HSE) to take responsibility for Traveller health.
Housing
·An independent review of the 1998 (Traveller Accommodation) Act is currently underway.	·There is absence of any actions in the NTRIS relating to addressing the housing and accommodation needs of Roma. ·There is a systemic failure of local authorities to meet their statutory responsibilities to provide adequate and culturally appropriate accommodation for Travellers. ·There are high levels of experienced discrimination against Travellers/Roma in accessing private and public social rental sector. ·Travellers/Roma housing needs have become increasingly marginal in current policy focus and political debate on the housing and homeless crisis. Travellers are invisible in debates on homelessness despite representing at least 9% of the homeless population. ·Legislation has criminalised the practice of nomadism, whereas there is under-delivery on Traveller-specific accommodation (that is properly serviced halting sites and group housing).
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·A Code of Ethics for Irish Police was adopted in 2017, which specifically refers to membership of the Traveller community as being a wrongful ground of discrimination. ·The Irish Police appointed 277 Ethnic Liaison officers aimed at building trust.	·Discrimination in access to services in pubs, restaurants and other licensed premises do not come under the remit of the Equal Status Act. Yet, Travellers are 38-times more likely than “White Irish” to report discrimination in such situations. ·Ireland should repeal relevant legislation to ensure that cultural practice of nomadism is not criminalised; and should ensure adequate safeguards against forced evictions, and where evictions do take place ensure that adequate alternative and appropriate accommodation is provided. ·The Code of Ethics for the police does not have any legal enforceability. Beyond the ethnic liaison officers, there is a need for all police to undergo anti-racism and anti-discrimination training.
Fighting antigypsyism
·National police force has been recording ‘discriminatory motives’ since 2002, and the data is disaggregated since 2015. ·Prohibition of incitement to hatred act 1989 addresses membership of Traveller and Roma community.	·A national strategy, building on the previous successful National Action Plan against Racism, should be developed and implemented in association with affected rights holders including Traveller and Roma organisations. ·Austerity measures closed an important structure – the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism. ·Underreporting and under recording are serious obstacles to reach justice that have to be addressed. Systematic monitoring is also missing (besides some NGO initiatives).
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The NTRIS Steering Group established (for 2017-2020) a cross-working group to look at the gender specific actions in NTRIS and Traveller and Roma-specific actions in the National Strategy for Women and Girls. ·The NTRIS commits to promote the participation of Traveller and Roma children’s participation in the Early Childcare and Education (pre-school) scheme. ·TUSLA has supported a pilot peer-led project to improve access to safety and protection orders for Traveller women.	·The NTRIS aims to improve the labour market situation of Travellers/Roma young people, in line with commitments under the Youth Guarantee; however, Ireland’s 2018 report on the Youth Guarantee does not provide any information on progress in this regard. ·In the NTRIS there are 7 specific actions to address gender-based violence against Roma and Traveller women; however, there are no expected implementation dates set for these actions. ·Roma who cannot gain employment, or do not have their own resources and health insurance, are unable to meet the right to reside criteria. This has a negative impact especially on the rights of the child. The Child Benefit should be a universal payment, not contingent of the fulfilment of residence conditions. ·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
·In 2017 the Department of Justice and Equality launched the National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy 2017-2021 (NTRIS). ·NTRIS Steering Group was established by the Department of Justice and Equality in April 2015 with a mandate to contribute to developing NTRIS and to monitor the implementation and progress of NTRIS. ·Some government departments and statutory agencies implement targeted measures.	·The lack of political will and prioritisation means that little policy has been implemented, with no accountability for lack of implementation. ·There are sectoral committees established in policy areas, but these committees either have not been convened and/or do not function effectively. ·There is no clear budget allocated to the NTRIS and there is a lack of transparency around allocated funding and actual spending. ·The NTRIS lacks a rigorous monitoring and evaluation framework. ·Some indicators have been identified, however, they were not developed in consultation with Traveller and Roma representatives on the NTRIS Steering Group.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Community development is at the core of Traveller organisations and there is a strong community development and human rights component underpinning this work in Ireland. ·The current infrastructure includes four national Traveller organisations and local Traveller organisations, located in areas with sizeable Traveller populations.	·Traveller organisations struggle to access sustainable and adequate funding to promote empowerment and participation to the extent that it is needed. ·Some Traveller and other civil society organisations have expanded to work with Roma and some Roma organisations are emerging, however, significant investment is needed to promote empowerment and participation of Roma, within a human rights framework.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·In accordance with the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998, housing authorities (based in local authorities) have a statutory responsibility for the assessment of the accommodation needs of Travellers and the preparation, adoption and implementation of multi-annual Traveller Accommodation Programmes (TAPs) in their areas. ·The Social Inclusion Community Activation Programme (SICAP) is a national programme to reduce poverty and promote social inclusion and equality in local communities, which is managed by local authorities through Local Community Development Committees. Travellers and Roma are named as target groups under SICAP.	·Local Authorities are failing to meet their statutory responsibilities to provide adequate and culturally appropriate accommodation for Travellers; they should be sanctioned for non- implementation of Traveller Accommodation Plans. ·Although SICAP’s targeted approach is welcome, there is still work to be done to ensure that Travellers and Roma are targeted in practice. Travellers represented less than 3% of overall SICAP caseload in 2016.
Data collection
·Travellers refers to the approx. 35,000 Irish Travellers living in the island of Ireland, who were officially recognised as a minority ethnic group in 2017. ·Roma refers to those who identify as Roma in Ireland, approx. 4,000-5,000 people. This includes migrants and second and third generation Roma, many of whom are Irish citizens. ·Department of Education and Skills publishes disaggregated data on the basis ethnicity annually for pupils in primary schools in Ireland through the Primary Online Database; this is however not the case for secondary school level intake.	·There are significant gaps in reliable and comprehensive data on the socioeconomic situation and needs of Travellers and Roma. ·The lack of data makes it difficult to monitor impact of policy measures on Travellers and Roma, progress in NTRIS implementation or allocation of funding for Traveller and Roma organisations.
Funding for civil society
·There are over 25 dedicated Traveller Primary Health Care Projects throughout the country and up to 11 million EUR has been allocated to these initiatives. ·While funding for inclusion initiatives is available through a range of government departments, core funding is provided through the Department of Justice, now under the auspices of NTRIS. Funds are limited and accessing these funds is competitive.	·However, there has been no additional funding or new developments for the Traveller Primary Health Care projects since 2008 (‘pre-austerity’) despite the findings of the All Ireland Traveller Health Study which showed that Travellers experience significant health inequalities. ·To date there has been a lack of clear criteria for the allocation of funds, a lack of transparency on availability of funds and no effective monitoring and evaluation framework to monitor the use of funds.
Example of promising practice
For the first time, a targeted strategy the National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy (NTRIS) and a mainstream women's strategy National Strategy for Women and Girls 2017-2020 (NSWG) in Ireland have included actions related to improving the situation of Traveller and Roma women. The inclusion of Traveller and Roma women in these strategies is seen as a positive development. However, no progress has taken place in relation to actions related to Traveller and Roma women as there are no clear indicators, targets, outcomes or budget lines developed for the actions. Traveller organisations consistently raised concerns about this lack of progress at the national oversight meetings of both Strategies. Recently the Gender Equality Division of the Department of Justice and Equality has committed to developing an implementation plan for the actions related to Traveller and Roma women in the NTRIS and National Strategy for Women and Girls (NSWG). It has also agreed to prioritise progressing the situation of Traveller and Roma women in education and employment. It is important that the implementation plan for actions related to Traveller and Roma women in the NTRIS and NSWG is robust and contains clear actions, targets, indicators, outcomes and budget lines. Traveller and Roma women have also been included in a third mainstream policy initiative. The National Strategy on Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence (DSGBV) contains two actions related to Traveller and Roma women. However, without a robust implementation and monitoring framework very little, if any, progress has taken place to improve safety and protection for Traveller women. Arising from actions related to NTRIS and the National Strategy on DSGBV, Tusla Child and Family agency has commissioned Pavee Point to undertake a pilot project in improving access to safety and protection for Traveller women. While this is a much-needed initiative, the pilot project must be adequately resourced and sustained into the future.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●To ensure implementation of Traveller/Roma policy, the government should develop impact indicators, clear budget lines, timelines and a rigorous monitoring and evaluation framework. ●To establish an independent statutory Traveller Agency with dedicated responsibility to drive and monitor the implementation of Traveller policy, with accommodation prioritised in its first year. The accommodation needs of Roma should be addressed in NTRIS. ●To ensure an evidence-based policy-making that will require to roll out a standardised ethnic identifier across all government departments and agencies under their remit using the human rights framework in routine administrative systems and in the Census. ●To implement the forthcoming National Traveller Health Action Plan including the recommendation from the regional consultations, including establishment of a Planning Advisory Body for Traveller Health with dedicated staff and budgets to drive its’ delivery and implementation. ●To address disproportionate levels of unemployment in the Traveller and Roma communities, including development of specific national training and employment plan for Travellers and Roma. Mainstream training and employment strategies also should include targeted measures. ●To support progression and retention of Traveller and Roma children in post-primary schools. ●To ensure funding for Traveller and Roma organisations to promote the empowerment of Travellers and Roma aiming at enhancing national and local policy development, implementation and accountability. ●To address racism against Travellers and Roma through a new National Action Plan Against Racism, with a clear focus on Traveller and Roma women and measures to address online hate speech. ●Progression and retention of Traveller and Roma children to post- primary schools should be supported. The use of limited timetables should be investigated (through data collection) to ensure they are not disproportionately applied to Traveller students, and that where they are being applied, that it is being done so in the best interest of the child.

ITALY
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	UNAR (standing for the National Office against Racial Discrimination) within the Department for Equal Opportunities (acronym, DEO) of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (acronym in Italian, PCM). For ease of reference, UNAR-DEO will be herein after mentioned as UNAR, only.
Strategic document	Italy has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	150.000 (0,25% of 60.589.445)
Available options for data collection	•Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue) •Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys •Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups) •Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units) •Data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected, The country does not collect statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The year 2017 has been characterized mainly for the launch of Roma and Sinti National Platform: in April 2018, for the first time, the selected delegate of NRP was formally involved and attended the monitoring Committee of Inclusion Operational Programme. In addition, it was the update and the adoption of all the administrative documents required for the launch of the new concrete of EU Funds Planning, 2014-2020. UNAR is working on a document of analysis/guidelines-like on settlements, evictions and relocation, updated in line with the current situation, so as to elaborate effective strategies, especially to deal with alleged and/or possible cases of discrimination or harassment. Special attention has been devoted to the theme of the integration of national and Community funds with specific actions (tested for the first time) of joint intervention between metropolitan cities and UNAR. Such interventions will continue to focus during 2018 especially in the "housing" through the integration of Community programmes of Pon Inclusione and Metro, to ensure complementarity between – and in the use of - national, regional, local funding vis-à-vis European Operational Programs (EOP-Inclusion, EOP-Metro, EOP-Schooling).
The main challenges
Furthermore, it will be undertaken to review the National Strategy in the near future; this document, adopted in 2012, will be updated also in light of data that are more accurate in order to achieve the objectives and measurable results.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The strategy has put in place a rather complex governance due to the need to link responsible institutions at different levels and the numerous NGOs dealing with RSC rights. A political “cockpit” brings together the ministries responsible for the main areas of the strategy (Education, Labour, Infrastructure, Heath care and Justice), there are representatives of the regions and the local authorities. In addition, two structures exist: a) Platform (established by governmental regulation in 2017 ) Advisory body for dialogue and promotion of initiatives aimed at removing discrimination against RSC communities. Composed of 79 associations – modelled after a widespread European practice b) Forum (established by the strategy) supports the national focal point in monitoring the implementation of the strategy. It also helps identify good practices at local level and can present proposals to the national focal point. The Forum is part of the platform and is composed by a smaller number of associations (25), notably only those that are composed (exclusively or in prevalence) by persons belonging to the RSC communities. Specific interministerial working groups exist on the areas covered by the strategy (heath care, education, labour market, housing – plus legal aspects and statistical data), plus regional working groups. Governance is rather complex but this is the only way to link decision-makers (relevant ministries, representatives of local and regional authorities) and the rather plural Roma civil society. Effective participation is the backbone of minority rights, as stated by the ACFC. Most of the practical initiatives in the areas identified by the strategy fall in the scope of regional and local authorities. Some regions also have their own Roma legislation, which is however for the most part outdated (1980ies) and takes a “nomadic” approach, ie it assumes that RSC are nomads. Luckily, a handful of regions have started to adopt new legislation, including the autonomous province of Trento and the region Emilia-Romagna . UNAR is promoting coordination both nationally with representatives of regions and municipalities, and locally by establishing specific “dialogue roundtables” with more than half of the regions, which also include civil society. The role of regions is significant especially in key areas such as labour market and education. Even more important are the municipalities, as they provide the basic services (sewage, water, electricity, housing, transport, etc.). The strategy provided for the following actions – in cooperation between UNAR and the association of municipalities: •It mapped the situation and the claims at local level (more or less done) •It monitors adherence of the local actions with the strategy to supports municipalities in elaborating “integrated local action plans” and local benchmarks. Several positive examples at local level, especially in smaller municipalities
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 22 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Italy. Five were mainstream and 17 targeted. 19 were implemented by a public authority (16 at national level, one at regional, one at local and one – transnational). Two were implemented by civil society and one – by other entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Italy also reported six measure as relevant to the area of empowerment, one to local action and five as relevant to monitoring and evaluation. 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 to the area of education. All four mainstream were mainstream, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The Ministry of Education (acronym in Italian, MIUR) keeps fighting against school dropping-out of both Roma and non-Roma children, by means of the Structural Funds. In this regard, it is worthy of mention the programme under reference, which focuses on Roma, promoted by MLPS and MIUR involving 13 Municipalities Bari, Bologna, Catania, Firenze, Genova, Messina, Milano, Napoli, Palermo, Reggio Calabria, Roma, Torino e Venezia, 81 schools, 266 classes e 600 RSC pupils. In the framework of the National Platform (19th September 2017) two delegates were appointed to attend the Education National Working Group. In addition to this, is worthy of mention a series of mainstream measures, promoted by Ministry of Education in 2017 1."Qualificazione del sistema scolastico in contesti multiculturali”, FAMI (Fondo Asilo, Migrazione e Integrazione) - tackling dropout rate - 13 Mln euro; 2.“Le periferie al centro” (2 national seminars in Rome and Milan with an exchange of best practices in Roma educational inclusion; 3."Le scuole al centro". Fighting social unrest supplying additional assets (sport, art) with a focus of outskirts schools; 4."Azioni per il potenziamento delle competenze di base in chiave innovative". The Associations Ruggiu (for secondary education), Comunità di S. Egidio (for primary schools) and Cieli Aperti provide projects and scholarships to high-potential Roma students in the framework of APAD Project. 1)Cieli Aperti: Reading the compass Budget: 46.486,10 The project here introduced aims to implement actions on the territory of Prato (where currently live 245 Roma, according to the Report1 provided by the Prato Municipality) trying also to create a community of practice with a national wide breath by exchanging good practice between Southern Italy -Naples and Scampia Roma camp- and Northern Italy in the area round Mantova: these arefar away places, with different issues from which it is possible to learn new skills and to deepen the knowledge and understanding of a rich cultural community but hard to be placed mentally compared to our way of life. Description of the project: The project aims to begin to tear down the wall of mistrust and discrimination that was build around the Roma, Sinti and Travellers Community of Prato, by guiding a number of practical actions aimed at supporting the new generations, which is the only way to build common goals. After a first phase of coordination achieved through direct contact between the school network and the Roma Sinti and Travellers Community, a listening, counselling and mediation centre will be made available to the population and it will offer information services and mediation in the field of housing, in cooperation with the associations. In order to prepare the professional figures involved ( teachers and educators) a number of seminars will take place in order to help the attendants acquire practices and useful information – some successful practices were implemented in Lombardy and Campania – and educational skills to deal with the Roma Sinti and Travellers minors and with their families. Alongside a foreseen work programme open to the minors, the direct beneficiaries of the project, will be established with the goal of supporting them to improve school attendance, supporting them towards autonomy, bringing out their capabilities and skills on an individual basis. Classroom seminars targeted to Roma Sinti and Travellers children will be organized and the students will be helped to reflect on the issue of discrimination in their daily lives, finding little “methods” to tackle it. Once the project is completed, the outcomes of an in-depth rigorous monitoring form provided by the project will be presented to the Community. 2) From the school straight to the future! Sant’Egidio Community Budget: 50.000 The territorial reference area: Rome, Naples, Milan Assisting the young Roma’s family join the “Pact of mutual respect for the Right to education”by promoting mentoring actions, in order support the young Roma in the access to education courses not allowing them to take the path of crime, committing themselves to: facilitate access to education and to ACAP’s school orientation for Roma children (Peace Schools); that their child is not involved in any illegal activity (e.g. begging); encourage the student to participate in school activities and to take part to meetings with teachers; Monitoring of the school career of the minor through the collaboration of the educational establishments involved in the Project and that will provide monthly reports and will report any critical aspects and will build inclusion pathways for the families involved in the Project in collaboration with ACAP. Provide for support to the school career through the Peace schools, free afternoon courses provided by the ACAP volunteers. During the summer of 2018 play activities and summer camps are foreseen and also educational pathways support and second chance education pathways will be implemented.
The most important challenge
The Ministry of education has promoted the project named "School at the Centre" which was launched in 2016 to fight early school leaving and to promote social inclusion. Various projects, Implemented in many territories, focused on: 1. the transition to the secondary school; 2. a gender perspective; 3. awareness-raising and school mediation, also involving and referring to local teachers; 4. support for Roma families; 5. individualized pathways for those with specific needs; 6. support for pre-school entry; 7. networks facilitation. According to the needs of Roma students, these measures have been updated, re-designed and tailor-made, over the years. Challenge: data collection. As a result of the Authority for Privacy Protection, data on Roma pupils were no longer collected during the 2016/2017 academic year and published in the annual Miur / Ismu report, as was the case in previous years. The problem arises of identifying another modality of knowledge of the scholastic presence of minors belonging to this group that is not of an ethnic character. The assessment is based on the report provided by the Ministry of Education (see attachments), following the request of UNAR as a National Contact Point. In addition, it was possible to deepen the subject through the information provided by the Ministry of Education but also by the Ministry of Labor which provide with transparency and relative ease to useful documentation on their websites.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, no measures were reported as relevant to the area of employment.
The most important success
Also on this issues, the most important success was the approval of the executive plan of PON inclusion fund, redesigned during 2017. In particular, the action 9.5.5. "Recognition of skills, training and employment mediation aimed at providing employment, modelled on the good practice recognised at European level called Acceder programme". In the framework of the National Platform (19th September 2017) two delegates were appointed to attend the Employment National Working Group. The launch of the project: Promoting employment in the framework of APAD project Description of the project: The project aims (territorial reference area: Sardinia) to promote the integration of the Roma Sinti and Travellers Communities living on the territory of Sardinia,through three actions coordinated with each other The first one refers to the contribution to the cultural uplifting by incentives for enrolling children in the upper secondary schools (we have a very low schooling in Sardegna). It will be implemented through scholarships and supporting activities related to the scholarships, such as tutoring and /or activities that provide supplementary educational opportunities to the subjects that seem to be more motivated. The second one consists in the experimentation of one work placement offered on a full time basis and two work placements offered on a part-time basis through the implementation of one or two internships in working environments which give the persons a strong visibility ( in an educational establishment) which can be used as a positive model that can contribute to overcome the negative stereotype and that can be widely advertised. In the light of the experience of the first two actions, the creation of an audio-visual material (a short film) for all ages using informative content that should help audience understand the issues of discrimination and tackle negative stereotypes and that can be spread nationally and internationally.
The most important challenge
The limitations that local Authorities encounter vis-à-vis the Stability Pact. The assessment is based on the UNAR activity as NRCP.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant to the area of healthcare. It was a targeted measure implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The Health Table has defined the national action plan for and with Roma, Sinti and Travellers communities, sent to Departments of Health of regional authorities and presented in February 2016. The factors that have contributed for its completion can be identified in an integrated approach with various stakeholders. In line with the Action 9.5.3 and this National Plan (formally presented in february 2016) during 2017 UNAR started programming and defining paths of project activities, taking into account the indication from the national Platform and the new legislative framework. In addition, is worth to mention a measure financed by Ministry of Health (National Centre for for Disease Prevention and Control) for “Recognition of activities and territorial network for the implementation of National Plan of Action for and with the Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities” (see above) with the. The activity (inter alia identification of best practices for the implementation of the national Plan) will last 12 months with the collaboration of INMP (Istituto Nazionale per la promozione della salute delle popolazioni migranti e per il contrasto delle malattie della povertà http://www.inmp.it/ )
The most important challenge
In the framework of the National Platform (19th September 2017) two delegates were appointed to attend the Health National Working Group. The basis of assessment is the Report of Ministry of Health.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
HOUSING
In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant to the area of housing. Four measures were targeted and one mainstream. Four were implemented by a public authority and one by civil society. Three measures were implemented at national level, one at local and one at regional level.
The most important success
The survey “First National survey on the settlements”, presented in 2017, will be the tool to be able to compare future researches and to evaluate the impact of policies that will be implemented in relation to the subject (both by local authorities with PON Metro funding and by the National Contact Point with the projects included in the PON Inclusion). PON METRO, Action 9.5.7.Accompanying actions aiming to facilitate the access to non segregated housing and the full interaction with the largest community of residents. The Metropolitan Cities are the beneficiary of the funds (18.975,175 million euros). In the new Programming of Structural Funds and with regards to the specific PON METRO Programme, UNAR sees opportunities for undertaking some fundamental initiatives in order to overcome the “Roma settlements”. This coordination activity which started with the establishment of the first Inter-Ministerial Table on the Housing issues ( held on 6th of April 2016) continued with a national meeting (in Naples on the 14th of February 2017) with the Metropolitan Cities, aiming to receive indications on the municipal needs in terms of the measures to be taken by UNAR that are about to start with regards to the Pon Inclusion in complementarity with the Pon Metro. On the 4 of April of this year also The Technical Secretariat of the Pon Metropolitan Cities (PON METRO) in collaboration with the Cohesion Agency in order to define the actions in line with the rules of the Metropolitan Cities as a complement to the major action of the urban development. UNAR is following closely the development of actions envisaged by the strategic documents of the PON Metro in order to make sure they are in line with the Strategy.
The most important challenge
Since the beginning of 2017 UNAR due to the accountability towards the European Commission has promoted a coordination with the Ministers for Territorial Cohesion and the Metropolitan Cities (respectively the Managing Authority and Intermediate Bodies of PON Metro) in order to ensure: - a proper use of resources for the operations developed for all the types of financial instruments (PON Inclusion; PON Metro; Regional PO) - the principle of complementarity that has to regulate actions; - the monitoring of the proposed activities in line with the RSC Strategy. In the framework of the National Platform (19th September 2017) two delegates were appointed to attend the Housing National Working Group. The assessment is based on the information provided by PON Metro managing authority or Metropolitan Cities reports.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, 12 measures were reported as relevant to the area of anti-discrimination. Eight measures were targeted and four were mainstream. 10 measures were implemented by a public authority and two by civil society. 10 measures were implemented at national level, one at local level and one measure was at transnational level.
The most important success
UNAR has been set up since several years a Contact Center, a free and multilingual service directed to the victims or witnesses of discrimination able to: •Collect reports, accusations and testimonies regarding acts of discrimination. •Provide information, orientation and support to prevent and contrast them. Considering the impact of the service, a national contact point for analyzing and collecting facts of discriminations and hate speech, during 2017 it has been extended for other two years, until October 2019. To support the work of the contact center unar has decided to finance specific projects dealing with anti-discrimination. In Apad Project Roma and non Roma Movement: together we Can Partners: Romnìonlus Association, Romanò Pala Tetehara (Roma for the future), Rom e Romnia –Europe Association Budget: 39.900 The territorial reference area: Rome, Pavia, Isernia, Turin Description: The Project has the integrated goal to increase the relevant actions and also the effectiveness of the social inclusion actions addressed to Roma Sinti and Travellers groups in Italy, through the development of a network between the Roma Sinti and Travellers organisations the Civil Society organisations, and the local associations that can allow the creation of a “common Agenda” and to identify good practices, to establish codes of self-regulation, to facilitate the mobilisation of the necessary resources, to maintain the skilled human resourcesspecialised in the management, and promotion of social inclusion of the Roma Sinti and Travellers groups.
The most important challenge
The specific objective of the project is strengthening the cooperation between the Roma organisations and other organisations of the Civil Society in particular by achieving the following outcomes: R1)Awareness-raising among the Civil Society organizations and among the operators in the field of social inclusion, R2) The strengthening of the intervention capabilities for the promotion of the social inclusion of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers groups; R3)The creation of a permanent network of organizations and operators; R4)Formulation and launch of a “Social inclusion and Roma Sinti and Travellers Anti-discrimination Charter”. The project will include awareness-raising and training workshops; the formulation of the Charter; the identification of the projects and partnership initiatives at a local level, the developing of a shared website; the launch of a crowd funding campaign. The assessment is based on the UNAR Contact Centre reports.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant to the area of multiple discrimination. Three measures were targeted. Four measures were implemented by a public authority and one by civil society. Three measures were implemented at national level, one at local level and one at transnational level.
The most important success
APAD in the process of being implemented.- A tender providing actions to combat discrimination (also multiple-discrimination)
The most important challenge
•To include in Apad Project a specific dedicated line to RSC and mention to multiple discrimination. •High participation in Forum RSC of NGOs run by Romani women (seven out of twentyfive)
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
Governance and cooperation
Please note that UNAR-DEO is the National Roma Contact Point for the elaboration and implementation of the Italian Roma Strategy. Therefore, we are referring to the annual budget allocated and spent by UNAR in its capacity and for all its mandates. Though, kindly note that no specific national funding has been allocated for the NRCP. As for the implementation of the NRIS, in addition to UNAR DG and various full-time public civil servants, mention has to be made of the staff, which include both Government officials and some experts of the Contact Centre. The NRCP is contributing to the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. Besides elaborating the NRIS, it has been supporting the relevant governance system, from the control room to capacity-building, guidance and advisory service for local Authorities. Cross-sectorial coordination The governance system mentioned in the previous reports to the EC has not changed. However, in the course of 2017, the Roma Team initiated an in-depth reflection on amending the NRIS to ensure more result-oriented projects. The NRCP: •is participating in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies; •is not involved in decision-making processes regarding funding of relevant policies. UNAR-DEO as the NRCP managed to devote a specific objective to Roma (Ob. 9.5) within the new EU Funds Planning, 2014 - 2020. The NRCP is not involved in decision-making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies? The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. Since the beginning, NGOs have been involved through public notice (see infos. provided in the previous reports to the EC). In the course of 2017, UNAR-DEO as NRCP has been working on the implementation of the National Roma Platform to be fed with national resources. Relevant civil society stakeholders: NGOs, Roma Youth, Federations, local Authorities and Departments. The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are listed in the National Platform Decree There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is no baseline against which progress for the implementation of the Italian NRIS or set of policy measures is assessed. There are no measurable targets.
Additional comments
The year 2017 has been characterized mainly for the strengthening of the national contact point and for the adoption of all the administrative documents required for the launch of the new concrete of EU Funds Planning, 2014-2020. As is widely known under the new EU Funds Planning, 2014-2020, a specific Objective (9.5) has been dedicated to Roma Inclusion. To this end, 15 million Euros are intended for UNAR-DEO. Special attention has been devoted to the theme of the integration of national and Community funds with specific actions (tested for the first time) of joint intervention between metropolitan cities and UNAR. Such joint interventions will focus during 2018 especially in the "housing" through the integration of Community programmes of Pon Inlcusione and Metro and in the field of access to the labour market, through nationwide testing of European best practices "Acceder". Furthermore, it will be undertaken to review the National Strategy in the near future; this document, adopted in 2012, will be updated also in light of more accurate data in order to achieve the objectives and measurable results. Memory. Despite the unsuccessful attempts to include the porrajmos in the law establishing the day of memory for the victims of the holocaust , for the first time this year State President Mattarella has officially mentioned porrajmos during the celebration of January 27th On 15 and 16 May, on the anniversary of the Roma rebellion in the Zigeunerlager in Auschwitz (1944), a big celebration has been organized on the extermination of Roma and Sinti during WW2 A monument on remembrance of porrajmos will be inaugurated later this year in Lanciano Legislative shortcomings remain, especially with regard to •Recognition as national minority •No inclusion of porrajmos in the law celebrating victims of the holocaust Actions are nevertheless been taken, at national as well as regional and local level. These have increased in recent months, which indicate a generally positive trend, especially as compared to the past. Nevertheless the challenge remains to make such progresses sustainable and lasting, which implies a more widespread mainstreaming of awareness raising and of targeted policies.

ITALY
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·In some municipalities, a slight positive trend in enrolment of Roma children in education has been recorded, which is in line with an NRIS objective. ·Services to support education of Roma children (such as busing or afterschool help homework) are initiated and run by few municipalities. ·An ESF-funded national project focused on inclusive education and combating school drop-out in last years of primary and first year of secondary education has been launched in 15 cities (about 10% of the participants are Roma); the programme includes training of teachers and support for students’ families. ·Representation of Roma history, culture, and genocide (Porrajmos) has been included in the school curricula in some municipalities. ·Roma cultural mediators have been introduced in some schools on a project basis.	·Precarious living conditions in ghetto-like camps and frequent forced evictions have negative impact on the education of Roma children. Specific support for children and families is rare, if exists, depends on commitment of individual teachers. ·Pre-school education policies do not specifically target Roma to increase their enrolment. ·With exception of the cities targeted by the national project, the national educational policies do not include measures to translate the NRIS’s objectives into practice. ·There are no measures supporting Roma students in higher education or their transition from education to labour market. ·Lack of data on Roma participation in education prevents measuring progress.
Employment
·Two large (multi-regional) pilot programmes to support Roma employment have been implemented (with several tens of thousands of Roma participants). ·Small-scale projects aimed at improving Roma employment exist at municipal and regional level.	·Apart from two pilots, there are no national or at least supra-regional measures to support Roma employment. Roma access to Public Employment Services is very limited. ·There are no significant efforts to incentivise employers in employing Roma and to reduce wide-spread discrimination. Awareness raising about the need for such measures can help engage municipalities.
Healthcare
·In 2015 a detailed Action Plan was put in place by Ministry of Health. ·National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty (INMP) in cooperation with regional and local authorities successfully piloted measures targeting Roma living in camps. ·Most healthcare services targeting Roma have been carried out by NGOs depending on volunteers and project funding; these included operation of specialised clinics for camp inhabitants, vaccination or medicine provision.	·The Action Plan lacks dedicated funding, in consequence some of its measures are not fully implemented (e.g. health mediators). ·While access to healthcare is in principle, universal, non-Italian Roma (EU-mobile or third country nationals) without regular permit of stay, job or European Illness Insurance Card (issued based on coverage in the country of citizenship), face difficulties in accessing non-emergency care, as it depends on local authorities. ·Roma living in informal settlements and camps face the worst health conditions. Lack of ID documents is a particular barrier to healthcare.
Housing
·Notable efforts from the region of Emilia Romagna and few isolated municipalities to help Roma families to leave encampments by providing them with social housing. ·In the last decades a few ad-hoc housing projects have been carried out specifically designed for Roma, mostly to tackle emergencies.	·Despite NRIS’s commitment to eliminate encampments, most local authorities continue to create and fund segregated camps for Roma. ·In both formal and informal settlements Roma lack physical security, and evictions are carried out very often; a consequence is homelessness or dependency on housing in other ethnically segregated camps and temporary shelters. ·Social housing in desegregated environment is inaccessible for most Roma due to a lack of affordable accommodation and criteria for access to social housing that directly or indirectly discriminate against Roma. ·Discrimination based on ethnic origin in the private housing sector is widespread.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The NRIS committed to combat discrimination against Roma, end segregation in education and housing and pledged to 'overcome the system of camps' and the legacy of the 'Nomad Emergency'.	·The national equality body has a weak mandate (not entitled to bring legal proceedings in discrimination cases) and lacks independence. ·Educational segregation remains pervasive and is aggravated by residential segregation. Support to maintaining segregation is sometimes presented as part of Roma inclusion measures. ·Despite NRIS commitments and court rulings, authorities continue to build and manage ‘authorised’ segregated camps for Roma rather than provide integrated and sustainable social housing solutions. ·Mass evictions are carried out without formal eviction orders or formal notice, thus excluding recourse to legal remedy. The particular circumstances of vulnerable families are rarely taken into consideration.
Fighting antigypsyism
·NRIS and few other documents recognise antigypsyism, although actions to address it are very limited. For example, the Ministry of Education defined a “national model” for the reception and integration of children having different cultural backgrounds, including Roma. ·The analysis of antigypsyism and the development of long-term strategies to combat it are entrusted to the UNAR (NRCP and national equality body). In the past, UNAR carried out some ad hoc activities aimed at combatting antigypsyism. ·UNAR established a Contact Centre for collecting complaints concerning hate crime and providing immediate and psychological support and legal help to its victims and a Media & Internet Observatory to monitor hate speech and act to remove such content (or report the most serious cases to law enforcement). UNAR has also trained Roma and non-Roma youth to fight antigypsyism and hate speech online.	·Roma are not recognised as a minority. ·There is no reference to the Roma Holocaust in the institutional law on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The cultural awareness of the genocide of Roma is almost non-existent in the national collective consciousness. · Hate speech is not rare in the public space and in particular on-line. ·Due to problems in UNAR’s operation, its activities in monitoring and combatting discrimination and antigypsyism have slowed down. Data concerning monitored cases of antigypsyism are not publicly available. ·Lack of implementation of the NRIS at regional level leads to the general lack of local initiatives aimed at combatting antigypsyism.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The NRIS explicitly refers to the particular vulnerability of Roma women, the need to support youth entrepreneurship among Roma and importance of including Roma children in pre-school education. ·The Council of Europe is piloting the JUSTROM2 project, focusing on women’s empowerment, and two legal clinics are operating as a result. ·The number of Roma children participating in pre-school education is increasing; this may be seen as a sign that kindergartens are perceived by Roma families as inclusive, welcoming institutions.	·No specific measures have been adopted at the national level to address the difficulties faced by Roma women or promote entrepreneurship among young Roma. ·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBTI issues.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·UNAR as the National Roma Contact Point is placed under the presidency of the council of ministers and has at least a formal mandate to coordinate institutions and NGOs in Roma inclusion policies.	·The implementation of NRIS has been slow and fragmented; multiple factors contributed to this, including UNAR’s weak mandate and discontinuity of leadership, difficult communication between different institutional levels, as well as unclear budget allocation and lack of unambiguous process and result indicators.
Civil participation and empowerment
·UNAR drafted the NRIS in collaboration with civil society organisations and Roma representatives and NRIS explicitly recommends adopting measures to empower vulnerable Roma. ·UNAR established a National Platform, that connects all the NGOs concerned on the issue, and created a Forum of Roma associations, that meets periodically. ·Regional Working Groups include NGOs active in (pro) Roma advocacy.	·Roma civil society involvement in implementing the NRIS has been a formality. Several associations report that prominent public figures and vested interests were involved in nominating and electing candidates to the Platform whom they believe are not qualified to participate. ·Most Roma do not play an active role in the decision-making processes concerning the NRIS, and only rarely highly-educated, professional Roma are involved in empowerment of their communities.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
· 11 out of 20 regions have established Working Groups to raise awareness of the municipal and provincial authorities about the NRIS goals and commitments and to monitor the implementation of NRIS at the local level. ·One region, Emilia Romagna, has approved a regional law aimed at closing the Roma municipal camps, and actions aimed at supporting Roma inclusion	·There are significant differences in terms of the implementation of NRIS and policies concerning Roma at the regional and local levels – some regions or municipalities do not implement the NRIS at all or undertake measures that are in contradiction with the NRIS. ·Even though 11 regions organise meetings with local stakeholders to identify possible projects and actions to be implemented, funding and timing commitments have not been agreed.
Data collection
·One working group was established under UNAR to overcome the lack of data and statistics on the presence and living conditions of Roma communities in Italy. The group involves national authorities such as the National Statistical Institute (ISTAT), the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) and two representatives of Roma associations.	·Italy does not collect have ethnically disaggregated data on Roma.
Funding for civil society
·ESF funding has seen improved effectiveness after the evaluation of Roma projects was accelerated. ·ERDF makes it possible to fund communities in extreme marginalization. The OP Metropolitan Cities 2014-2020 programme includes specific funds for Roma social inclusion.	·Ensuring an effective use of ESIF funding to support overcoming encampments and segregation remains a challenge.
Example of promising practice
The region of Emilia Romagna can be considered as a promising practice in operationalising the implementation of the national strategy at the regional level. This region decided and managed to implement the NRIS in practice with direct involvement of all relevant stakeholders – regional authorities, municipalities and Roma communities. Region Emilia Romagna (and few isolated municipalities in Tuscany) has been the only one region that has addressed Roma inclusion in housing by providing families from camps with regular social housing. This practice should be adopted by other regions (especially those with higher Roma population and Roma encampments – such as Lazio with 22% of Roma and Lombardy with 11%), which continue to build new mono-ethnic camps – going against the adopted national strategy.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●The mandate and independence of UNAR, as equality body and national Roma contact point, should be strengthened. ●Regional authorities should commit to a clear schedule for the implementation of the NRIS in force, allocate necessary funding and establish cooperation with local stakeholders. An effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism for NRIS implementation should be established by the central government to measure achieved progress. ●The system of “nomad camps” should be overcome by offering their inhabitants a long-term alternative. Without substitute social housing, Roma families should not be evicted from authorised encampments. ●Local authorities must ensure that inhabitants of both authorised and informal camps are provided with essential public services such as access to drinking water or waste collection.

LATVIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Latvia
Strategic document	Latvia 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):	12.500 (0,64% of 1.950.116) Note from NRCP: The Latvian official estimation: 7.060 officially registered Roma in 2019 (0,3% of total population).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue), Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys, Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units)
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
There are some improvement of Roma integration at the local level. Some Roma integration measures are continued and supported by municipalities. Roma NGO have active participation in the implementation of the set of policy measures, especially, in the field of cultural diversity and dialogue, commemoration event and awareness raising of mainstream society. The Latvian Roma Platform is significant measure to improve cooperation, dialogue and learning between main stakeholders of the implementation of Roma integration policy.
The main challenges
It is too much coordination work and responsibility for one NRCP. Please take into account that: Roma origin project assistant is employed in the Ministry of Culture in the framework of Latvian Roma Platform and provide a huge support to the NRCP in a coordination development with Roma people, especially Roma youth, in order to facilitate Roma participation in Roma integration policy implementation and provide advocacy.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Importance of dialogue and cooperation between all stakeholders of the implementation of Roma integration policy.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 17 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Latvia. Four of them were mainstream and 13 targeted. 15 were implemented by a public authority (9 at national level and 6 at local level). One measure was implemented by a national-level civil society organisation and one – by regional organisation. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Latvia also reported three measures as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment (one mainstream and three targeted), four targeted measures as relevant for empowerment, three targeted in local action, one targeted relevant for monitoring and evaluation, and five targeted measures as relevant for the area of culture. 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, five measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. All five measures were targeted, implemented by a public authority at local level and one at regional level.
The most important success
According to the data of the educational monitoring, the number of Roma pupils in education and general secondary education institutions remains the same as in previous years. The number of Roma students who do not qualify for compulsory primary education up to the age of 18 has significantly decreased. There is a tendency to increase the number of Roma students who are integrated into general education institutions by acquiring special education programs.
The most important challenge
To continue implementation of the measures on Roma education taking into account the general recommendations and experiences of the best practices. For example, involving more mediators with Roma background in order to improve better cooperation between Roma families and municipalities’ institutions; ensuring training and availability (appropriate funding) of Roma teacher assistants for work in preschool and elementary school classes in all the educational institutions where the presence of Roma teacher assistants would be needed; providing trainings and advisory support for pre-school and school teachers to work with Roma children and families; activities to empower and improve skills of Roma parents, using Resource centers and mediators at the local level; organizing intercultural dialogue activities. The future implementation of mentioned measures is dependent on availability of appropriate state and local budget, active involvement of Roma NGOs and non-Roma NGOs. The assessment is based on statistical analysis of the data provided by the Ministry of Education and Science. Ministry of Education and Science in Latvia and other institutions are constantly monitoring achievements of Roma students, thriving towards the higher achievements among them. With accordance to the student`s educational needs and issues involving Roma families, there has been a focus on training assistant teachers with Roma background, as well as on publishing manuals targeted towards Roma children`s educators. In collaboration with the municipality Education boards and education institutions was conducted in Roma pupil monitoring by collecting data on the number of Roma pupils and their achievements in 2016/2017: • Roma pupils who acquire general education programs, including pre-school, primary, secondary and vocational education programs; • Roma pupils who haven't got the document for compulsory primary education; • Roma pupils who have received supporting measures to improve academic achievement. As well as data on Roma teacher assistants who work in general educational institutions.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Education is a priority area in the set of policy area on Roma integration, and this is the reason why targeted measures are implemented. In addition, Roma have access to all mainstream measures in the field of education initiated by the Ministry of Education and Science and municipalities. But regarding to mainstream measures there is no information available about the funds and results specific on Roma people. Despite, the Ministry of Education and Science is responsible for the implementation measures and monitoring in the education area, the NRCP regularly cooperates with municipalities and NGOs to consult, harmonize and share information, as well as to receive information on funding and outcomes of the implemented measures and projects, which are targeted on Roma education. Most of the information presented here is provided by municipalities and NGOs, to NRCP under official request. For several multi-years projects, there is no precise indication about funding allocated for year 2017.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment. All three measures were mainstream, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The main responsibility on fostering Roma employment and their access to the labour market is under the Ministry of Welfare, and specifically the State Employment Agency. Persons with Roma nationality can receive Agency's services and measures in the same way as other persons – if they meet all criteria set for corresponding measure. According to data provided by the State Employment Agency, in comparison to the previous year, in 2017, the number of Roma unemployed who participated in active labour market supporting activities has significantly increased: the Roma unemployed persons mainly use paid temporary social work, career planning consultations and support measures for the long-term unemployed. This positive trend is also reflected in the statistics of the State Employment Agency - the number of Roma registered in the State Employment Agency as long-term unemployed has decreased in the last year. Positive example provided by Roma Day centre in in Jurmala. Many Roma are employed in the Day centre to work with Roma families.
The most important challenge
1.It is important to develop and implement individual programs of motivation for social integration, first of all associated with the employment since it provides access to the means of subsistence. Thus in the present situation project that is being developed by the State Employment Agency – Activation program of the long-term unemployed, which will be financed by the European Social fund can be regarded as urgently needed and promising. 2.Measures combating stereotypes on Roma in labour market and popularization of best practice examples. The dissemination of good practice and positive examples among the employers were the main employment promotion measures for the Roma people and it was stressed that the key barriers to the integration of Roma workers into the labour market were negative stereotypes and mistrust toward them. 3.In addition, the targeted measures for employers on diversity management and anti-discrimination towards social disadvantaged groups, including Roma, must be implemented. Small weight reduction or increase in the specific target groups of unemployed (persons with disabilities, long term unemployed persons, including the Roma). The assessment is based on statistic ethnic data from the State Employment Agency. Data form municipalities on Roma employment and best practices on Roma access to labour market.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, two measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare. Both measures were targeted, implemented by a public authority at local level.
The most important success
There are several targeted Roma measures aimed at the social rehabilitation, which are implemented by Jelgava city and Jurmala city municipalities. Within the implementation of these measures several activities are directly focused on services provision to improve hygiene and health condition of Roma families' members. For example, ensuring sustainability and continuation of provision of social support after the ESF project “Program of social rehabilitation for Roma” in Jelgava city and Jurmala city.
The most important challenge
The targeted measures will be implemented to improve Roma health conditions based on the outcomes and recommendations of the survey. For instance, it is essential for educational institutions to commence cooperation with health care specialists organizing the necessary sex education lectures or health education lessons, as they may take advantage of their practical knowledge and previous work experience and turn out to be more proficient than the teacher in imparting information on the content of health education or sex education. Identification the participants which have Roma ethnic origin in the process of statistical data collection within the framework of the ESF project "Improvement of the qualification of medical treatment and medical support staff". Improve Roma access to the ESF supporting measures in the health care area by using Roma mediators’ services. The assessment is based on information provided by the Ministry of Health.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
The issues of health care are included in set of policy measures, but health care policy is mainstreamed and is not specifically oriented on ethnic groups, including Roma. Currently there are no targeted health care policy measures for Roma in Latvia. In the previous planning period there were several ESF projects implemented regarding social rehabilitation of Roma families. To improve the health status of the Latvian population, Ministry of Health develops health policy in the area of public health, health care and pharmacy organizes and coordinates the implementation of health policy. The provision of health care services is determined by Regulation No 1046 “On Health Care Organization and Financing” from 19 December 2006 of the Cabinet of Ministers, and they apply equally to all Latvian citizens, regardless of ethnicity. Roma as one of target groups are mainstreamed in the process of national policy in public health and health care. In order to protect the Roma on low incomes and support them to receive health care services, Subparagraph 10.17. of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No.1046 of 19 December 2006 „The Procedure of Organising and Funding Health Care” provides that people on low incomes, who have been recognised as such in accordance with legislation on procedures for recognizing a family or an individual as being on a low income, are exempt from patient contributions. This means that any person on a low income is entitled to receive state financed healthcare services without having to pay patient contributions (free of charge).
HOUSING
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of housing.
The most important success
Some municipalities with significant number of Roma population provide support for social housing for socially disadvantaged Roma families. As survey “Roma in Latvia” (2015) shows, that Roma make an active use of the assistance the municipalities and NGOs provide in housing area. The most frequently used possibility is to receive from the municipality an housing benefit – in the last three years more than half of the surveyed persons (53,7%) have received it. Roma also use the hygiene services that municipalities and NGOs offer (in the previous three years 14,4% of Roma have used shower services while laundry services have been used by 12,7% of Roma). During the last three years more than half of the surveyed Roma (53,7%) have received a housing benefit. In cooperation with municipal housing experts and housing manager different issues associated with supply of the housing are being settled and housing management skills of Roma inhabitants as well as understanding of the need to pay for public utilities are enhanced by discussing matters with the debtors and explaining possible consequences.
The most important challenge
Latvia targets Roma as a specific group under mainstream measures in the area of housing. The results of the survey show that average of 75%-80 % of Roma families that live in Latvia encounter difficulties in the availability of housing and its quality provision. Low and irregular employment and insufficient income along with the absence of savings reduce Roma possibilities not only to rent or acquire housing but also cause difficulties in the maintenance of housing and deny them the possibility to enjoy the needed and desired living conditions in the chosen housing. The assessment is based on information provided by The Ministry of Economy and municipalities. Results of the survey “Roma in Latvia” (2015).
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
Roma are included in mainstream measures as one of the target groups. Some municipalities with significant number of Roma population provide support for social housing for socially disadvantaged Roma families.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, six measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. Five were targeted and one mainstream, four implemented by a public authority and two by civil society. Four measures were implemented at national level, one at local and one at regional level.
The most important success
1.There is the investment priority “High employment rate in inclusive society” within the framework of the National Operational Program “Growth & Employment” for the Implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy in the Period 2014-2020 where are planned initiatives to provide support for the integration of ethnic groups, including Roma, as well as for the implementation of activities aimed at the combat discrimination (program’s “Promotion of Diversity and Combating Discrimination” measures No. 9.1.4.4.). The aim of the ESF-funded project is to promote the employment and socioeconomic inclusion of persons subject to risks of social exclusion and discrimination (persons subject to the risk of discrimination to their ethnicity - including Roma people and other ethnic minorities - are included as one of target groups), at the same time fostering the increase of the level of information and understanding in the society as a whole on the issues of prevention of discrimination and of inclusive society. There are regulation on implementation program’s measures adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers (09/02/2016). There are various activities which planned in the framework of the program: ·Providing services of prevention of discrimination and promotion of social inclusion to people subject to risks of social exclusion and discrimination by: defining the profile of the target group; providing services for increasing motivation and of support; mid-term review; ·Implementing activities aimed at prevention of discrimination, targeting employers and their employees: educational activities on issues of social inclusion and prevention of discrimination; support activities, promoting the creating of inclusive workspaces and diversity management systems; ·Implementation of activities fostering the increase of the level of information and understanding in the society as a whole on the issues of prevention of discrimination and of inclusive society. The project includes Roma people and other ethnic minorities as a common target group being subject to the risk of discrimination due to ethnicity. NRCP has actively involved in the process of development of support measures of the program “Promotion of Diversity and Combating Discrimination”, as well as in coordination and evaluation of the program’s measures. NRCP is a member of the Supervisory Board, which established in order to advise the beneficiary, who responsible for the implementation process of the program’s measures, as well as to analyze implementation progress and make recommendations to the beneficiary for effective implementation of the measures. 2.Awareness rising activities for general public related to Roma culture, history and social issues, focusing on impact of widespread prejudices and negative stereotypes on Roma social inclusion within the implementation of “DOSTA!” campaign “Go beyond prejudice, meet the Roma!” in Latvia. Since 2015 the Ministry of Culture provides a regular financial support to organise targeted awareness rising activities related to Roma culture, history and social issues, focusing on impact of widespread prejudices and negative stereotypes on Roma social inclusion. In 2017 there was informative and cultural activity “Blueberries and romances” organized by NGO “Latvian Cooperation Network of Women's Organizations” in cooperation with the Ministry of Culture and NGO Roma Culture Centre. The event was attended by 64 participants, incl. Roma activists, representatives of public administration and local authorities, NGO representatives and other interested parties. The participants of the event learned more about the Latvian culture and history of Roma, by watching the short film "Melleņu gari" by director Astras Zoldnere and discussing with film producer Kaspars Brakis about the Kurzeme Roma's blueberries picking tradition and communication experience with the Roma, as well as tasting Latvian Roma traditional cuisine and participating in the masterclass with the traditional Roma ensemble "Ame Roma". The strategies of preserving Latvian Roma cultural heritage were also discussed during the event.
The most important challenge
It is important to continue to develop and implement targeted measures to combat Antigypsyism in mainstream society, to promote intercultural dialogue between Roma and general population, to provide awareness-raising activities, including culture competence seminars and cultural events, as well as for non-Roma specialists, Roma representatives and general society. There are many activities planned in project "Latvian Roma Platform III". In 2017 the research on profiling of potential project's target groups "Study on the profile and needs of the potential target group of motivation promotion and support services" provided by the research Institute "Baltic Institute of Social Sciences". Profiling methods are based on the interviews with the representatives of target groups, including Roma. Within the framework of the study, the needs of the target group are identified and the necessary targeted support is identified in order to provide better social integration, protection of their rights, engaging in education or qualification, access to labor market, as well as in order to reduce the risk of social exclusion and discrimination. Additional research has developed recommendations for further motivated promotion and support services for the most vulnerable target groups. The study also identifies a number of measures to increase Roma motivation and involvement into social life. The study pointed out that reducing the risk of Roma social exclusion and discrimination requires the development of individual support in order to develop the capacity of Roma, ability to identify and solve their problems, and the motivation to change their current situation. The assessment is based on information from Ministry of Culture and co-responsible ministries. As well as from "Study on the profile and needs of the potential target group of motivation promotion and support services".
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources of NRCP The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Latvia is National Roma Contact point at the EU and CoE level, and a responsible governmental institution for the coordination of the implementation, development and evaluation of the Policy measures. Taking in account that at the national level Roma integration is horizontal policy, other sectoral ministries like the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Economic and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development are co-responsible for Roma integration in the frame of their competences. The implementation of the Guidelines and especially the Roma measures is due to take place in cooperation with state bodies, local authorities and NGOs, including Roma NGOs. The NRCP is in charge of the implementation and monitoring of the Integrated set of policy measures. Cross sectoral coordination The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Latvia is National Roma Contact point at the EU and CoE level, and a responsible governmental institution for the coordination of the implementation, development and evaluation of the Policy measures. Taking in account that at the national level Roma integration is horizontal policy, other sectoral ministries like the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Economic and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development are co-responsible for Roma integration in the frame of their competences. The implementation of the Guidelines and especially the Roma measures is due to take place in cooperation with state bodies, local authorities and NGOs, including Roma NGOs. NRCP is also a head manager who is responsible for the implementation of project "Latvian Roma platform". There are many cross sectroral and stakeholders' coordination activities included in this project. Mechanisms for cross sectoral coordination: 1.The Council supervising the implementation of Roma integration policy measures has been established in 2012 by the Ministry of Culture. The Council includes representatives from state bodies (co-responsible ministries, local authorities and educational establishments) and six Roma and two non-Roma NGOs that work in the area of protecting the interests of the Roma. 2.The Network of regional experts on Roma integration issues is set in October 2014 by The Ministry of Culture aimed at fostering regular exchange of best practices, experience and sharing information, as well as to develop cooperation between experts of local governments, representatives of Roma communities and NRCP (the Ministry of Culture) in order to make the implementation and designing of the Roma integration policy more effective. One of the objectives of the Network is the providing consultations and informative support to the local government in order to use the programs of National and EU structure funds effectively. There are 18 representatives from 18 local government’s institutions who are involved in the Network as experts and contact points on Roma integration. 3.Regular field visits at the local level and advocacy for Roma NGOs and Roma representatives. 4.In addition there are a regular monitoring of Roma situation in main areas and the annual report conducted by the Ministry of Culture (NRCP), based on statistical data provided by different governmental, local governmental institutions and Roma NGOs and non-Roma NGOs. 5) Coordinator responsible for the implementation of Project "Latvian Roma Platform". The NRCP is being consulted in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies. The National Roma Contact point (NRCP) is partly involved in the process of the programming structures of the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020, especially providing information and argumentation to include Roma as one of the target groups of the goals and tasks within the National Operational Program for utilizing the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 at the national level. The Head of Department for Social Integration of the Ministry of Culture (under which the NRCP work is provided) in close cooperation with the NRCP is regularly involved into coordination process of the programming and implementation structures of the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 including the participation in coordination discussions to set up objectives and investment priorities of the National Operational Program. As a positive result of such coordination and involvement is, the inclusion of Roma as special target group in the specific investment priority within the National Operational Program. The Department for Social Integration of the Ministry of Culture, and particularly the NRCP, has provided and fostered the coordination at the ministerial level. For example, co-responsible ministries (the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health) regularly provide the relevant information regarding future possibilities to promote initiatives on Roma social inclusion within the framework of the National Operational Program at the Roma Council meetings organised by the Department for Social Integration of the Ministry of Culture. For example, the NRCP has actively involved in the process of development of support measures of the program “Promotion of Diversity and Combating Discrimination”, as well as in coordination and evaluation of the program’s measures. NRCP is a member of the Supervisory Board, which established in order to advise the beneficiary, who responsible for the implementation process of the program’s measures, as well as to analyze implementation progress and make recommendations to the beneficiary for effective implementation of the measures. During the project "Latvian Roma Platform" NRCP have possibility to organize special workshop to the local municipalities and Roma activists for Roma involvement in the ESF supporting programs and measures, for example, program for reducing pupils drop out from educational process; project for NEET Young people; measures to support long-term unemployed people; activities for social disadvantage groups, including Roma. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. The NRCP is participating in decision-making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies. All relevant state policies coordinated by co-responsible ministries (the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Economic) and local policies coordinated by municipalities. These relevant state policies are coordinated between co-responsible ministries (the process of cross sectoral coordination), including the Ministry of Culture. In this process the designated governmental representatives dealing with Roma issues and regional experts consult the elaboration and implementation of these policies with the NRCP. Here is possibility for the NRCP to be involved in decision-making process. To ensure a regular cooperation between co-responsible ministries and municipalities (with significant Roma population) the NRCP uses the coordination mechanisms such as The Council supervising the implementation of Roma integration policy measures and The Network of regional experts on Roma integration issues. The NRCP (the representative of the Ministry of Culture) are also invited to participate in the councils’ meetings of co-responsible ministries. The municipalities do not have obligation to coordinate their local policy and programmes with the sectoral ministries. The cooperation between the NRCP and municipalities depends on the willingness of local authorities to develop Roma integration policy and on number of Roma population in the municipality. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. The Ministry of Culture regularly since 2012 has provided financial support from the State budget directly targeted on Roma NGO’s initiatives in order to foster their involvement into the implementation of policy measures and ensure cooperation with local authorities their taking in account the needs of Latvian Roma population. The support which provided directly to the Roma NGO activities according to their needs is a basic idea of the engagement Roma into the implementation of Roma integration policy. Furthermore Roma representatives regularly are informed about actualities on Roma integration at national and European level (EU and CoE level) as well as about the possibilities to apply for national and European funding. Also during the local field visits, NRCP has provide an active support and advocacy to Roma NGOs and activists to improve their dialogue with local authorities, to develop the quality of implementation of the projects' activities. As regards to foster Roma participation and involvement, Roma NGO's representatives are members also of such governmental consultative bodies as The Minorities’ Consulting Council of the President of the Republic of Latvia and the Consulting Council in Ethnic Minority Education Affairs of the Ministry of Education and Science. The Consultative Council on issues of national minority education helps to maintain a dialogue between the Ministry of Education and Science, students and teachers of national minority schools, parents’ organizations and Roma communities NGO’s. Civil society stakeholders: Roma NGOs, Non-Roma NGOs which work in the field of Roma integration The following stakeholders are involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS: ·Governmental agencies (Co-responsible ministries; agencies), ·Municipalities (with significant number of Roma population) and their institutions (social agencies, educational institutions, police), ·The Network of regional experts on Roma integration issues (set by the Ministry of Culture) ·Roma NGO and non-Roma NGO, which work on Roma integration issues, ·independent experts; researchers There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is a baseline against which progress for the implementation of the Latvian NRIS or set of policy measures is assessed. There is regular monitoring of Roma situation in main areas coordinated by the Ministry of Culture (NRCP) and based on statistical data provided by different governmental and local governmental institutions. The data of the monitoring is available in the annual report produced by the Ministry of Culture (NRCP). This annual report is available for general public in a web site of the Ministry of Culture. In addition during the implementation the project "Promotion of Diversity and Combating Discrimination" in 2017 there are many analytical activities implemented in the framework of the project: 1) The research on profiling of potential project's target groups "Study on the profile and needs of the potential target group of motivation promotion and support services" provided by the research Institute "Baltic Institute of Social Sciences". Profiling methods are based on the interviews with the representatives of target groups, including Roma. Within the framework of the study, the needs of the target group are identified and the necessary targeted support is identified in order to provide better social integration, protection of their rights, engaging in education or qualification, access to labour market, as well as in order to reduce the risk of social exclusion and discrimination. Additional research has developed recommendations for further motivated promotion and support services for the most vulnerable target groups. The study also identifies a number of measures to increase Roma motivation and involvement into social life. The study pointed out that reducing the risk of Roma social exclusion and discrimination requires the development of individual support in order to develop the capacity of Roma, ability to identify and solve their problems, and the motivation to change their current situation. 2) A study report on the level of awareness of the mainstream society on the situation of most vulnerable target groups and the most effective mechanisms for providing information (Roma is one of the study target group). The Ministry of Culture plans to monitor Roma situation in the key areas each 5 years. The qualitative research methods is using for the monitoring, because of limited access to ethnic data. Previous such monitoring survey was conducted in 2015. In this case the NRCP need more time to translate and put this information in an appropriate thematic area (areas). Sometimes the information that we have received from ministries or local governments partly corresponds to the required information and template’s criteria. In many cases it is hard to indicate total funding for Roma integration, because in many of projects Roma is one of other target groups. In general, there is no ethnic data of benefiters of such project.

LATVIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach		Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The Ministry of Education and Science in collaboration with municipal education boards carry out the monitoring of the education of Roma school children. ·An effective tool for promoting Roma education is considered to be the work of the Roma teacher-assistants in preschool and primary education. ·In 2017 the State Education Quality Service started to implement an ESF-funded project “Support to reduce early school leaving”, which aims to reduce the number of children and young people dropping out of education and not completing schooling. ·Based on the NGO initiatives, in 2014, Roma Resource Centres (RRC) were opened in several cities to promote the inclusion of Roma children and young people in the education system.		·Evaluation of the achievements and weaknesses of Roma education policy is missing. ·One of the main reasons for the low preschool attendance among Roma children are low pedagogical skills of facilities’ personnel to provide inclusive and multicultural education. ·15.8% of Roma children are educated in special schools. ·The “Second chance” education programmes with no age limit provide education for those who already have graduated the 7th grade, but a large proportion of Roma who could benefit from the measure do not meet this condition. ·Unfortunately, the programme of Roma teacher assistants is not being implemented at the national level. They should be available in pre-school and primary schools with a larger number of Roma and provided with professional training. ·There is no targeted national-scale planning to encourage school attendance and reduce the drop-out rate for Roma children. ·Since more vocational choices are offered by vocational schools located in larger cities, most Roma do not participate in these due to lack of financial support (i.e. travel, living and other expenses).
Employment
·The mainstream public employment services are available and cooperate with NGOs and Roma mediators to reach out to Roma jobseekers. ·The Ministry of Culture implemented activities to support cooperation between Roma jobseekers, employers and social partners.		·Most Roma participate in active labour policy measures that have poor employment outcomes.
Healthcare
·Basic health care coverage in Latvia is broad; low-income people are free from paying patient co-payments and have the right to receive state-funded health care services free of charge. ·Reforms planned by the Ministry of Health may have a positive impact on Roma access to health care services.		·Drug use, HIV-infection rates among the Roma are relatively high. ·Awareness of the available health services among Roma remains low; awareness of family planning options among some Roma women is especially missing. ·Involvement of skilled Roma (for example, Roma mediators) in healthcare programmes could help deliver important information in the healthcare sector to the Roma community.
Housing
·Housing benefit and social assistance programmes are available for all disadvantaged families, and there are no circumstances that exclude disadvantaged Roma families. ·Roma families are not subject to forced evictions from social rentals. If a private landlord breaks the rental agreement, the local government offers and ensures the accommodation of the families in so-called crisis centres. Families are allowed to live there for a period up to three months for a relatively low fee, in the meanwhile they may resolve their housing.		·Some 75-80% of Roma families in Latvia encounter difficulties in accessing social housing and quality provision, e.g. eligibility criteria (like owning a car) and administrative barriers, or low income which would not cover the rent and amenities. ·The most significant issue is the bad sanitary equipment and low technical conditions, which significantly hampers access to basic hygiene and increases the health risks. ·Policy documents do not envisage special measures for improving the living conditions of Roma as a socially vulnerable group and municipalities have not implemented special projects in the housing area for the Roma community.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach		Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Ombudsman Office pays attention to the protection of the rights of detainees, including Roma. ·To provide the best possible availability of Ombudsman Office specialist’s consultations, Ombudsman Office regularly organises educational seminars and on-site consultations in Latvian cities, including prisons. ·Ombudsman Office and the implementers of the state integration policy recognise the continuing problem of negative stereotypes and prejudices against Roma community that promote discriminatory attitudes in Latvia as a key issue.		·Roma mediators have no reported cases of direct discrimination, but indicated that indirect discrimination against Roma occurs at municipal level, and largely goes unreported. ·There are no adequate measures in place to prevent unfounded placement of Roma children in special schools.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Roma are officially recognised by the government as an ethnic minority. ·The Latvian state officially recognises the historical fact of genocide against the Roma during the Second World War and since 2015 the International Roma Day is being marked. About 50 Latvian Roma have been paid compensation for forced labour. ·Funding, though limited, is available to combat discrimination against Roma and to strengthen intercultural dialogue.		·Insufficient measures have been taken to eliminate the spread of hate speech against the Roma. ·It is necessary to promote a more active application of criminal law, to strengthen the effective mechanism of rights protection and to take preventive measures to eliminate the spread of hate speech and hate crime. ·Law enforcement agencies must pay more attention to the issues of identification, definition and investigation of hate speech and hate crime.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Some municipalities included the task into their local development programmes to establish a complex support system for Roma children (focusing on education).		·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT+ issues. ·No specific measures have been adopted to improve the labour market situation of Roma women. ·Teaching assistants / mediators should be employed in order to facilitate Roma children’s participation in preschool education.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach		Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Because of the small Roma population in the country, Latvia has not developed a special Roma inclusion strategy, but rather a set of policy measures aimed at Roma integration. ·The government informs the Parliament about the course of the Roma integration policy, achieved results and the good practices; moreover, parliamentary committees they organise hearings with Roma NGOs. ·Ministry of Culture as the National Roma Contact Point coordinates a network of regional experts in Roma integration issues, including 13 municipalities. ·At the level of legislative power Roma integration and anti-discrimination issues have been included in mandates of three Parliamentary Committees.		·In the last years, no legislative proposal related to the Roma context have been discussed in the committees. ·Ministry of Culture is the responsible authority for the coordination of the national Roma integration policy planning and implementation, yet several line ministries have not been granted particular responsibilities in working with the Roma community.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Since 2012, within the Ministry of Culture, the Advisory Council for Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy operates. The Council includes public institutions and representatives of different NGOs. ·The responsibilities of the Council are to evaluate the reports and results of the implementation of the integration policy of the Roma, provide with consultations and suggestions, and improve the cooperation between the government and the Roma community.		·Numerous practical obstacles exist in the implementation of Roma voting rights, as for instance, absence of documents (passport), absence of citizenship (foreign passport), unavailability of the actual information (declared residence does not coincide with factual residence).
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Some municipalities with higher number of Roma inhabitants frequently set specific goals and tasks and elaborate them in their development programmes/strategies. ·Some municipalities that have founded specific integration institutions, like society integration administrations, need to develop integration plans for the integration of the minorities (including Roma) living in their respective territory. ·Five Roma mediators worked in four regions out of five. The initiative of Roma mediators was initiated by an NGO “Centre for Education Initiatives”, and is co-financed from public budgets.		·A negative trend has been observed in some municipalities to concentrate poor people, including Roma, in certain houses at municipalities’ outskirts, often in form of provision of social housing. ·Many municipalities with smaller Roma communities that would need assistance do not engage in (Roma) integration initiatives under the pretext of the lack of financial resources and capacity, or claiming that all inhabitants enjoy formal equality.
Data collection
·Data and information on the situation of the Roma are gathered within specific surveys targeted at Roma community in the frame of the specific support measures, such as tracking the unemployed Roma. ·Ministry of Education and Science carries out a monitoring of the number of Roma children in pre-school and primary education every three years. ·In the last years a considerable part of the Roma population has emigrated to foreign countries for economic reasons.		·Existence of the monitoring of Roma pupils has not had any positive impact on policy-making (e.g. increasing availability of the education or quality of education).
Funding for civil society
·Several funding sources are available to NGOs for development of the civil society, including the Roma NGOs. ·Public funds support maintenance of the Roma History and Art Museum. ·The existing programmes including ESF programmes and thematic campaigns (e.g. campaign Dosta!) are being targeted towards wider target groups, including Roma.		·Already nine years since the implementation of the national programme “Roma in Latvia 2007-2009”, there has been no purposeful programmes aiming specifically at Roma.
Example of promising practice
In 2014, there were 5 Roma mediators in Latvia. The Roma Mediator Initiative was launched in 2014 by a non-governmental organization “Education Initiative Center”, but in 2017 the administration of the Roma mediators was taken over by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Latvia, continuing to finance the activities of Roma mediators within the EU funded project. The main task of the Roma mediator is to promote and ensure dialogue and cooperation between Roma families and professionals from municipal institutions as well as government agencies in areas such as education, social affairs, employment, children's rights, etc. The main outcomes of the Roma mediator's work include identifying the Roma situation and the most problematic issues at the local level and finding appropriate solutions in cooperation with the representatives of the municipal social administration, education administration and other institutions to promote the integration and social inclusion of Roma at risk of social and poverty.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●Adequate funding and to ensure the establishment of Roma Teacher’s Assistants Group, to provide the implementation of training and operating in the pre-school institutions and primary schools. ●Employment of Roma (particularly Roma youth). ●Reduction of bureaucratic obstacles in areas related to housing availability and improvement of living conditions.
LITHUANIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Department of National Minorities under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Strategic document	Lithuania has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	3.000 (0,11% of 2.847.904)
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups)
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The main achievement is in education field - in schools which are attended by Roma children and its network creation. In this network are included: Vilnius Naujininkai school, Vilnius Sauletekis school-multifunctional centre, Kybartai Saules pre-gymnazium, Salcininkai region, Eisiskes Stanislovas Rapolionis pre-gymnasium. Main achievement in labour market - successful implementation of the project "Let us work together with the Roma – new job opportunities and challenges". This project achievement was that 300 socially disadvantaged persons participated in activities on social integration, 129 Roma got access to socio-cultural services, seminars on gender equality. 48 participants submitted job agreements and individual labour certificates on registered in the Labour Exchange, 7 Roma are going to finish general education schools. One of the main achievements in 2017 - number of Roma families in Kirtimai settlement, Vilnius decreasing. All Roma families who have five or more children received new rental flats in the city. 7 families got rental social housing, 14 families use the compensation for rent. Important changes happened empowering Roma women and youth. There were established new Roma organizations as well as organized seminars and workshops. Great importance was attached to Roma culture and history. There were organized conferences and other events for Roma holocaust, published books.
The main challenges
Main challenges were related to Roma discrimination and intolerance. Another challenge and difficulty was motivating Roma people to seek education.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Successful changes in 2017 were resulted by active collaboration of various institutions. Vilnius City Municipality took its main part in implementation of Roma who live in Kirtimai settlement (Vilnius) integration plan "The Program For Integration Of Vilnius (Kirtimai) Roma Settlement Community Into Society 2016-2019". Importance of projects that can be implemented by European Union funds are also seen. For e.g. projects "Let us work together with the Roma – new job opportunities and challenges" and "Lithuanian Roma Platforms - Going Local".
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 25 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Lithuania. eight of them were mainstream and 17 targeted. 24 were implemented by a public authority (17 at national level and seven at local). One measure was implemented by civil society organisation at national level. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Lithuania also reported one mainstream measure as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, four as relevant for empowerment, one as relevant for local action and seven as relevant for the area of culture. 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, nine measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. Two measures were mainstream. Eight were implemented by a public authority and one by civil society. Six measures were implemented at national and three at local level.
The most important success
The most important success was creation of the network of schools, attended by Roma children. There was prepared and implemented a training program which was intended to improve the competencies of teachers, schoolmasters, educational assistance specialists and specialists of the education divisions of municipal administrations.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was to ensure school attendance of Roma children, keeping their motivation as well as to change the opinion of Roma families and parents on education and their children attendance to schools.
The overall situation in this thematic area Improved
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, two measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment. One measure was mainstream. One was implemented by a public authority and one by civil society; both of them at national level.
The most important success
The most important success was implementation of the project "Let us work together with the Roma - new job opportunities and challenges". The aim of the project - to provide services for the integration of Roma into the labour market, in order to prevent their social exclusion. Main tasks: 1. to facilitate the involvement of Roma in the labour market, and incentives to work, using the innovative career-building measures to facilitate the acquisition and training; establishment and to participate in public life; 2. Develop a positive attitude to the Roma community deny the stereotypes of the employee's - employer relationships when recruiting Roma people. Since the beginning of the project implementation (July 1, 2016) until the end of 2017, in the project activities took part more than 300 Roma people, some of them after social integration activities decided to search for a job, started to learn or work (including working by themselves).
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was discrimination faced by Roma people in employment area. This discrimination mainly used by employers.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for the area of healthcare.
The most important success
The most important success was the organized workshop for Roma girls and boys about sexual education. During December, 2017 was held a cycle of seminars for Roma girls and boys on sexuality education and family training programme. The aim was to help teenagers to gain knowledge about their physical, psychological changes, help to prepare for family, do prevention of early marriages, to promote the participation in public activities. Objectives of the cycle of seminars: •To strengthen students' self-worth. •To develop respect for their own and other people's sexuality. •Aware of the on-going body changes during teenage years and teach to build healthy relationships with their own and the opposite sex. •To develop the capacity to commit to another persona as well as to take responsibility for your choices. •To help prepare for the family life, parenthood/motherhood. •To promote the participation in public activities.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge - the implementation of the healthcare measures of NRIS was postponed because of Structural Funds that were not allocated in 2017.
The overall situation in this thematic area Improved
HOUSING
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing. Two measures were mainstream. All three were implemented by a public authority at local level.
The most important success
The most important success achieved in housing is the decline of Kirtimai (Vilnius) settlement. Before 10 years there lived about 500 Roma people. Nowadays there live 246 Roma people. It should be mentioned as well that all Roma families who have 5 children, have also been moved and now they live in social housing. In 2017, decisions have been taken for 7 families to rent social housing. Other State support (compensation for rent) in the form of housing rent in 2017 was used by 41 Roma people.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was for Roma families to get an opportunity to rent a living place from private person.
The overall situation in this thematic area Improved
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. One measure was mainstream. All three were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The most important success was active and successful involvement of Equal Opportunities Ombudsman's Office in order to consultations on the matters of equal opportunities and non-discrimination to Roma and non-government organisations working with Roma people.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge - small number of Roma appealing to Equal Opportunities Ombudsman's Office.
The overall situation in this thematic area Improved
Governance and cooperation
The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. NRCP is responsible for the coordination of the measures, implementation and monitoring. Cross-sectorial coordination The coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS is described in Chapter 4 of the Roma integration action plan for 2015-2020, The NRCP •is being consulted in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies •is not involved in decision-making processes regarding funding of relevant policies.; •is both being consulted and participating in decision-making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies. •is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. Roma community is quite small in Lithuania. There are just several Roma NGOs. All Roma organizations currently doing any activity on Roma integration are involved in to working group, monitoring the implementation of NRIS. Stakeholders are listed in the Action plan for Roma integration into Lithuanian society for 2015-2020. Stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS: All institutions implementing measures are involved in to monitoring process, civil society, all active Roma organizations. There is a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. A meeting between NRCP and Equality body are organized 2-3 times per year. There is a baseline against which to assess progress for the implementation of your NRIS or set of policy measures There are measurable targets

LITHUANIA
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 ensure that children attend school, the social workers of the Social Security Centre of Vilnius City visit Roma settlement and accompany children with special rented transport to the educational institutions. ·Several schools employ social pedagogues or school mediators who supervise and support academically the Roma children (i.e. assist and mediate in school between the teachers, parents and the children). ·According to the latest budget of the Roma Integration Strategy, 40,000 EUR annually are allocated to educational activities.	·The big gap between Roma and non-Roma children preschool attendance is mainly due to the lack of places available in (good quality, free of charge) preschool institutions. ·Discrimination/antigypsyism in education is a persisting problem, especially at the teacher-student interaction level or by fellow classmates and/or their parents. ·Lack of pre-school preparation and difficulty to understand Lithuanian are among the main causes of higher drop-out rates among Roma.
Employment
·There are new ESF-funded dedicated programmes tailored to the Roma needs and implemented by Roma organisations, in partnership with public employment services.	·There is no systematic data on employer discrimination or the enforcement of legal provisions against it.
Healthcare
·There is no gap between Roma and non-Roma regarding health insurance coverage. ·The 2015-2020 Action Plan for Integration of Roma into Lithuanian Society pays special attention to health care and provides for increasing the availability of health services for Roma.	·Access to fee-based dental care seems to be a concern in low-income households, including many Roma.
Housing
·A set of measures implemented by both the government through the NRIS and the Vilnius city municipality to address the largest Roma settlement’s issues (e.g. facilitating the relocation of families to integrated areas with social housing or rent allowance) was launched.	·The Roma community still faces problems with renting (due to discrimination) and receiving municipal housing (which is very limited). ·There is a disconnect between state authorities working on dismantling of the Roma settlement and the social inclusion of the residents.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Due to a small number of Roma in Lithuania, educational segregation is not a problem, Roma students attend mainstream schools and classes (although in the past there have been cases of separate classes formed exclusively of Roma pupils).	·Parts of the Roma community in Lithuania face residential segregation. ·Forced evictions are often applied, which are not in line with the international norms. ·Discriminatory policing against Roma and ethnic profiling are reported to be commonplace, and civil society organisations were not aware of any disciplinary measures taken against police officers for misconduct.
Fighting antigypsyism
·When a complaint concerning ethnic discrimination or antigypsyism is filed by an individual, the description of the problem provides clear information on the ethnicity of the applicant. ·The annual report of the Ombudsman concerning complaints on ethnic discrimination or antigypsyism provides disaggregated data. ·The Department of National Minorities supports the dialogue between the public service and the Roma community through employing mediators in five municipalities.	·The Ombudsman’s complaint mechanism is not used by Roma, neither is the work of the Ombudsman targeting Roma minority specifically. ·Measures on fighting antigypsyism are not mentioned in the Plan of Anti-discrimination Promotion Activities, although these measures would be welcomed and could potentially improve the general situation. ·In the current NRIS, there was no mention of any programs targeting specifically the public authorities.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Special attention is paid to pre-school education and extra-curricular activities for pupils, to bridge the gap between the Roma and non-Roma children in the field of education. ·The NRIS seeks to improve Roma women’s opportunities to participate in public life, and the Action Plan provides for sources to fund initiatives aimed at women’s empowerment, including training and business projects. ·The Action Plan aims to promote gender balance through all the initiatives. ·In the field of health, seminars and awareness-raising sessions are being implemented, with a focus on preventive health care, sexual and reproductive health and childcare, targeting especially Roma women and youth.	·In order to further increase the participation rate of Roma children in preschool education, a two-sided approach should be applied: Roma families’ access to preschool services should be improved, while the awareness of Roma parents on the benefits of preschool education should be also promoted. ·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
·Department of National Minorities under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania is the National Roma Contact Point (NRCP). It coordinates the 2015-2020 Action Plan for Integration of Roma into the Lithuanian Society (NRIS). ·There have been a number of Roma-specific programmes of comparatively large budget in the fields of employment and education. For example, the latest budget of the Roma Integration Strategy allocates 40,000 EUR annually to educational activities, 60,000 EUR annually to the mediation activities.	·During the process of drafting the first version of the Action Plan for the years 2012-2014 the civil society organisations expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of initial consultations and the lack of comprehensive measures in the plan. ·This feedback was taken into consideration by the NRCP, who ensured the involvement of these organisations in the preparation and the implementation of the current action plan (2015-2020).
Civil participation and empowerment
·There are signs of a positive trend in Roma civic organisation, as educated and ambitious Roma community leaders and active citizens are emerging. ·The NRCP regularly organises consultations on relevant thematic issues with the stakeholders involved. ·An additional step taken by the NRCP to ensure the voice of Roma community in the process of the implementation of the NRIS is the current European Commission supported National Roma Platform project. Through the project five Roma mediators are employed in different municipalities and meet monthly with the authorities to raise their concerns and ideas.	·Roma civil organisation and self-empowerment have been weak due to a small size of the Roma population, their inactivity and low interest of public authorities or political parties in reaching Roma. ·There are currently no Roma employed in any relevant governance structures on a long-term basis. ·Roma are not represented in elected authorities.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
· Municipalities are the key players in solving the issues specifically in housing and education.	·A lack of cooperation between the central governmental institutions and municipalities seems to be the main weakness of Roma inclusion policy implementation.
Data collection
·Some information is available on the living situation of Roma, that enable some assessment of trends. ·According to the population and housing census of 2011, the country was inhabited by 2,115 Roma people, most of them living in urban areas. ·Since 1989 the number of Roma in the country has been gradually decreasing.	·n/a
Funding for civil society
·n/a	·The initiatives coming from the ground are few and are less likely to receive any financial or political support than the ones coming either from the government itself or from established leaders and organisations. ·The lack of education or formal qualifications (which is often the case of Roma in Lithuania) is often the obstacle to participate in programmes due to the rigid requirements in long-running employment projects.
Example of promising practice
As one of the key problems is unemployment, a very promising practice is the currently running project “Let’s Work Together with Roma – New Job Opportunities and Challenges”. The project is financed by the ESF. The positive aspect of the project is the inclusion of both Roma and non-Roma in the team, as well as using innovative measures to counter discrimination and ways to integrate the unemployed Roma to the labour market. The project also has very broad criteria, therefore not limiting the options and allowing the team to use their knowledge and experience in order to achieve more efficient results.
Most important priorities to be addressed
●Stop forced evictions and demolition of houses. In case of forced evictions, human rights must be observed and substitute accommodation provided. ●Pay more attention to the early dropouts, quality of education as well as professional education. ●Recognise the Roma history and especially the Roma Holocaust (Samudaripen).

LUXEMBURG
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of the Family, Integration and the Greater Region
Strategic document	Luxembourg has an integrated package of policy measures aiming to improve the situation of the Roma within the framework of broader social inclusion policies.
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	300 (0.05 % of 590 667)
Available options for data collection	Information on ethnic origin is not collected in Luxembourg.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
General note: The measures set out in this document are mainstreaming measures (of general application) which are an integral part of the overarching policies of the respective ministries. It is thus within the remit of the ministry responsible to set priorities for any of the measures and not of the NRCP.
The main challenges
Some measures have quantified targets, the evaluation of which falls within the remit of the ministry responsible for the measure, which is always defined in Luxembourg as a general measure. Given that data on ethnicity is not collected, no information is available on the situation of the Roma in this thematic area.
Thematic Areas
General note: The measures set out in this document are mainstreaming measures which are an integral part of the overarching policies of the respective ministries. It is thus within the remit of the ministry responsible to set priorities for any of the measures and not of the NRCP. A total of 24 measures were taken in Luxembourg, which were all general measures. Nine were implemented by a public authority at national level, one by the private sector at regional level, two by the private sector at national level and twelve in joint partnerships. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Luxembourg also notified measures in the following areas: poverty reduction through social investment (twelve), monitoring and assessment (four) and empowerment (one). N.B.: In line with the integrated approach to Roma integration, some of the measures implemented concern more than one thematic area. Therefore, the number of measures reported as ‘relevant’ in the following areas is higher than the total number of measures implemented.
EDUCATION
In 2017, ten measures were reported as belonging to the field of education. All ten were general measures. Five measures were implemented in a joint partnership, four by a public authority at national level and one by a private sector entity at regional level. Funds were allocated to ten measures. The total number of beneficiaries could be identified in nine out of ten cases, while the Roma beneficiaries of these measures could not be identified. Given that data on ethnicity is not collected, no information is available on the assessment of the situation of the Roma in this thematic area.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, ten measures were reported as belonging to the field of employment. All ten were general measures. Five of the measures were implemented at national level (three by a public authority and two by the private sector). One measure was implemented by the private sector at regional level and five as joint partnerships. Funds were allocated to all measures. The total number of beneficiaries could be identified in nine out of ten cases, while given that data on ethnicity is not collected, the Roma beneficiaries of these measures could not be identified. Given that data on ethnicity is not collected, no information is available on the assessment of the situation of the Roma in this thematic area.
HOUSING
In 2017, three measures were reported as being relevant to the housing sector. All three were general measures; two were implemented in a joint partnership and one by a public authority at national level. Given that data on ethnicity is not collected, no information is available on the assessment of the situation of the Roma in this thematic area.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, two measures were reported as belonging to the fight against discrimination. Both were general measures and were implemented in a joint partnership. Funding was allocated for both measures. The total number of beneficiaries could not be identified. Given that data on ethnicity is not collected, no information is available on the assessment of the situation of the Roma in this thematic area.
Governance and cooperation
Since the measures are general measures, and in accordance with the principle that censuses of data on ethnicity are not conducted in Luxembourg, budgets are not specified in relation to one or more ethnic groups. However, the ministries allocate financial resources to measures which fall within their remit. The NRCP does not have a specific budget; 0.3 of a post is dedicated to the tasks of the NRCP. The NRCP is not consulted on the coordination or implementation of the measures, nor is it involved in the decision-making process. As regards stakeholders, there are no NGOs defending the interests of Roma people in Luxembourg. Civil society and the Roma population are not consulted as part of the measures taken by Luxembourg. Some measures have quantified targets, the evaluation of which is the responsibility of the competent ministry, taking into account the fact that the measures are of general application.

LUXEMBURG
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The 2017 secondary education reform aims to increase flexibility by redesigning the guidance and support processes and monitoring the measures for learners in difficulty, through learner guidance, educational and psychosocial support, as well as learners’ and parents’ participation. ·Childcare-service vouchers system and various forms of State support exist, but it is not known if Roma families are included in the system. ·Secondary schools may organise special activities and special classes for the pupils in difficulties.	·There is no information about the situation of Roma in the education system in Luxembourg (i.e. attendance, school segregation, special education, discrimination). ·Although free of charge, early childhood education for the three-year-olds is optional. It would be in the benefit of the children and their families if the compulsory education would start at the age of three, which would facilitate early childhood development, language learning, etc.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are available to Roma jobseekers.	·There is no information on actual access and effectiveness of public employment services among Roma. ·There is no information on actual use of anti-discrimination laws by Roma.
Healthcare
·Luxembourg has a well-funded healthcare system. The basic coverage is available free of charge to all citizens and residents with legal administrative status. It is also offered both to cross-border workers and their family members. ·There is financial support for those who cannot afford to pay the contribution to the health insurance.	·Homeless people and undocumented immigrants who do not meet the formal conditions to be insured encounter difficulties in accessing healthcare. ·There is no information about actual use of healthcare services by Roma.
Housing
·There is no residential segregation of Roma who are second or third generation migrants and who arrived in Luxembourg during the Balkan wars.	·There are no specific measures or programmes for Roma or any information regarding the housing situation of Roma. ·Camping sites prohibit halting for Travellers.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Since 2012, no reports on human rights, discrimination or racism in Luxembourg specify anything about Roma, and there is no evidence of school or residential segregation.	·The equality body in Luxembourg, the Center for Equal Treatment (CET) cannot receive complaints about discrimination, according to their status. ·Neither the CET nor the Ombudsperson can represent victims of discrimination in the courts. As a result, there is no procedure enabling all victims of discrimination to assert their rights easily.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Concerning fighting racism, Luxembourg has the necessary institutional settings, and there is an interest in improving it.	·Antigypsyism is not officially recognised by the state. ·The tragic experience of Roma in the World War II is not at all mentioned in the history books, due to lack of evidence. Luxembourg has officially recognised the Holocaust, but there is no official acknowledgment of the Genocide of the Roma. Research centres and museums could develop and include sections on the Roma Holocaust in World War II. ·There are no official statistics regarding the hate crime or speech against Roma.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The position of the National Roma Contact Point is part of the “Solidarity” division of the Ministry of the Family, the Integration and the Greater Region; this division is responsible, among others, for LGBT, psycho-therapeutic support and homelessness issues.	·If preschool from the age of three years were not only free of charge but also mandatory, it would facilitate the development, including language learning, of children from migrant/disadvantaged families.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·As the number of Roma in the country is marginal and they do not face visible inequalities (or there is no information about them), Luxembourg does not have a Roma inclusion strategy, but an integrated set of policy measures (NRIS). ·In 2013, the Luxembourg Ministry of the Family, the Integration and the Greater Region has produced a Concept Paper on the National Roma Integration Strategy – Final Report , which represents a needs assessment of the Roma community in Luxembourg	·The NRIS 2012-2020 was submitted to the EC in 2012, without any input from any Roma organization or individuals living in Luxembourg. ·The NRIS does not contain targeted measures and programs for Roma, nor there are specific budgetary allocations. The NRIS overlaps with the national social integration policies. ·Since 2012, there are no publicly available monitoring or progress reports regarding implementation. ·The NRCP is not in charge of implementation, but in order to communicate the progress of implementation, NRCP has to be involved in monitoring and evaluation. NRCP should also be in charge of coordinating research/studies on the situation of Roma in Luxembourg, which can contribute to adjust the approach to the needs of its target group.
Civil participation and empowerment
·There is no information available on the existence of Roma self-empowered initiatives in the fields of arts, culture, women and youth movement, etc. ·The integrated sets of policy measures do not include any reference to Roma empowerment and participation.	·An action that reduced all non-Luxembourgish nationals’ political participation was the referendum held on 7 June 2015 on the right of “foreigners” to vote in national elections. The results were negative. ·Currently, there is no Roma-focused, nor Roma-led NGO in Luxembourg.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·There are no local or regional actions or programs targeting directly Roma or any information that Roma are among their beneficiaries.	·There are no ethnically disaggregated data available and no self-declared Roma. Due to lack of data on Roma living in Luxembourg currently, is it unclear how many are Luxembourgish citizens, how many asylum seekers, or applicants for international protection.
Data collection
·According to the Council of Europe, the number of Roma in Luxembourg is estimated to be about 300.	·No more detailed information about Roma in the country are available.
Example of promising practice
A wide range of state aids have been put in place to encourage individual initiatives for the construction and improvement of housing for all who can claim it based of their income and family situation. The diversity of individual housing aids (bonuses, subsidies, etc.) ranges from acquisition and construction premiums, through the payment of interest and government guarantees to premiums for the improvement of housing and special development aids for individuals with one or more motor impairments. In terms of education, school attendance is compulsory and free of charge in Luxembourg for four to sixteen-year-olds. There is a child care service vouchers system in place. Text books and public transport are free for the students and, from 2020 all public transport will be free of charge in Luxembourg, for everyone. There are a variety of professional orientation services for the youth to identify their interests, abilities and skills, learn about vocational training and/or professional opportunities and receive support in their decision-making on future career.
●Most important priorities to be addressed
●To get in contact with the Roma community to assess their current situation and to create tailored policies addressing their needs. Also, the authorities have to address the issue of acute lack of data/information regarding the situation of Roma in Luxembourg. ●To support the Roma community in setting up an organisation to promote their cultural heritage and history. ●To make pre-school education compulsory from age of 3 for all.

NETHERLANDS
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment
Strategic document	Netherlands 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):	40.000 (0,23% of 17.081.507)
Available options for data collection	Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), but data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The trials (within the Program Combatting Exploitation Roma children) carried out between 2011 and 2016 resulted in additional resources to be deployed for the benefit of Roma and Sinti, and for policy focusing on these communities. These trails resulted in a number of minor successes at local level, such as increased participation in education.
The main challenges
The position of Roma and Sinti in practically all areas is weaker than the position of the average Dutch citizen. The trials have not - or not yet - resulted in any structural catching up by Roma and Sinti in 2017. Many Roma and Sinti remain removed from Dutch society and the employment market, and are dependent on social benefits to a substantial extent. Roma and Sinti in their turn perceive discrimination.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
There is broad consensus among professionals and Roma/Sinti that structural improvement of the position of Roma and Sinti in the Netherlands requires long-term commitment from all the parties concerned, and that generating confidence is of the utmost importance when devising the correct approach.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 26 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in the Netherlands. 15 of them were mainstream and 11 were targeted. Two were implemented by civil society organizations (one regional and one national) and 24 – by a public authority (16 at national and eight at local level). Apart from the key thematic areas described below, the Netherlands also reported five measures relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment (two mainstream and three targeted), six relevant for empowerment (one mainstream and five targeted), two targeted measures relevant for local action and one targeted relevant for thematic area of culture. 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, 10 measures were reported as relevant for the area education, eight of them mainstream and two targeted. Two were implemented by a civil society organization and eight by a public authority. Eight measures were implemented at national level, one – at regional and one – a local level.
The most important success
·The monitor reveals that the educational situation of Roma and Sinti in 2017 has largely remained unchanged or has shown a slight improvement since 2015. At the same time almost all municipalities involved have made great efforts in the field of education during the past two years. The fact that there is a slightly positive development in the situation is presumably a result of these efforts. ·Participation in primary education is assessed as reasonably good. There are low incidences of school dropout, relative absence or other problems. ·There is practically no absolute absenteeism in respect of primary and secondary education in all municipalities, presumably as a result of stringent maintenance of the regulations by school attendance officers. Many municipalities focus intensively on improving Roma and Sinti’s educational position.
The most important challenge
·The educational situation of Roma and Sinti in the Netherlands remains weak. The average level of education is low and the groups are substantially overrepresented in the lowest levels of the educational system. Problematic situations tend to arise more frequently when they enter secondary education. ·Roma and Sinti frequently experience discrimination in respect of education. They say that this results in recommendations for secondary education made at primary school being at too low level, inability to obtain internships, and they have a general sense of not being taken seriously. The assessment is based on Mainstream policies, Monitor Social Inclusion Roma (2017).
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, nine measures were implemented in thematic area "employment", six mainstream and three – targeted. All nine were implemented by a public authority. Two of the measures were implemented at local and seven – at national level.
The most important success
Research suggests a slightly positive trend, which is possibly due to the implementation of various projects focusing on guiding Roma and Sinti towards the employment market.
The most important challenge
·Although some of these trajectories are regarded as successful, this refers to a limited number of persons who have found employment through these projects in absolute numbers. Most of these types of project terminated simultaneously with the completion of the programme Combating Expoitation Roma children (end 2016). ·Since many Roma and Sinti do not have a high level of education, they often lack basic qualifications and they occupy positions at the bottom of the employment market. In some communities, a large number of older persons lack conditions to participate in the employment market. Many of these persons have been dependent on social benefits for many years, they have never worked in their entire lives, and they lack the knowledge and skills to be able to function properly on the employment market. ·Roma and Sinti themselves say that although a large percentage would like to work, they are unable to do so because there is no suitable employment available, or because they are victims of institutionalized and non-institutionalized discrimination. ·Professionals say that genuine change will require a great deal of time to accomplish. At the same time, they are of the opinion that it must be ensured that young Roma and Sinti have sufficient access to the employment market. Some professionals fear that youngsters with basic qualifications will be unable to find employment and will relapse into the same patterns as previous generations. The assessment is based on Mainstream policies, Monitor Social Inclusion Roma (2017)
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
The position of Roma and Sinti on the employment market in the Netherlands in 2017 is characterised by a substantial degree of unemployment and dependence on social benefits. Professionals and Roma and Sinti themselves have not observed a great deal of development in the target group’s position on the employment market since 2015.
HEALTHCARE
Two measures were implemented in thematic area "healthcare", both mainstream, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
·A number of shifts in this respect have been noticed, whereby a distinction is often made between young people and elderly people. ·Developments in young people’s health situations are described as moderately positive. They take more exercise and are more aware of the importance of a healthy lifestyle.
The most important challenge
·Developments in older people’s health situation are more frequently specified as negative. Now that they are older, they are more frequently confronted with stress and illness, and as a result premature death. The assessment is based on Mainstream policies, Monitor Social Inclusion Roma (2017)
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
The health situation of Roma and Sinti is assessed as poor. In this respect, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which this is the result of their weak socio-economic position or of their cultural customs. In comparison with 2015, the health situation of Roma and Sinti has hardly changed in 2017. The national government has launched several generic policy programmes aimed at creating awareness of health risks and stimulating a healthy lifestyle.
HOUSING
No measures were implemented in this thematic area in 2017.
The most important success
There is increased attention for the situation relating to Roma caravan sites and pitches. One positive development cited is the creation or enlargement of Roma caravan sites in a small number of municipalities.
The most important challenge
Many new Roma live in private rented accommodation at the bottom of the housing market. They are relatively more vulnerable to exploitation by fraudulent property owners and financial advisors. The assessment is based on Mainstream policies, Monitor Social Inclusion Roma (2017)
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
One mainstream measure was implemented in thematic area “anti-discrimination” by a public authority at national level.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
Four measures were implemented in thematic area "multiple discrimination", one mainstream and 3 - targeted. All four were implemented by a public authority. Three of the measures were implemented at local and one - at national level.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources of NRCP: One policy officer of The Netherlands (Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment) is appointed as NRCP, part time. The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the Integrated set of policy measures through the following mechanisms: ·Being contact point for all national, local public authorities, NGO's and Roma organizations, regarding Roma issues ·Making commitment of Roma issues within the mainstream policies ·Coordinating by organizing meetings with some municipalities with a relatively large Roma community, meetings with NGO's and meetings with Roma organizations ·Setting up a process of local dialogue between local authorities and Roma communities ·Developing a Monitor Social Inclusion Roma every two year The NRCP is both being consulted and participating in decision making processes regarding DEVELOPMENT of relevant policies. The development, funding and implementation of the National Programme "Combat Exploitation Roma Children" (2011-2016, Ministry of Safety and Justice and Minitry of Social Affairs and Employment, and implemented by different local stakeholders) was a Roma targeted orientated programme, where the NRCP was participating in. However, the other Roma related policies are either mainstream policies, where the NRCP participate in and/or being consulted, either local policies, where the NRCP is being informed. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. Roma related policies are either mainstream policies, where the NRCP participate in and/or being consulted, either local policies, where the NRCP is being informed. The NRCP both being consulted and participating in decision making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. Roma related policies are either mainstream policies, where the NRCP is being consulted, either local policies, where the NRCP is being informed. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of Integrated set of policy measures? The participation and involvement of Roma civil society is facilitated through: ·Organizing meetings with some municipalities with a relatively large Roma community, meetings with NGO's and meetings with Roma organizations ·Setting up a process of local dialogue between local authorities and Roma communities ·Developing a Monitor Social Inclusion Roma (every two year) The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the Integrated set of policy measures are: ·Municipalities with a relatively large Roma community (about 10) ·NGO's (Salvation Army, Policy, Defence for Children, OWRS) ·Roma organizations ·Different ministries (Social Affairs and Employment (SZW), Education, Culture and Sciences (OCW), Safety and Justice (VenJ), Health, Well Being and Sports (VWS), Interior and Living (BZK)) There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is a baseline against which to assess progress for the implementation of the Integrated set of policy measures. Baseline are the framework of mainstream policies, and the first Monitor Social Inclusion Roma (2013) with qualitative indicators. There are no measurable targets.

NETHERLANDS
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Different approaches to ensure full enrolment of Roma in education are used locally; some of them are derived directly from the set of measures of NRIS, whereas others are developed independently by municipalities. ·Schools and municipalities are responsible for developing measures preventing early school leaving (i.e. among the 12-23 age group). ·Compulsory education from the age of 5 until 16 is accessible for the children who are legally in the country and also for the ones who are in the procedure of waiting for the decision to get a residence permit. ·Schools receive extra funds to support all children with impairment (physical, mental, language issues, etc.). ·Roma’s participation in and completion of primary and secondary education are increasing. ·It appears that local plans for improvement of educational opportunities for Roma children are much more successful than the projects created through the national set of measures.	·Even though Roma children speak Dutch from an early age at home, their language skills remain difficult during the secondary school, mostly in reading and writing. With additional support provided by the school, this could easily be addressed. ·Attendance into high schools and higher education has to be improved. ·In certain municipalities a hidden cap quota was introduced in schools in order to prevent the enrolment of too many Roma children that could lead to ‘white flight’ and segregation; this measure is considered controversial by some NGOs.
Employment
·The NGOs run local projects aimed at increasing employment and employability among Roma and in particular among Roma youth. The projects are funded through the post-war funding administered by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. ·	·There are no specific data about the situation of Roma on the labour market, even though the data are available for some other ethnic minorities or people of different origin. ·There are no measures targeting Roma and some mainstream ‘activating’ measures negatively impact on excluded people (example is Participation Law). ·Regardless of their educational background, Roma are at higher risk of unemployment than non-Roma. ·Roma face discrimination and antigypsyism in accessing employment, both by employment agencies and by employers. Such cases remain underreported.
Healthcare
·All legal residents and all Dutch tax residents are entitled to health care and required to take out health insurance. ·Local volunteer projects assist some Roma in health-related activities. The projects are implemented by NGOs and are funded through the post-war funding administered by the Ministry of Health.	·Stateless Roma (including those without documents who arrived in 1970s and those in difficult economic conditions) face grave problems in accessing healthcare. ·There are no specific measures targeting Roma implemented or planned. ·Antigypsyism manifests itself on occasions when visiting rights of family members of Roma patients in hospitals are limited by hospitals’ managements.
Housing
·Contrary to previous policies, today Roma are allowed to live in caravans, should they want to. ·A new housing policy framework for Roma was issued in 2018, directed at preventing discrimination against Roma in relation to adequate housing in trailer parks, ensuring their cultural rights and providing legal security in this area, but the implementation is to be assessed.	·The lack of political will is not helping to properly maintain the current sites and/or to create new ones. ·Roma are regularly discriminated on the housing market. ·There are some potentially counterproductive social housing policy directions which may lead to a reduction of access to social housing to only the most excluded, instead of serving as prevention measure for wider vulnerable groups. ·High rents and arrears lead to evictions. In the set of measures of NRIS there is no specific attention on these issues.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The protection against discrimination is regulated by four different laws. In January 2016 a revised Dutch national action programme against discrimination was presented, bringing together under a single umbrella the various programmes and plans to combat discrimination and rendering anti-discrimination policy more strategic and comprehensive. ·There is no official evidence of discrimination of Roma at school related to enrolment policies or to bullying and harassment at school.	·The set of policy measures for Roma inclusion does not mention direct, indirect or multiple discrimination and does not take into consideration the rights of Roma women at all. ·Number of Roma children in special schools is considerably higher than the national average. ·More than 200 Roma, of unknown country of origin, with very few rights and limited access to public services remain effectively stateless. Their children inherit this status at birth. This situation should be remedied as a matter of urgency.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The Netherlands has officially recognised the Roma Holocaust during the Second World War. ·There have been erected commemorative monuments for the Roma victims of the Second World War. The Ministry of Health, Wellbeing and Sports, through the post-war funding has financed several projects, exhibitions, websites, and online educational platforms.	·The Dutch set of policy measures for Roma inclusion does not target antigypsyism. ·Public authorities together with representatives of the Roma civil society should launch rights awareness campaigns and promote Roma access to justice.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The Ministry of Health supports grassroot NGOs, through the post-war funding, to implement small-scale Roma women’s initiatives or projects addressing the labour market situation of Roma youth. ·A large programme aimed at combatting exploitation of Roma children is implemented by nine municipalities in partnership with national police and Salvation Army. It focuses on law enforcement in the case of multi-problem families with Roma background.	·The availability of culturally sensitive health care services (e.g. the possibility for female patients to avoid contact with male health professionals), already provided for other ethnic minorities, should be extended to Roma women as well. ·While combatting the criminal exploitation of Roma children, antigypsyist rhetoric with a stigmatizing effect on Roma families should be avoided. Involvement of Roma NGOs can be helpful in both effectiveness and sensitivity of the programme. ·The specific needs of Roma women should be addressed (e.g. in areas such as access to education employment and others; rather than only the assumed problem of early marriages,).
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·The National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) is within the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. ·Most of the government funding programmes are mainstreamed and Roma are among potential target groups. ·In 2010, the Netherlands Institute for Sinti and Roma (NISR) was created and financed by the government with an objective to work with municipalities, institutions and Roma legally residing in the Netherlands. But the institute was closed in 2012 because of lack of effectiveness and support from municipalities and Roma.	·There is no official public information regarding the tasks and the mandate of the NRCP or the ways it is communicating and collaborating with other authorities on the topic of Roma social inclusion. ·NRCP seems to have limited effectiveness and very limited resources (only one employee, part time position, no budget). ·The Roma are not involved in drafting, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of the national programmes. ·Since the programs are not specifically targeting Roma, the ethnically disaggregated data is not available. Therefore, it is very difficult to evaluate the outreach and effectiveness of these programmes for Roma or possible bottlenecks which have excluded Roma.
Civil participation and empowerment
·NRCP had regular consultative meetings with a core group of three Roma representatives, leaving unrepresented Sinti, Travellers and “old Dutch” Roma communities. ·Roma women's organisation Romane Sheja was set up with support of Roma men.	·Roma interest and participation in the voting during the national election is low. ·Roma representation on the political scene and in policymaking is almost inexistent. There is a need for constructive interaction with the government. ·Roma activists claim an inequality in participation in projects – Roma are expected to participate as volunteers, while ethnic Dutch persons are involved on paid basis.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·The municipalities are considered responsible for the implementation of the “Policy measures in the Netherlands for the social inclusion of Roma”. ·Municipalities with more concentrated Roma population receive public funds for programmes in which Roma are directly targeted. These municipalities have employees designated to work with Roma.	·In the vast majority of cases, Roma are just the beneficiaries and not the partners or employees of the designated programmes.
Data collection
·In a situation of lack of data specifically on Roma, some available data on “persons of non-Western background” can be relevant for describing the situation of at least part of Roma in country.	·Roma groups are not recognised as national minorities. The Travellers are not even recognised as an ethnic minority, but, along with other Dutch caravan dwellers, just as “ordinary citizens with special living style”. ·Officially, there is no systematic collection of data concerning the situation of Roma due to legal framework protecting personal data. ·Some municipalities engaged in illegal ethnic data collection and creation of databases. NGOs have noticed cases of collection of personal and family-related data from Roma children without their parents’ consent or participation for a national institute of healthcare.
Funding for civil society
·Some funding is available for (pro-)Roma NGOs within a governmental post-war funding programme, within the framework of the post-Second World War restitution scheme.	·There are Roma NGOs, some of them active, but self-empowerment initiatives in Roma communities are rare or do not exist, due to the difficulty in accessing funding.
Example of promising practice
Local initiatives developed by Roma NGOs, based on the needs of Roma, with funding from post-war funding programme “Repair money” (“Rechtsherstelgelden”), contributed to the creation of more possibilities and growth for Roma, giving them a sense empowerment. Such initiatives are especially motivational for younger generations as they create good examples for them and support them.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·To support the access of Roma children to higher education ·Sustained funding for small-scale initiatives implemented by Roma NGOs ·Establish an independent national network to monitor antigypsyism in the country. ·The national and local authorities should consider Roma, Sinti and Travelers organisations a real partner in drafting policies and implementing projects, and support/facilitate their capacity building and access to funding. ·The National Roma Contact Point should set up the National Roma Platform.

POLAND
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Department of Religious Denominations and National and Ethnic Minorities – Division of National and Ethnic Minorities
Strategic document	Poland has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	32.500 (0,09% of 37.972.964) Note from NRCP: according to the National Census of People and Houses in 2002 - 12.731 persons declared Roma origin (0,03% of 37.972.964); according to the next National Census of People and Houses in 2011 – 16.725 persons declared Roma origin (0,04% of 37.972.964). Estimates collected on the regional level by the Plenipotentiaries of the Voivodes on National and Ethnic Minorities in year 2006 show approx. 22.000 Roma in Poland (0,06% of 37.972.964).
Available options for data collection	1.Information collected during censuses, referring to national and ethnic minorities, including Roma: sex; placement (urban vs. rural areas); groups of age (0-9,10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80+); economic groups of age (pre-productive: 0-17, productive mobile: 18-44, productive non-mobile: 45-59/64, productive total: 18-59/64, post-productive: 60/65+); biological groups of age: 0-14, 15-64, 65+; marital status: single, married, widow/widower, divorced, not determined; level of education: lower than secondary, secondary, tertiary, not determined; economic activity: working, unemployed, economic passive, not determined. 2.Information collected by the Minister of National Education in the nationwide Educational Information System as regards the number of pupils undertaking additional educational activities for minorities’ pupils. 3.Data collected by the Voivodes’ Plenipotentiaries on National and Ethnic Minorities (hereinafter: Voivodes’ Plenipotentiaries) - 16 persons in 16 voivodships: annual reports on implementing of the Roma Integration Strategy.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
·the stable number of Roma school assistants working on regular basis, ·diminishing of the scale of placing Roma children in special school system, ·relatively high level of Roma NGO participating in the implementation of the Roma Integration strategy as contractors.
The main challenges
·persisting conflict among some Roma leaders, ·reducing the drop-outs phenomenon on secondary education ·the need to effectively promote vocational education & trainings among Roma youth
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Roma Integration strategy must be continued beyond the year 2020.
Thematic Areas
EDUCATION
The most important success
The rate of Roma children in special school system has diminish significantly during last years: from level of approx. 17 % of all Roma pupils in 2012 to approx. 6, 9 % in 2017.
The most important challenge
Reconciling interests of the individual antagonised Roma groups and involving them in the process of implementing activities aimed at achieving by the Roma community the skills to use access to existing rights, services and possibilities of efficient functioning in the modern society. Extension of school attendance beyond the primary level still remains a challenge among Roma pupils in Poland. As Roma in Poland belong to very traditional groups the continuity of education is not a priority in those communities. One of the most significant obstacle is early marriages phenomenon - according to FRA 20 % of Roma respondents justify the drop out of school by early marriages and home duties.
EMPLOYMENT
The most important success
The number of Roma employed: 234 persons The number of Roma participating in the vocational courses & trainings: 158 The number of Roma school assistants: 91
The most important challenge
The most important challenge remains how to introduce the Roma beneficiaries of vocational courses and training, realized in previous programming period 2007-2013 under ESF funds to the labor market.
HEALTHCARE
The most important success
When activity is offered – members of Roma communities take part in it which was not the case at the beginning of the realization of the strategy. Women are much more active in using this opportunity which is good prognosis. The number of medical checkups, vaccinations, etc.: 881 persons
The most important challenge
Roma in Poland, being very traditional, are not very active in TA Health – they make use of offered actions but are only the “recipients”, as medical sphere is perceived as culturally dirty and banned.
HOUSING
The most important success
The problem of housing is gradually managed, with high interest of local authorities. Housing situation vary in different voivodships. In those with the biggest number of Roma population housing activities are permanently realized since years. The number of Roma who benefit from housing activity (renewal/purchase of apartments): 452.
The most important challenge
Housing is the most expensive part of the Roma Integration Strategy thus results are not very “spectacular” comparing the costs with the number of direct beneficiaries.
Governance and cooperation
Specific comments on budget for NRCP NCPR is subordinated to the Minister of Interior and Administration who has at his disposal dedicated budgetary provision devoted exclusively to the Roma Integration Strategy - 10 mln PLN per year/approx. €2.6 mln). Additionally, the Division of National and Ethnic Minorities has the amount of 16 mln PLN/approx. €3.7 mln per year (under the Act of 6 January 2005 on national and ethnic minorities and on the regional language). In year 2017 the amount of 1 107 000 PLN/approx. €258.041 was devoted to 45 Roma cultural projects (beyond the Roma Integration Strategy) Specific comments on human resources of NRCP The Contact Point for Roma in 2017 was composed of 3 persons. Cross sectorial coordination The National Contact Point for the Roma coordinates the implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy as a national strategy for the Rom through: •meetings of the Joint Commission of the Government and National Minorities, consisting of representatives of relevant states agencies: Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Interior and Administration, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Justice, Institute of National Remembrance, Main Statistical Office, Ministry of Science, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Culture. Whenever needed – to the meetings of the Joint Commission representatives of other state agencies are invited (for instance: Media Council, etc.). In 2017 there were 3 meetings of the above mentioned Commission, •important part of its activities is permanent working contact with 16 Voivodes’ Plenipotentiaries for National and Ethnic Minorities, who monitor implementation of the projects on regional and local level (by local government units, non-governmental organisations, including Roma organisations) and final beneficiaries of aid provided, •cooperation with above mentioned Ministry of Education and Ministry of family, Labor and Social Policy on Roma-related projects, •NRCP is in working cooperation - if needed - with the Police Plenipotentiaries on Human Rights. Decision making processes regarding development of relevant policies and funding Roma Integration Strategy is multiannual governmental document ensuring financial resources, policy goals and defining areas of intervention for whole period of 2014-2020. Decision making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies Although the document of the Roma Integration Strategy was accepted in 2014 by the Council of Ministers, the structure of this document and its flexibility allows to address problems that had occurred during implementation process (within defined Thematic Areas), based on findings of: meetings of the Joint Commission of the Government and National Minorities, meetings with Voivodes’ Plenipotentiaries on National and Ethnic Minorities, or based on information gained during the meetings with representatives of Roma community, NGOs and/or local authorities. Participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society 1.encouraging Roma NGOs to the active participation in the Roma Integration Strategy as direct beneficiaries; 2.system of financing of the existence of NGO (e.g. by grants for employment of professional accountant and/or lawyer, costs of electricity, costs of renting premises, etc.) to enable the functioning of the NGO; beyond the Integration Strategy 2.The Roma representatives participate each year, on equal bases with the vote rights, in the work of mentioned above Voivodes’ Commissions - set up on the regional level by each Voivodes - assessing the applications to the Integration Strategy; 3.Two appointed Roma representatives are members of the Joint Commission of the Government and National and Ethnic Minorities; 4.Different Roma representatives, together with NRCP, are invited to participate in meetings of the Parliamentary Commission on National and Ethnic Minorities covering the Roma-related subject-matter. In the year 2017 seven (out of 27) meetings of the Parliamentary Commission were devoted strictly to the Roma-related problems; 5.The Roma Team, acting as a standing advisory body of the Joint Commission of the Government and National and Ethnic Minorities, 6.Regular information meetings of the Voivode Plenipotentiaries with the representatives of Roma NGOs as well as with the representatives of local authorities on assessing the tasks implemented and adopting recommendations for the next year; 7.Roma representatives in work of Voivodes’ Grant Commissions; 8.Roma Integration Strategy in Poland for 2014-2020 has been preceded by wide-ranging consultation with the Roma communities. Monitoring and evaluation of the Polish Integration Strategy The NRCP is involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the Roma Integration Strategy through: 1.on the local level by reports of the local self-government authorities, taking part in the Integration Strategy, provided to the regional level - to Voivodes’ Plenipotentiaries on National and Ethnic Minorities; 2.on the regional level by the annual reports of the Voivodes’ Plenipotentiaries on National and Ethnic Minorities on the implementation of the Integration Strategy, provided to the Ministry of Interior and Administration; 3.on the central level by regular meetings (3 in year 2017) of the Joint Commission of the Government and National and Ethnic Minorities; 4.on the parliamentary level: the Parliamentary Commission on National and Ethnic Minorities covers the Roma-related subject-matter. In the year 2017 seven (out of 27) meetings of the Parliamentary Commission were devoted strictly to the Roma-related problems.

POLAND
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Education is a priority in the 2014-2020 Roma Programme. About 65% of total funds have been devoted to education (i.e. day-care centres, preschool subsidies, scholarships). ·From 2017, the pre-school education became obligatory and free of charge for children aged 6. In areas without available facilities, the preschool education is provided by various types of community centres. ·In the last years, the number of Roma children in special education has been reduced. ·Scholarship schemes for Roma primary school, high school and university students aim to foster their enrolment and graduation rates. ·The institutionalisation of the Roma school assistant and supporting teachers positions with the aim to increase school attendance and educational outcomes.	·Antigypsyism and discrimination against Roma has negative impact on Roma children’s education. For example, a principal of a primary school in Warsaw surrender to non-Roma parents’ pressure and denied Roma children enrolment into the mainstream school.
Employment
·Ministry launched ESF-funded projects to finance activities aiming at raising Roma employment in the open labour market, implemented by NGOs or local governments. ·Legal provisions against discrimination in access to employment.	·The measures developed through the Roma Programme did not manage to address the high level of unemployment; initiatives have often low impact sustainability in terms of participants’ placement in jobs in the open labour market. ·The public employment services do not play an active role in implementing Roma projects and have no activities to reduce employer discrimination. ·Social benefits may act as a disincentive to formal employment. ·Provisions against employer discrimination are rarely enforced.
Healthcare
·Roma-targeted measures have been supported from public funds in regions with the most deprived communities; including prevention, examination or check-ups and immunization. The measures have been implemented by ten local governments and 11 NGOs, including eight Roma NGOs. ·Roma health mediators with a medical or social welfare professional background (“environmental nurses”) monitor Roma families’ health, provide advice and help, including on hygiene and basic medical supplies, and guide them to outpatient departments for specific examinations and visits.	·The share of funds for healthcare allocated under the current Roma Programme is inadequate (3%) and should be raised. ·Local Roma NGOs should be involved in tasks aimed at improving health in cooperation with doctors and nurses; moreover, Roma should be better involved in decision-making on funding of projects within the Roma Programme. ·There are no significant initiatives in preventing and combating the use and spreading of drugs despite the fact that drug problems in marginalised Roma communities are often signalled by Roma activists.
Housing
·24% of the Roma Programme’s budget is spent on improving housing conditions. ·Many local authorities effectively used the Roma Programme for housing (for purchase and construction of residential premises, reparation and construction of illumination, sewage and waste-water treatment plants, construction of playgrounds, etc.) ·A local initiative in Wroclaw targeting Romanian Roma applied a comprehensive approach to work for integration in all domains.	·The social status has not improved and the ethnic stigma has not changed with improvement of the housing conditions. ·Poorly planned housing interventions can generate or reinforce existing interethnic conflicts as well as intra-ethnic tensions and some municipalities use the funds rather to relocate than to integrate Roma families. ·Roma NGOs cannot make use of the Roma Programme’s resources due to the funding design, and they are seldom included in the local project design process.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The Ombudsman and the Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment has intervened to tackle the increasing numbers of hate crimes, including anti-Roma incidents. ·The Ombudsman’s intervention after a racist attack on Romanian Roma families in Gdansk resulted in disciplinary action against police officers for failure to protect the victims. ·In cooperation with Council of Europe anti-discrimination trainings with a focus on Roma have been conducted for police officers. Roma groups report good relations with law enforcement.	·There have been blatant cases of forced evictions of EU-mobile Roma from Romania living in Poland since 1990s.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Polish Parliament, as the first one in Europe, officially declared the 2nd of August a Roma and Sinti Genocide Remembrance Day. This day is being commemorated in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp. ·The Roma Programme makes the fight against the discrimination and racism one of its tasks. ·Relevant public authorities are obliged to collect data on and react in cases of racism against Roma.	·Antigypsyism is not officially recognised by the state, nor does the term antigypsyism appear in Polish laws and regulations. ·There are few initiatives aimed to combat stereotypes and prejudices about Roma and even less to target other manifestations of antigypsyism.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Introduction of obligatory preschool education is expected to improve the educational opportunities of Roma children. ·Reintegration services are provided for Roma children who have returned from migration (e.g. from the U.K.) in day-care centres; aimed at, among others, to improve their skills in the state language.	·The NRIS for 2014-2020 does not address the specific situation of Roma women (it contains only a statement that Roma women’s participation should be ensured in initiatives that affect them). ·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
·Parliamentary Commission for National and Ethnic Minorities deals with problems and issues reported by Roma organisations. ·The Ministry of Interior and Administration is responsible for the issues of national and ethnic minorities, including integration and Roma inclusion. Under its authority, the National Roma Contact Point (NRCP) is located.	·The Roma Programme targets only Polish Roma (as recognised ethnic minority); in consequence, EU-mobile Roma (and Roma from third countries) cannot benefit from its measures.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Since establishment of the Parliamentary Commission for National and Ethnic Minorities in 1989, Roma gained the possibility to express and advocate for their interests by participating in the Commission’s meetings and to directly access MPs. ·Within the Joint Commission of the Government and National and Ethnic Minorities, a Panel for Roma issues was created including representatives of 20 Roma NGOs. ·Over the past ten years, an increase of newly established Roma organizations has been observed; currently, there are over 120 declared Roma or pro-Roma NGOs, covering all regions.	·No Roma candidate has been elected to the Parliament or local councils. ·In last years, only two meetings of the Roma Panel were organised (both in 2016) and it is difficult to assess the work of the Panel and its practical significance for the Roma community. ·In practice, only 50-70% Roma NGOs are operating actively and systematically.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·In each of 16 regions with broad administrative responsibility, there is a Plenipotentiary for National and Ethnic Minorities. They are responsible for coordinating governmental policies for national and ethnic minorities, and coordination and supervision of the Roma Programme’s implementation in the region. ·In some municipalities, assistants to the regional plenipotentiaries were established.	·Since the regional Plenipotentiaries were established, only two people from the Roma Community served at this position. ·Regional plenipotentiaries have failed to connect the Roma Programme’s implementation with wider social inclusion policies or engage in tackling social problems in their territories in cooperation with specialised agencies. ·Implementation of the Roma Programme depends on the political will of local authorities.
Data collection
·Poland has a relatively good socio-economic survey data on Roma. ·Collection of data on national and ethnic minorities is done through cooperation of the Central Statistical Office and national and ethnic minorities – a set of questions (answers are not obligatory) relating to those groups was included in the Censuses in 2002 and 2011. ·Every year data is collected from the Educational Information System, indicating the number of Roma students obtaining additional educational support.	·n/a
Funding for civil society
·An average of 2.5 million EUR annually is allocated for the implementation of the Roma Programme; NGOs actively participate in the programme’s implementation and have access to the dedicated funding. ·The Roma Programme is financed from ‘special reserve’ of the Prime Minister and by that the funding is guaranteed by law. ·Funding from structural funds came as the additional support of the Roma Programme: in the period 2007-2013, it was 20 million EUR. They are to be consistent with the implemented tasks of the Roma Programme for this period.	·The guidelines for fund distribution changed (decentralised to regions), resulting, in the opinion of Roma, in the decrease of the Roma Programme’s importance. ·Roma organisations point out difficulties in securing the implementation of annual and cyclical tasks (activities of day care centres, pre-school education, associations’ activity) especially at the beginning of the year, due to interrupted flow of resources. ·ESF funding is sometimes conditioned by unrealistic targets (e.g. success rates in employment programmes), making it very risky for NGOs.
Example of promising practice
·The governmental “Roma Programmes” that is aimed at implementing the NRIS, can be considered as good practice, as they do not rely on external funding (e.g. ESIF), but are mainly financed from the state budget (with only complementary funding from ESIF). The programmes are aligned with the EU policies concerning Roma inclusion. ·Since 2004 scholarship schemes are operational for Roma students of primary, secondary and higher education. These schemes are financed from the state budget and are the best long-term investment, to date, of the Roma Programmes. ·In area of combating unemployment: projects realized in some municipalities in which employment possibilities were tied with reducing various debts (‘work for debts’).
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Governance of the next Roma Programme should be improved: the personnel responsible for its implementation should be strengthened, programme’s implementation coordinated with all stakeholders including Roma NGOs, role of Roma NGOs reinforced, and more attention given to monitoring the results and impacts of implemented projects (not only spending). ·Future Roma Programme should explicitly address the problem of antigypsyism (with a special attention to racist and discriminatory barriers that prevent young qualified Roma from entering the job market). ·Supporting in larger numbers the emergence of Roma teaching staff capable and qualified to teach in all kinds of schools. ·Expanding scholarship schemes to vocational schools and prioritize transition to employment (e.g. professional internships). ·Strengthening cooperation with scientific community (academia and experts) to assess results of realised projects and reformulate next priorities and to analyse more broadly the directions and results of social change that Roma are undergoing as a result of various state and EU driven initiatives.

PORTUGAL
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	High Commission for Migration
Strategic document	Portugal has a National Roma Communities Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	52.000 (0,50% of 10.309.573)
Available options for data collection	The country does not collect statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity. Although disaggregated statistical data is not collected in Portugal, a National Study on Roma Communities was done in 2014 that allowed to have a national picture on the Roma Communities’ situation. This summary is based on this National study, done by two University Studies Centres, namely by the Centre for Studies on Migration and Intercultural Relations, Portuguese Open University (CEMRI-Uab) and Centre for Research and Sociology Studies, University Institute of Lisbon (CIES-IUL), financed by High Commission for Migration and co-funded by the ESF trough the Technical Support Operational Program.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
In March 2017, as part of the National Roma Communities Integration Strategy´s monitoring process, the High Commission for Migration carried out an in-depth review through the participative process of focus groups with local authorities, National Focal Points, Civil society representatives and representatives of Roma communities, In September 2017, an independent entity, Center for Studies on Social Intervention (CESIS) was hired to prepare a proposal to review the National Strategy. In this process, all of the relevant stakeholders were surveyed, as local authorities, several local public services, roma and non-roma civil society entities, and Roma communities’ representatives. As planned, in 2018, this process had been continued and the Revied National Roma Communities Strategy (2018-2020) was published on 29 November 2018. One of the the aims is to place the relevance of Roma integration higher up the political and public agenda, and to coordinate the different sectors that promote this integration, in particular by highlighting the central role of local policies in integrating vulnerable Roma populations. On the scope of the implementation of the National Roma Communities Integration Strategy in 2017, the Roma Associations Support Programme (PAAC) was launched. This Programme was specially created to support, , Roma Associations. Another achievement to highlight was the adoption and integration of "Opre Chavalé" project, as a public policy, transferring it from the civil society to a wider public program, the OPRE Programme, maintaining the partnership with civil society entities. This programme not only brings individual support to Roma students but also contributes to reduce stereotypes from the so-called “majority’ society” about Roma communities and raise awareness through Roma role-models.
The main challenges
In 2017, the biggest challenge in implementing the National Roma Communities Integration Strategy was related with the re-launch of the Mediation Programme. This programme was launched in April 2018.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The increasing empowerment of Roma associations in recent years has made a significant contribution to the integration of Roma communities. On the other hand, the importance of the engagement of the communities themselves in their own solutions has been evident.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, Portugal reported 19 measures in all thematic areas. Seven of them were mainstream and 12 targeted. All 19 were implemented by a public authority at national level, in close cooperation and consultation, when applicable, with local level. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Portugal also reported two mainstream measures as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, five targeted measures as relevant for empowerment, three targeted as relevant for local action, two targeted as relevant for monitoring and evaluation and one targeted as relevant for the area of culture. 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, six measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. Two measures were mainstream. All six were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
There were some advances regarding the priority 19 - access to pre-school education. For example, 40 of the 91 school clusters that have the highest percentage of Roma children enrolled in pre-school education are part of the Educational Territories for Priority Intervention Programme (TEIP) which is equivalent to 44%, according to data collected by the Directorate- General for Education during 2017/18. From 2015/16 to 2016/17, in 70% of the TEIP school clusters (28 out of 40 with children enrolled in pre-school education) there was a decrease in the risk of early school leaving, and in 10 of them that risk was equal to zero, in the year of 2016/17. Regarding the priority 20 - Increase the school enrolment rates by ensuring that all Roma children complete compulsory schooling, it should be noted that there was positive evolution of the Success Rate (the percentage of students enrolled, excluding those transferred, who concluded or were not retained in the same grade). Concerning the priority 22 - Prevention of Early school leaving, it is important to point out, by comparing the results achieved in 2016/17 with the average results achieved in the previous 3 years, in the universe of the 45 TEIP schools with at least 20 Roma students enrolled in basic education, that the Risk of Early School Leaving Rate decreased by an average of 3.92 percentage points. The Operational Programme for the Promotion of Education (OPRE programme) has been contributing to change the negative image about Roma Communities, namely the alleged lack of interest in study. The OPRE Programme is a public programme, managed by the High Commission for Migration, through the Choices Programme, in partnership with some NGO (Letras Nomadas Association and REDE Association) aiming to mitigate the barriers between the Roma Communities and the formal educational system. The Programme provided 25 university scholarships in the academic year of 2016/2017, and in the year of 2017/2018, 32 young Roma were selected (14 women and 18 men). Another important success was the on-line dissemination by the General-Directorate for Education (DGE) of a pedagogical Kit (Kit “Romano Atmo”) developed by a Roma women association (AMUCIP) to aware children and young people of Roma Communities, as well as their families, to the need of attending the compulsory school and to promote and disseminate Roma culture. The project also aimed to promote information and raise awareness among teachers and the rest of the educational community about the importance of promoting intercultural dialogue through a better knowledge of Roma culture. Finally, it is important to highlight that there are several measures promoted by the Ministry of Education in order to promote school success that are not specifically targeting Roma children or students, but that have an impact in them when they are in risk of early school leaving or academic failure. These measures include the Integrated Programme for Education and Training (PIEF) and the Alternative Curriculum Pathways.
The most important challenge
One of the challenges faced in the Education Pillar, since the beginning of the National Strategy was the difficulty to collect data regarding Roma students. However, in 2017, the General Directorate for Education has obtained authorization to apply a questionnaire to schools. The assessment is based on 8 priorities and a total of 50 goals of the National Strategy. Although it is not possible yet to assess the total impact/progress of some measures of the Strategy in the field of education, There are several measures promoted by the Ministry of Education in order to promote school success, thus facilitating Roma students integration in all education levels, namely: - Integrated Programme for Education and Training (PIEF) - Alternative Curriculum Pathways (PCA) - Educational Territories for Priority Intervention (TEIP) Education Training for Itinerancy Program - School at Distance.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Funding for the thematic area is envisaged but cannot be specified. It is important to underline the fact that in 2017, in order to allow the impact monitoring of developed actions, the established objectives and expected results, the General- Directorate for Education (DGE) asked authorization to the National Data Protection Committee (CNPD) with the main goal of having permission for the compilation of data on Roma children and youth, integrated in the Portuguese education system. With favourable resemble of CNPD, DGE prepared an inquiry corresponding to the school year 2016/2017, that was sent to all education establishments (public and private). The report with the results, entitled School Profile of the Roma Community – 2016/17, is available at the website of the Directorate-General for Statistics of Education and Science. http://www.dgeec.mec.pt/np4/906.html
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment. All measures were mainstream and implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Although obstacles in the access to the labour market persists among Portuguese Roma communities due to their low or lack of professional and school qualifications the country is very much determined to find an integrated approach that contributes to their social inclusion and that safeguards the respect for their cultural tradition. The National Roma Communities Integration Strategy (ENICC) is the example of that integrated approach. As far as the Employment and Training Pillar is concerned we may say that the numbers figures achieved by the end of 2017 are our most important evidence of success, as they reflect the commitment of the Portuguese Public Employment Service to facilitate their access to the labour market. In 2017, a total of 3962 registered jobseekers were signalled under the scope of the ENICC and subject to 11024 technical interventions, as well as to 2583 referrals to employment measures, training actions or vocational guidance.
The most important challenge
The main challenge of the Employment area is, in a context of the legal limitations to collect ethnic data, to find alternative ways to reach Roma beneficiaries in mainstream employment measures in order to assess the impact of the strategy on them. Other challenges include fighting discrimination from employers and fighting Roma’s general low level of qualification and encouraging them to actively participate in training actions, as well as organizing training actions that can match the interest of these communities and that can help them to a quicker integration in the labour market. The assessment is based on the report of the Institute for Employment and Professional Training (IEFP), concerned with National Roma Communities Integration Strategy execution.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for this area.
The most important success
All Primary Health Care carries out activities within the scope of social responses and in close liaison with other entities/ services that intervene in this area, namely groupings of schools and non-grouped schools, municipalities,. All ACES/ULS - Public Health Units of the regional Health Centers - develop projects in different geographic areas, covering different age groups of the community in general, and for different determinants of health, which inherently include people from Roma communities, which makes it difficult to monitor specific actions for this population.
The most important challenge
The main challenge of the Health area is, in a context of the legal limitations to collect ethnic data, to find alternative ways to reach Roma beneficiaries in mainstream health measures in order to assess the impact of the strategy on them. The assessment is based on the national strategy’s 4 main priorities in the thematic pillar of health. Due to legal constraints in collecting ethnic data of the beneficiaries of the Portuguese national health system it is not possible to assess the impact of measures. Although, from the experience from organizations in the field and from the General- Directorate for Health, the majority of Roma Communities have access and are beneficiaries of the national health system.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Funding for this thematic area is not envisaged.
HOUSING
In 2017, no measure was reported as relevant for this area.
The most important success
After the publication of the study “Characterization of housing conditions of Roma communities” that increased the knowledge of the situation of Roma people in 2016, the Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation (IHRU) in 2017 made a national stocktaking of the rehousing needs, which include housing needs of Roma communities. IHRU also reported that in 2017 an intervention over 700 IHRU houses with a direct impact on the Roma Communities was done.
The most important challenge
According to the IHRU in 2017 the main challenge was the mobilization of funding tools to implement the strategy objectives in the housing pillar.. The assessment is based on 4 Priorities and a total of 10 goals. This pillar is implemented by IHRU (Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation).
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Funding for the thematic area is envisaged but cannot be specified. In October 2017, under the Secretary State for Housing, the Programme “New generation of housing policies” was presented. This initiative was in public consultation until December 2017 and calls for the guarantee of adequate housing for all those that due to situations of lack of resources and vulnerability are excluded from access to it. On May 2nd (2018) the “New generation of housing policies” was officially publish. These new policies include a Programme called “1rst right”, under which it will be possible to rehouse the families included in the national rehousing needs stocktaking that took place in 2017. According to the publish budget between 2018 and 2024, the government expects to spend 700 million euros on this rehousing effort.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. Two measures were mainstream. All five were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The large number of projects funded by the Choices Programme, in all national territory, that addresses Roma children and young people in 2017, represented a great development and success factor for the implementation of the Strategy in this area. 88 Projects were reported to be addressing activities to Roma children and young people in the current generation of the Programme, for an estimated 5300 beneficiaries. An additional achievement in this area was the publication of Law n. 93/2017 on 23 August which is described in more detail under the legislative measures area.
The most important challenge
The dissemination of information about the new law is a continuous challenge because it is very important that there is an awareness of the issue and that potential victims have knowledge about the law and their rights. In this sense, several training actions were carried out in 2017, and its reinforcement is foreseen in 2018. The assessment is based on the Choices Programme report.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Funding for the thematic area is envisaged but cannot be specified.
SUMMARY ON ADDITIONAL AREAS
Under the Dimension of Education for Citizenship of the Crosscutting Pillar, should be highlighted the the 5th priority – which aims to "encourage the participation of Roma communities as a citizenship exercise". In the framework of this Priority, in 2017, the Training Program "More Leaders - Young People" was completed. This initiative, which began in 2016, aimed to encourage the active participation of the young Roma in the civic and associative fields, using participatory methodologies in meetings, trainings, awareness-raising sessions and the development of projects. This programme, promoted by the High Commission for Migration (ACM), aimed to empower 18 Roma youngsters (6 women and 12 men), between the ages of 18 and 35 years old.
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
Date of entry into force: Friday, 1 September, 2017 Law n. 93/2017 was published on 23 August 2017 establishing the legal framework for the prevention, prohibition and combat of discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin, colour, nationality, descent and place of origin. The Law was approved on 7 July by the Portuguese Parliament and enacted by the President of the Republic on August 3rd and alters the legal framework on the combat and prevention of racial discrimination. In practice, the diploma centralizes all the different phases of the administrative offences processes in the same entity, in order to optimize the services and make the application of the Law more timely and effective. As a result of this new legal diploma, the High Commission for Migration through the Commission for Equality and Against Racial Discrimination (CICDR) is responsible for all phases of the administrative offences procedure within their areas of competence, reception and analysis of complaints, instruction and decision, as well as the coordination of actions in the prevention, inspection and combat of discriminatory practices. CICDR’s composition is increased and extended to 32 Advisers, including a representative of the Roma communities and a representative from each parliamentary group of the Portuguese Parliament.
Governance and cooperation
Regarding governance, Portugal followed a comprehensive approach with all the public stakeholders, promoting a permanent and close consultation and monitoring with the National Focal Points. Specific comments on human resources of NRCP: Within the ACM, the integration of the Roma Communities is in charge through the Support Unit for Roma Communities (NACI). In 2017, the NACI team was composed by 4 members (). One of NACI elements team is a young Roma. The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. CONCIG- Consultative Group for the Integration of Roma Communities was the 1st priority of Portuguese NRIS and was created because Portuguese government recognize the importance of a consulting group, not only for monitor the implementation of NRIS but also for assessing the socioeconomic situation of Roma communities. The CONCIG, works within ACM and includes several members (the High Commissioner for Migration acts as chairman and coordinator). On other hand the High Commission for Migration is in charge for the implementation of several measures of NRIS. The High Commission for Migration, as the national coordinator of the National Roma Communities Integration Strategy has the responsibility to manage and coordinate the network of the National Focal Points of the Strategy. These focal points correspond to those authorities and organisations for the implementation of each one of the Pillars and Priorities of National Strategy. The High Commission works together with the focal points in order to ensure the commitment and to give specific orientations to the focal points in their thematic areas considered in the implementation of the Strategy and, at the same time, collect from them, through a reporting and monitoring process, all the implementation indicators that feed the monitoring process of the measures/goals progress. This two-side process ensures the coherence of the coordination and monitoring process of the Strategy”. The NRCP is being consulted and participating in decision making processes regarding DEVELOPMENT of relevant policies. ACM is in charge of some relevant policies concerning with Roma integration, as it possible to see, on chapter "measures". The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. The NRCP is being consulted and participating in decision making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. ACM develop and implements policies. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. Roma civil society, namely, Roma Associations which are the direct beneficiaries of PAAC (Roma Associations Support Programme); CONCIG has representatives of Roma Associations; FAPE is a fund to support activities of civil society (with Roma participation) in execution of the NRIS; The National Focal Points of the Strategy are: - High Commission for Migration (and also National coordinator) - Social Security Institute - Institute for Employment and Professional Training - General Directorate for Education; - General Directorate for Education and Science Statistics - Commission for Gender Equality – Santa Casa de Misericórdia - Public Security Police - National Republican Guard - General Directorate for Reintegration and Prision Services - Housing and Urban Renewal Institute - General Directorate for Health The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are: ·The High Commissioner for Migration, ·Two representatives of the Government member responsible for internal administration; ·A representative designated by the Government member responsible for the economy and employment sector; ·A representative designated by the government member responsible for the housing sector; ·A representative designated by the government member responsible for the health sector ·A representative designated by the government member responsible for the education sector ·A representative designated by the government member responsible for the solidarity and social security sector ·A representative designated by the regional government of the Azores ·A representative designated by the regional government of Madeira ·A representative designated by the national association of Portuguese municipalities ·A representative designated by the national association of Portuguese civil parishes ·Two representatives of institutions working with Roma communities, to be designated by the High Commissioner for Migration ·Four representatives of Roma communities associations, to be designated by the High Commissioner for Migration ·Two citizens of recognised merit, to be designated by the High Commissioner for Migration ·Two representatives of academic or research institutions with relevant work on Roma communities, to be designated by the High Commissioner for Migration. There is a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. ACM is the equality body and NRCP. No baseline against which to assess progress for the implementation of your NRIS or set of policy measures exists. There are measurable targets, https://www.acm.gov.pt/documents/10181/52642/ENICC_en.pdf/bc4d6288-1626-4fcd-baa0-9feb8da7860d

PORTUGAL
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Roma children’s (pre)school attendance increased as consequence of linking it to social benefits. ·Alternative education programmes have been created with the aim of reducing social and educational inequalities. Moreover, the government recently launched Roma-targeted programmes (see example of promising practice below) to combat inequalities in education, which are coordinated and funded by the National Roma Contact Point. ·The NRIS was revised in 2018 and a priority has been given to Roma schooling and professional integration.	·Educational segregation if often consequence of the residential one. It has several forms, ranging from clear and evident segregation to more covert forms such as measures to remedy situations of disadvantages that ended up in Roma only classes. ·Some alternative education programmes did not bring the expected improvement of school success, but rather lead to the educational segregation of Roma. ·‘White flight’ of non-Roma children from mixed schools is consequence of negative representations Roma communities, unaddressed problems in interethnic relations and poverty among Roma.
Employment
·The main public employment services’ measure available to Roma is public works. ·A wider range of ESF-funded measures targeting Roma will be available in 2019. ·New measure aimed at improving employment among Roma are planned, they will include awareness raising among the public and employers to fight stereotypes about Roma, diversity trainings in public services, but also aimed at increase of professional qualification of Roma and job creation.	·Public works are not tailored to individual needs and rarely lead to employment in primary labour market. ·Measures aimed at increasing employment should be better coordinated among themselves (e.g. training and accompaniment) and their outreach to Roma strengthened. ·Effectiveness of employment measures, specifically among Roma, should be monitored and evaluated. ·Discrimination against Roma is an important barrier in their integration at the labour market.
Healthcare
·Access to and use of primary health care among Roma is mostly adequate. ·NRIC include interventions (developed based on data and studies) aimed at fighting the health inequalities existing in Roma communities, including adapted information materials and awareness-raising actions on teenage motherhood, paediatric follow-up, and healthy eating habits. ·Some hospitals and health centres employ intercultural mediators to ease communication between health professionals and Roma communities and raise Roma’s awareness.	·Further promotion of intercultural mediation in the field of health care and training of healthcare professionals can strengthen the trust and cooperation between the healthcare system and Roma.
Housing
·National Housing Strategy (2015-2031) was adopted to promote equality in access to social housing, including covering resettlement needs of immigrant communities and ethnic minorities and to provide social housing by using the renovating of abandoned buildings. ·A key role in development of housing and implementation of the social housing is given to municipalities and horizontal cooperation. ·Some centrally funded local projects applied progressive and integrative methods.	·Roma communities continue to live without the minimum conditions of habitability, health and hygiene. ·No results achieved so far within the National Housing Strategy. ·Segregation practices prevail, even in the most recent relocation processes building on new construction.

HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Attempts to set up segregated classes were halted by joint action from parents and municipal mediators. ·In 2017, new grounds of discrimination based on ancestry and origin, multiple discrimination, and discrimination by association were included in the legislation. ·	·Currently, there is only limited information available on the enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation. ·The state should ensure that alternative education programs do not lead to greater ethnic segregation, and take steps to ensure that elementary schools in poor neighbourhoods do not turn into segregated Roma only ghetto schools. ·Roma families are being moved to prefabs on the outskirts of towns, far away from most public services. In 2016, Roma only neighbourhoods were built in Albufeira and in Campomaior.
Fighting antigypsyism
·NRIS recognises Roma as ethnic minority and prioritises “promotion of the fight against discrimination and raising awareness”, thus some of the manifestations of antigypsyism. ·State has been working with NGOs on breaking stereotypes and preventing hate-speech and discrimination.	·The civil society is asking for more education for relevant officials in partnerships with Roma NGOs, in addition to supporting the promotion of intercultural mediation and Romani movement at the national level.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Social Insertion Programme had a positive impact on children’s attendance in preschool/school (both in the cases of mainstream society and Roma families) given that the social insertion contract includes conditional cash benefit. ·The revised version of the NRIS, adopted in November 2018, provides for the commitment towards gender equality as a “priority area” for interventions. ·Roma Associative Movement Support Programme, established in 2017, aimed at increasing the involvement of the Roma civil society into the implementation of, among others, Roma women’s empowerment initiatives within the framework of the NRIS.	·In the field of healthcare, cultural issues of traditional Roma communities related to gender should be systematically considered. ·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 is coordinated by the High Commission for Migration (ACM), through its Support Office for Roma Communities (GACI). ·The NRIS established a Consulting Group for Roma Communities Integration (CONCIG) that involves representatives of seven key ministries as well as representatives of local governments municipalities, NGOs, Roma associations, research institutes and experts. ·Operational Programme for Social Inclusion and Employment (POISE) focuses on the less privileged and supports interventions targeting socially vulnerable Roma communities.	·In CONCIG, Roma are under-represented and decisions are taken by a simple majority vote. ·Roma inclusion policy coordination is not yet consolidated because there is a lack of information and knowledge about the strategic guidelines and commitments undertaken by the ministries among the professionals in the areas of intervention.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Self-empowerment initiatives in Roma communities are increasing (but they are still only a few).	·Roma organisations still have weak structures; their development should be supported.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Roma inclusion activities vary depending on the level of sensitivity and commitment across the local authorities. There are municipalities committed to the inclusion of Roma communities that support active participation groups of Roma citizens (mainly promoted by the ROMED programme). ·Social Network Programme encourage local government and other institutions to plan and develop social inclusion. This programme supports NRIS implementation on the local level and information sharing.	·Portugal is facing a deceleration on inclusion processes in some municipalities due to the socioeconomic context and economic crisis experienced in recent years. ·In some municipalities the intervention is developed with collaboration of Roma citizens themselves, but in others the measures are developed without the active participation of the Roma communities. ·Despite existence of NRIS, there is also a need for local strategies to consider the local needs and monitor local progress.
Data collection
·A “Roma Communities Observatory” aimed at producing studies and publications about Roma communities was established.	·Data on impact of measures in different policy fields on Roma and their inclusion are missing; this concerns in particular the mainstream measures.
Funding for civil society
·Authorities in Portugal created the NRIS Support Fund (FAPE) whose goal is to fund experimental, innovative projects (fight against discrimination, promoting public awareness, training in active community participation and citizenship of Roma communities, and training about Roma history and culture). ·Roma Associative Movement Support Programme (PAAC) is aimed at reinforcing Roma civil society involvement in the implementation of NRIS by funding projects.	·Roma communities do not have much experience with associations and lack financial resources to develop the initiatives.
Example of promising practice
There are important programmes to fight the inequalities in education: the Opre and Choices. The Choices programme is a nationwide government programme, created in 2001, promoted by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and under the ACM, whose mission is to promote the social inclusion of children and young people from vulnerable socio-economic contexts, aiming at equal opportunities and strengthening social cohesion. This project also includes Roma children; note that 80 of the 112 projects developed in the 6th generation of this programme have Roma communities as target audiences, supporting inclusion and school success. The Opre programme is an initiative aimed at young higher education students from Roma communities with the aim of fighting early dropout by allocating 30 university scholarships and a set of training, mentoring and monitoring measures for these young scholarship holders and their families. It is funded by ACM (under the Choices programme). Developed in partnership with the Choices programme, Associação Letras Nómadas and the Portuguese Youth Network for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Municipalities and their association should assume a key role in NRIS implementation by engaging in local needs assessment, planning and implementation; they can more extensively use existing platforms, such as the Social Networks Programme (a special programme to support social inclusion at the local level) or other local existing platforms. ·Local action plans (for which municipalities are responsible) should focus on elimination of informal and substandard housing (such as tents or informal settlements by providing access to decent housing integrated into urban agglomerations to the greatest extent possible, avoiding ghettos and exclusion. ·The current administrative offence law and penalties are not enough to prevent the discrimination experienced by Roma citizens based on hate speech and intolerance built up against them. It is necessary to invest in proceedings that are timelier and use dissuasive sanctions. ·Ministries should focus on the training and qualification of their professionals and other key players in fighting discrimination in partnership with civil society organisations (Roma associations and other associations working directly in this field). ·Priority should be given to creation of jobs for Roma, promotion of equal opportunities and participation in professional life, including promotion of entrepreneurship and training that enables business and self-employment opportunities.

ROMANIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of European Funds
Strategic document	Romania has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	1.850.000 (9,42% of 19.638.309)
Available options for data collection	Data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected Reports transmitted by central institutions with attributions in implementing the National Strategy for the inclusion of Romanian citizens belonging to Roma ethnicity are used for collecting information disaggregated by ethnicity.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
In 2017, The National Agency for Employment (ANOFM) has managed to secure employment for 4088 roma and to provide vocational training for 438 roma, National Education Ministry, succeeded to elaborate school curriculum of romani language and literature for the 5th and 8th grades and the school curriculum for roma history and traditions for the 6th and 7th grades, there were organised 5 national competitions (romani language, literary creation in romani language, roma history and traditions, ethnic and cultural diversity, interculturality), at which 682 roma pupils participated. In 2017 (for the university year 2017/2018), there were allocated 650 funded places for roma youth enlisted for the Bachelor Degree (more than 1% of the total number of students) and 325 distinct places for the Master Degree. As a novelty, 60 places for Doctoral studies were allocated for roma people. As an achievement, we mention a significant increase in number of civil status certificates and number of identity documents issued to Roma citizens during the last year. In 2017, Ministry of Internal Affairs allocated 79 places for Romanian citizens belonging to Roma minority, 50 of them being occupied. Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration has a "Pilot Program - Social Houses for Roma Communities", approved by G.D. no. 1237/2008, which aims to implement pilot projects for the construction of no more than 300 housing.
The main challenges
·Getting the roma to register with the agencies for employment; ·Involving local communities in supporting children at risk; ·Establishing partnerships with governmental and intergovernmental institutions; ·Involvement of non-governmental organizations in implementing the measures of the National Roma Integration Strategy; ·Consulting the Roma community in prioritizing the implementation of measures in the National Roma Integration Strategy.Services for our projects are through public procurement applicable for social/cultural services. The main challenges were related to public procurement.Services for our projects are through public procurement applicable for social/cultural services. There is a rather low interest of the persons concerned for claiming the ID documents or civil status registration papers.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The low level of education of the unemployed roma usually prevents them from accessing information in regard to the procedure for securing employment. Develop a chart for implementing National Roma Integration Strategy measures; Support provided by non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations; Budgeting the measures in the Strategy; Support provided to school inspectorates and schools for local and county implementation of Stategy measures. Service providers failed to fulfill legal conditions or were not interested in applying for public procurement; The Ordinance implementing rules are provided and they are in interministerial approval. The law aims to regulate the community healthcare in villages, towns, municipalities, Bucharest districts and the establishment, organization and functioning of integrated community centers, in order to facilitate and to improve access of the population, especially vulnerable groups, to healthcare services integrated with social and educational services. Community healthcare services, provided by community nurses and health mediators will be integrated with education and social services, according to the needs of the community and its particular profile (demographics, morbidity, socio-economic indicators etc.). The cooperation pattern of integrated teams will be defined and regulated in implementing norms for the Community Care Law. A standardized tool for data collection, analysis, planning, monitoring and evaluation of community healthcare services will be developed. It is currently implemented in 5 counties. The data collection tool is designed to integrate and share data in order to allow real-time interventions carried out by personnel from community healthcare and social services.To improve access of the population to healthcare services the best way for increasing the efficiency of interventions is represented by the organization of integrated community centers for an integrated approach to health, education and social issues. There is need to obtain support provided by non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations; completing and reviewing the actual NRIS, identifying solutions to hold local authorities accountable for implementing the Strategy,developing the capacity of local and county authorities in attracting resources, strategic planning and operational plans , information campaigns, anti-discrimination sessions for civil servants in local and central public administration, developing data collection tools and developing a unitary format / framework of reporting for the County Offices for Roma in order to develop community care services.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 40 measures were implemented in Romania, 19 mainstream and 21 targeted. 38 were implemented by a national public authority, one by a local public authority and one by a different type of entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Romania also reported one mainstream measure as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, one mainstream measure as relevant for empowerment, one as relevant for monitoring and evaluation and two measures in areas not stated explixitly in the Council Recommendation. In line with the integrated approach of 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, 19 measures were reported as relevant for the area of education, five mainstream and 14 targeted. All 19 were implemented by a public authority at national level. All five mainstream measures reported having safeguards to secure equal access of various vulnerable people (including vulnerable Roma) to mainstream measures and prevent indirect discrimination.
The most important success
The training of 80 school mediators and the employment of 45 mediators in educational institutions with a minimum of 15% Roma pupils.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was the elaboration of a methodology for monitoring school segregation. According to art. 23 of the Order prohibiting school segregation no. 6134 / 21.12.2016, the provisions of this order takes effects at the moment of adopting the methodology for monitoring school segregation. Between May and June 2017, the working group for elaboration of Methodology for monitoring school segregation met on the criteria stipulated in OMENCS no.6134 / 2016. In these meetings, the working subgroups for setting indicators and of operational plan were established the criterias mentioned in Order 6134/2016, Art. 1, paragraph 2: •Criterion 1 - Ethnic or Mother Language Origin (Roma Federation, Romani Criss, Together Agency, CADO) •Criterion 2 - Disability and/or Special Educational Requirements (Reninco Association, Coalition for Education, WVR) •Criterion 3 - Socio-Economic Status of Families and the Residential Environment (WVR, ARACIP, ISE) •Criterion 4 - school performance of primary education beneficiaries (WVR, ARACIP, ISE + UNICEF + Pupils Council - specific to school performance The Segregation Monitoring Methodology is in work and will be completed by September 2018.
The assessment is based on ·data presented in the report on the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategy for year 2017 ·Ministrz of National Education and national statistics; ·Feed-back offered by the beneficiaries of the measures; ·Feed-back provided by MNE partners in the measures implemented.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, 13 measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment, 12 mainstream and one targeted. All 13 were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The job matching activity has produced the most considerable results in the past years.
The most important challenge
Getting the Roma to register with the agencies for employment.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, two measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare, one mainstream and one targeted. Both were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The Ministry of Health has decided to continue funding health mediator posts, continue to support the "Mother and Child" national health programs, re-assessing the requirements for the presentation of the diploma for health mediators on the suspension of training courses and increasing need of communities to access services health, as well as analyzing the amount of work done for comparison with dedicated field visits. The Ministry decided the re-establishment of the inter-ministerial commission for Roma (NRA, NRCP, community nurses, health mediators, County offices for Roma) for implementing special health projects (mobile clinical services) to provide free advice to people in vulnerable communities.
The most important challenge
·Confronting confusing and inequitable legislative provisions regarding the occupation of health mediators and the right to vocational training ·Lack of effective communication between cityhall and prefect institution regarding inclusion measures (eg forced evictions, inhabitation in improper environments) ·Staff shortage/disproportionate staff in community integrated teams (lack of mediators or community health assistants)
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HOUSING
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing. All three were targeted, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Building 300 housing units for roma people.
The most important challenge
Improving living conditions
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Governance and cooperation
The National Contact Point for Roma was included in the European Funds Ministry frame agreement for Event Organizing Services, for a period of 3 years, according to the participation notice no. 169775/14.09.2016. The evaluation procedure ended in February 2017 and states that for Lot no. 3, the National Contact Point for Roma is the beneficiary of the 4207605,00 lei (approx. 1 mil. Euro)+ VAT allocated to Event Organizing Services. The activities aim to: share monitoring instruments used in proper implementation of the National Strategy for Roma inclusion, regular meetings of the Interministerial Committee, conference, workshop meetings, campaigns for combating racism and discrimination. The agreement was signed on 28 February 2017 and is valid for a period of 36 months. Human resources of NRCP Presently, the National Contact Point for Roma is a compartment inside General Direction of Programming and System Coordination, with 2 employees. The NRCP is contributing to the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. The NRCP supports the Interministerial Committee in evaluating the implementation and monitoring process of the National Strategy for Roma, makes recommendations regarding the need of revising and updating the Strategy and supports the technical secretariat for the Interministerial Committee. Is the beneficiary of the event organizing services (4207605,00 lei) for a 36 months period. The events are to improve the process of disseminating monitoring instruments, info and strengthen networks dealing with Roma issues. The NRCP is being consulted and participating in decision making processes regarding development of relevant policies. Involvement of NRCP in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies -Supports the Interministerial Committee in evaluating the implementation and monitoring process of the National Strategy for Roma. -Makes recommendations regarding the need of revising and updating the Strategy according to real needs of Roma communities. -Collaborates with the interministerial committee in order to achieve clear, real data regarding reporting of indicators assumed in the National Strategy for Roma. -Is consulted by the institutions implementing the Strategy and offers point of views when requested. -Offers feedback when requested, by the Council of Europe, for Roma issues and other European institutions (FRA, DG Justice and Consummers), national institutions (Ministry of External Affairs), embassies a.s.o. The NRCP is being consulted in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. The NRCP is being consulted and participating in decision making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. NRCP is monitoring either national Roma integration strategies and also integrated sets of policy measures within broader social inclusion policies. NRCP has been working actively to use bottom-up approaches such as Community-led Local Development (CLLD) as a tool to engage Roma people more actively in shaping the future of their rural areas. Provide Roma with skills development and training so they can effectively engage in local development strategies and projects. Stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS: -The National Agency for Roma, -The National Contact Point for Roma, -The Interministerial Committee, -The General Secretariat of the Government There is a regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP through regular meetings of the Interministerial Committee (every 3, 4 months) and bilateral meetings with the National Agency for Roma weekly. There is a baseline against which we assess progress for the implementation of our NRIS or set of policy measures: by results predicted by the institutions with role in implementing the strategy, recommendations for revising the National Strategy requested from the institutions and measures and indicators prioritized by the institutions for 2018. The measurable targets are: - results predicted by the institutions with role in implementing the strategy - recommendations for revising the National Strategy requested from the institutions - measures and indicators prioritized by the institutions for 2018

ROMANIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·From a policy development standpoint there is progress in areas of right to education in mother tongue, assistance in Roma language and the inclusion of history of national minorities in the national curriculum. ·The government utilises ESIF for support in addressing the shortage of kindergartens and teachers. ·There are 3 targeted programmes to reduce the dropout rate for Roma youth, including afterschool education, financial incentives and second chance education. ·The state has initiated the placement of Roma mediators in schools with higher proportion of Roma students. ·Several measures to improve Roma inclusion in secondary education have been adopted, including extension of the compulsory schooling to 10 years or allocation of places for Roma students in upper secondary education (affirmative action). ·In 2017 Ministry of Education provided grants to 271 upper secondary schools to implement remedial/tutoring classes, career counselling, and school infrastructure. ·The Ministry of Education established a National Commission for Desegregation and Educational Inclusion, including two representatives of Roma NGOs and several respected experts.	·NRIS has no provisions regarding concrete measure for providing access to Roma to either vocational or upper secondary and higher education. NRIS’s focus is not on easing the access to education, but rather on providing access to the labour market, through professional orientation sessions and short-term training courses, which remain ineffective. ·Lack of compulsory preschool education has negative impact on Roma. Only 37% of Roma children are enrolled in preschool education, compared to 77% among majority, mainly due to financial reasons and availability of facilities. ·Despite existing programmes, Roma students still face poorer learning outcomes and high drop-out risk. ·Segregation and discrimination continue to be widespread in education. In 2016, the Ministry of Education issued a document banning segregation, but implementation of planned actions to end it has been delayed and are currently not operational. ·Teachers lack the ability and incentive to gain knowledge and skills in teaching disadvantaged or vulnerable students, as well as in topics of intercultural and/or inclusive education. ·There are budgetary challenges to employ the necessary number of mediators in all needy schools.
Employment
·Public employment services implement some Roma specific measures (Job Fair and regional programmes in some localities with a high share of Roma). ·Public employment services have specific outreach measure for NEETs. ·There are some successful ESF funded inclusion programmes by NGOs. ·Anti-discrimination regulation, monitoring and enforcement are relatively strong. ·Official anti-discrimination discourse and NGOs’ campaigns raised awareness about discrimination in employment among potential victims.	·Mainstream public employment services are not tailored to jobseekers with specific needs such as Roma (lacking basic skills). Access to services is limited especially in rural areas, where many Roma live. ·There is a need to increase public employment services’ capacity and widen range of measures especially training in basic skills and links to social services, such as day-care. ·There is a need to involve local authorities in integrated community development programmes for tackling the specific problems of segregated communities. ·Special attention should be given to development and implementation of measures aimed at stimulation employment in rural areas. ·There are no government programmes to directly address employer discrimination. Introducing affirmative action in public sector employment aimed at Roma citizens would help increasing Roma’s employment and promote multicultural environment.
Healthcare
·Coverage of the Roma population by family doctors appears to be relatively good (81%). ·NRIS include relevant and ambitious objectives and measures concerning the improvement of Roma’s access to healthcare, including introduction of community healthcare, affirmative action in admission of Roma to medical post-secondary and tertiary education and support for their employment after graduation, or prevention programmes and training on antidiscrimination among medical professionals. ·The government adopted an ordinance on community health care with the inclusion of adequate mechanisms for funding, monitoring and qualitative assessment. ·Some 430 healthcare mediators work in Roma communities across the country. Municipalities demand for a higher number of mediators, as they have shown to be effective instrument. ·Government has conducted 650 health-related local information, education and awareness raising campaigns in Roma communities.	·Most of the NRIS’s plans in the area of healthcare are actually not implemented. ·It is necessary to improve health insurance coverage among Roma, as the share of uninsured persons entitled only to emergency care, among them is extremely high (46%). ·Health situation of Roma is worse than average due to socio-economic conditions, lifestyle, poverty and even cultural factors. Cardiac conditions, hypertension, tuberculosis and HIV are of especial concern, as are maternal and neonatal death and cervical cancer among women. Screening rates are also very low among the Roma. ·Authorities in cooperation with NGOs should carry out health assessments of vulnerable Roma populations at local and national level. Screening and prophylactic programmes, community health campaigns and introducing health education in schools would reduce the risks associated with illnesses through community medical teams. ·The government should complete the implementation of the ordinance on community healthcare.
Housing
·Several mainstream programmes aim at easing the financial burden of poor families and address affordability issues of housing costs, including heating aid and minimum inclusion income (MGI). ·National level policies to combat segregation concern a fraction of ESIF: only one call excluded projects which create segregated facilities (especially housing and schools).	·There are no effective large-scale policies designed to solve the poor housing conditions of vulnerable people. Geographically segregated Roma communities lack access to public utilities, clean water and sanitation. ·The impact of governmental social housing initiatives is marginal compared to the scale of the challenges (over 60,000 Roma families live in informal housing, on the outskirts of villages and towns) and allocation rules are unclear and ineffective (entire population is eligible, the most marginalised have less access). ·Social housing programme launched in 2008 envisaging construction of 300 dwellings has not been finalised yet. ·There is little evidence on the actual poverty reduction impact of housing allowances. According to surveys, only 25% of the Roma families received MGI, and 44% of the Roma received heating aid. Also, other programmes in place are difficult to access for vulnerable groups, among them Roma. ·Spatial segregation and discrimination in housing remain challenges: more than half of the Roma live in spatially segregated communities. ·Discrimination when accessing social housing is still present and there are very few initiatives to fight it. Forced evictions affecting vulnerable mostly Roma communities are still an issue in several parts of the country.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Racial Equality Directive was incorporated into national legislation in 2000. The law includes ethnicity within discrimination criteria, allows for affirmative measures, and defines the concept of multiple discrimination. ·Romania has introduced affirmative action in education, reserving certain number of places for Roma students in secondary education and at universities; affirmative action is used as well in programmes of Roma health mediators and community nurses, employment in communities with high numbers of Roma, and social housing for Roma communities. ·In 2016 a new order prohibiting school segregation was issued. ·The National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) was established as the main national body responsible for promoting equal treatment and non-discrimination.	·The NCCD does not have any specific program, dedicated personnel or resources to prevent anti-Roma discrimination. There have been very few Roma related complaints and in the even smaller number of successful cases established by the NCCD, the fines, generally set at the minimum are not dissuasive. ·School segregation persists despite being prohibited by ministerial order in 2007. The absence of dissuasive sanctions and a lack of official data hampered progress. ·In many cases the authorities fail to observe the law that prohibits evictions in winter. They also fail to provide suitable alternative accommodation for evicted families, offering only temporary housing in social centres, which involves separation of children from their parents and adult men and women from each other. ·There are concerns with the stop-and-search tactics of police against Roma people, the disproportionate imposition of fines for minor infractions and the excessive use of force.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Despite a Senate resolution from 2017, explicitly condemning the antigypsyism and the need for combating it, the antigypsyism is not recognised among the main actors in Romania. In addition, even the NRIS focuses only on improving Roma socioeconomic status, virtually overlooking manifestation of antigypsyism. ·Romania has amended its Criminal Code to prohibit deeds of a fascist, racist or xenophobic nature. ·Hate speech regulations are part of the Romanian legislation. Article 369 of the Criminal Code, incitement to hatred or discrimination, is the most relevant in this regard. ·Starting with the 2017-2018 school year the Ministry of Education approved the compulsory study of Roma slavery and the Holocaust of the Roma and of the Jewish within the history curriculum for the 8th grade. ·A good tendency is that the horizontal issues such as equal opportunity and antidiscrimination are to be approached in all public funding projects, especially the EU structural funding areas where the guidelines ask for details on such issues.	·NRIS should change its focus from Roma as a social group to also cover the relationship between Roma and non-Roma by addressing all the manifestations of antigypsyism which is particularly important at times of potential radicalisation of the extreme right. ·ODIHR observed that Romania’s law enforcement agencies did not record information about the bias motivations of these hate crimes. ·Roma remain the favourite target of hate speech in Romania (along with the LGBT minority); the violence of the messages has increased. The term ‘crime’ is frequently associated with ‘Roma ethnicity’ and sometimes public officials refer to ‘natural rate’ of delinquency among Roma. ·There is still a lot to uncover about the 500 years of slavery of Roma in Romania.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The Youth Guarantee employment programme, in accordance with the NRIS, targets Roma NEETs as well. ·Dual training in cooperation with private companies seems to offer promising perspectives regarding the educational and labour market inclusion of vulnerable youth. ·Cooperation between the authorities and UNICEF Romania promotes a complex approach to ensure that each child has access to basic quality services in health, education and child protection.	·There are no evidence-based initiatives aimed at addressing the labour market disadvantages of Roma women. ·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT issues. ·National-level data collection on children's rights issues, including the phenomenon of early/child marriages, would be needed to improve the life opportunities of Roma children.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Both the NRCP and the National Agency for the Roma (NAR) have high level policy coordination role. ·NAR supports the implementation of Roma integration strategies and through its regional structures, facilitates cooperation with the County Offices for Roma, with local public authorities, and with decentralised public services. ·NAR receives updates twice a year from County Offices for Roma about the NRIS implementation at county level, based on which they should produce reports on the status of NRIS implementation at national level. ·In response to a slow progress in Roma inclusion and ESIF spending, the central government selected several measures from the NRIS and identified financial resources for their implementation; some of those measures will be financed through non-competitive project funding.	·While the NAR is responsible for the implementation of the NRIS and while updates on the implementation are submitted twice a year by the County Offices for Roma, published information on the assessment of the implementation of NRIS is not made available. The last available reports being from 2012-2014 period. ·Even though the NAR organised regular consultations with actors interested in the Roma social inclusion, it is not considered as an effective consultation platform.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Roma contribute to Working Groups within ministries and the Romanian Presidency, mostly about education. ·The Advisory Council of the NAR, consisting of several Roma and pro-Roma NGOs active at national level, was re-activated in 2017. ·The Roma Culture National Centre at the NAR decided to form a Consultative Council with seven Roma representatives to meet at least twice a year to give the Roma Culture National Centre input.	·Many pro-Roma and Roma NGOs have emerged since 2000 to meet the need of social inclusion work not being done by the state (602 formal organisations). Roma participate as civil society members in the Non-discrimination Coalition, the NGO Structural Funds Coalition; the Roma Democratic Federation; and the Roma Sounding Board – World Bank Romania. ·However, civic groups aiming to influence public decisions for the benefit of their communities have no way to lawfully register and are not offered any support by the state authorities. Such informal groups face political pressure from local public institutions, are not considered relevant actors to be consulted, and are left out of the loop about decisions made by public authorities.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·The local experts for Roma serve as mediators between the Roma community and the local public authority. ·In the public institutions, a significant number of staffs are taking specific roles in Roma inclusion, in positions such as county offices for Roma inspectors, local experts on Roma issues at the municipal level, health mediators, school mediators, community nurses, school inspectors for Roma education, Romani language teachers, etc.	·Alongside with the NRIS, regions and municipalities develop their Roma inclusion plans, which are however not well-connected with each other and there is little information about achieved results in their implementation.
Data collection
·Some data about the Roma communities is available. Data is collected at the local level by County Offices, during their monitoring activities, which is then centralised at the county level. ·In 2014-2017, public authorities conducted a country-wide sociographic mapping of Roma communities “ SocioRoMap ”.	·Data on social inclusion indicators regarding the Roma in Romania are sparse and sporadically produced; therefore, it is hard to use them for Roma inclusion policy-making. ·Data provided by regional authorities is not verified at national level, and generally, qualitative data is not collected. ·The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms on the implementation of the NRIS are not uniform across the country. ·In 2016, the government published data on ethnic origin of prison inmates, what was condemned by NGOs and condemned as discrimination by the National Equality Body.
Funding for civil society
·NAR runs an annual programme for Roma social inclusion funded from the state budget that can support Roma civil society (eight projects in 2017). ·ESIF calls in 2016 covered creating Local Development Strategies and Local Action Groups as well as promoting inclusive education. Civil society organisations are eligible for these as main applicants and as partners, and the programme requires no financial contribution from NGOs. ·Following critiques by feminist NGOs, the government included the gender-based violence among priorities for funding from Norway grants.	·Government’s support for empowerment initiatives by NGOs is very low, and the civil society development depends on private donors or public international donors and EU-funding (through provision of services).
Example of promising practice
In 2016, the Ministry of National Education issued a Framework Order on prohibition of school segregation and the improvement of quality in pre-university education. Apart from the already existing ethnic criterion, the order stipulates criteria of disability or special educational requirements, family's socio-economic status, residence environment and school performances of the primary beneficiaries of education. This ministry order gives a new perspective on the issue, establishing National Commission for Desegregation and Educational Inclusion and special commission in schools to eliminate violence, acts of corruption and discrimination within the school environment and to promote multiculturalism for preventing and eliminating all forms of school segregation. Taking into consideration the high percentage of segregation in Romanian schools, the initiative is a step forward towards developing inclusive schools with high quality of education. The National Commission is operational now and adopted in February 2019 a set of rules for its functioning. Two of the members (17) of the Commission are well-known Roma NGOs activists, while other members are respected professionals in the field of education, minorities, research, human rights etc.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Improvement of housing conditions of the Roma, in particular legalisation of informal settlements and protection against forced evictions, ·Combating residential segregation of Roma, ·Introducing affirmative action in public sector employment of Roma, including intervention to support the employment, e.g. through on-the-job training, apprenticeships and tutoring, ·Comprehensively addressing the quality inclusive education for all children and supporting the schools that are in real need (disadvantaged schools) with financial and human resources.

SLOVENIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities
Strategic document	Slovenia has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	8.500 (0,41% of 2.065.895)
Available options for data collection	Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups) Data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
In 2017, the challenges and problems that the Roma community members in Slovenia face were comprehensively addressed with the adoption of a new National Programme of Measures for Roma of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for the Period 2017–2021, drafted in close cooperation with the Roma stakeholders. In the field of education, amended legislation, updated national strategies and multiannual programmes foresee improved funding for educational material, stipulate desired education standards, and enable access to education at all ages for national communities and other vulnerable groups in Slovenia, incl the Roma. European Structural Funding was heavily used to help materialise the above. For employment, similarly, both legislation and national strategies such as measures of Active Employment Policy (AEPs) focus on practical training and life-long learning to improve employability at for the Roma at all ages. In the area of health care, the national health care strategy for 2016-2025, is geared towards reducing inequalities via counselling and care programmes for persons without compulsory health insurance. Roma associations have been successfully partaking in the tenders. Similalry, the initiative by the Institute of Public Health Murska Sobota has successfully engaged with the Roma community via its “Together for Health” broadcasts on Roma Radio ROMIC.This has especially benefited the health of the Roma children. Under the Resolution on the National Social Assistance Programme 2013–2020, the government supported the social protection programmes aimed at preventing and solving the social distress of vulnerable groups. For both housing, the government continued to heavily support the concerned municipalities, via tenders for co-financing projects, to improve the living standards at Roma settlements. Its Inter-ministerial working group, MDS, for resolving living standard issues for the Roma aims to strengthen inter-municipal cooperation via greater engagement with key Roma stakeholders. For anti-discrimination, important progress was made as the Protection Against Discrimination Act was adopted replacing the outdated Principle of Equal Treatment Act of 2004. Supported, among others, by Medium Term Police strategy 2013–2017, improved awareness of steps to take in cases of discrimination has been achieved. In 2017, five empowerment programmes for the Roma community were supported on the basis of the public call for proposals, investing 203,000.00+ euros, a 98% realisation.
The main challenges
Very little is mentioned in terms of the challenges encountered. As a key challenge, difficulties measuring progress are mentioned as data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected in Slovenia, creating a lack of a baseline against which progress could be measured. It is acknowledged throughout that the Roma are considered one of the particularly vulnerable population groups in Slovenia that, on one hand, continues to face prejudices from majority population (including officials). On the other hand, it is acknowledged that the Roma themselves tend to not exercise their rights (especially to access to health care, education and housing) resulting in self-inflicted disadvantages.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
As a key factor for success, interdependence of measures in various areas was acknowledged – better housing means better health, better health means improved school attendance, better school attendance means improved employability, and so on. As a precondition for sustained success, however, increased confidence and rights awareness of the Roma community are mentioned that have brought about improved access to education, health care, living standard, employment, and exercise of citizen rights. The change for the better is especially visible in preschool children and the youth. This success has been made possible thanks to updated legislation, numerous multiannual national strategies and development programmes co-financed by ESF, tight cooperation between the concerned municipalities and the government, and broad engagement with key Roma stakeholders.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 41 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Slovenia, 29 and 12 mainstream. All measures were carried out by a public authority at national level. Apart from the key thematic areas explored in detail below, Slovenia also reported three measures as relevant for poverty reduction through social investment (one mainstream and two targeted), two targeted measures as relevant for empowerment, four measures as relevant for local action (one mainstream and three targeted), four targeted measures as relevant for monitoring and evaluation and seven measures as relevant for culture (three 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, seven measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. All seven education measures were reported as targeted and implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Great progress was made with regard to ensuring better access to education for the Roma in Slovenia. The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (MIZŠ) observes positive attitudes in the Roma community for education as a whole, especially pre-school and elementary education. In turn, improved acceptance of the Roma working in educational activities at multifunctional centres has been observed. Amended legislation allows for better employment conditions and more resources for the working Roma. The Organisation and Financing of Education Act (foresees complementary education programmes, norms and standards for schooling Roma children, and makes funds available for producing learning materials for elementary schools and national communities abroad. The Pre-School Institutions Act foresees pre-school education for Roma children. The Elementary School Act foresees elementary education for the members of the Roma community in Slovenia. For lifelong education, Resolution on the National Programme of Adult Education in Slovenia for 2013-2020 (ReNPIO13–20) sets out strategic development goals to enable equal access to quality education at all life stages. ReNPIO specifically targets vulnerable population groups, including the Roma, and aims to eliminate major education backlogs by as soon as 2020. Additionally, the Ministry responsible for reducing inequalities in education and schooling between Roma and the majority population introduced additional measures financed by both the European Structural Funds (European Social Fund: ESF) and state budget. Based on the estimate of individual projects, MIZŠ has offered additional support with every following public tender, thereby systematically upgrading the commenced works and ensuring alignment between the objectives and measures.
The most important challenge
The motivation of the Roma children to participate in social life and education system. In 2016, MIZŠ prepared a five-year project “Together for knowledge: implementing activities of supporting mechanisms of obtaining knowledge for members of the Roma community”, to be implemented by 2021. It focuses on the motivation of the Roma children for social participation, integration and successful performance in the educational system through Roma assistants, educational incubators or multipurpose centres for extracurricular activities. The project aims for early integration of the Roma children in the education system via pre-school education from age four, with the objectives of teaching the children Slovenian language and the necessary social skills.
No information is available regarding the assessment of the situation in this thematic area.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, one mainstream measure was reported as relevant for the area of employment, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The state addresses long-term Roma unemployment with measures for Active Employment Policy (AEP). Labour Market Regulation Act with the Catalogue of AEPs, Guidelines and Plan for implementation, are form the basis for addressing employment related needs. Since 2015, the number of Roma involved in AEPs has steadily increased (In 2015: 2,433, 2016: 2,546, 2017: 3,264). NPUR 2017-2021 “Inclusion of Roma in measures of the state on the labour market”, aims to uphold this measure. Furthermore, under NPUR the unemployed Roma can be included in APZ programmes.
The most important challenge
The register of unemployed persons in Slovenia includes only those Roma who voluntarily define themselves as such. To tackle unemployment, the Roma are involved in AEP measures that promote training and education, incentivize employment, job creation and self-employment. Unemployed Roma can participate in lifelong career guidance workshops and benefit from contact centres that provide assistance in education and career planning.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, two measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare. Both measures were targeted (not mainstream) and carried out by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The rights and access to health care apply equally to all citizens in Slovenia. However, the Roma tend not to exercise their rights. Therefore health care measures targeting the Roma specifically as one of the vulnerable groups of the population are included in NPUR 2017-2021. The Resolution on the National Health Care Plan 2016-2025, "Together for a Healthy Society" is the central strategic document that forms the basis for development of health care in Slovenia. Reducing health inequalities is the subject to Health Care and Health Insurance Act and the “Health 2020” document by the World Health Organisation. The main objectives follow the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, nr 10, on better access to health care for Roma and Travellers in Europe (2006). The Ministry of Health (MZ), in cooperation with key stakeholders, is working to improve the health and health care for the Roma. In 2013-14, the MZ published tenders for co-financing various health improvement projects for persons without compulsory health insurance in 2013-2016. In 2017, the Ministry of Health (MZ) conducted a public tender for the co-financing of health care programmes 2017-18 with focus on the health of female Roma adolescents, women and children. The Roma associations have been successful in these tenders and independently carry out some activities. In November 2017, Roma health was the topic of an experts and stakeholders meeting where the most pressing health problems and health situations in the Roma communities, the rights of Roma under compulsory health insurance, especially the access to primary health care, and opportunities for the protection of health were discussed.
The most important challenge
The most sensitive population within the Roma community are children and women. Yet, a large part of the Roma population in Slovenia has not completed elementary school and has limited mastery of Slovenian language. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that they can be reached via mainstream measures. Under these circumstances, targeted measures such as radio talk shows or workshops seeking to educate and raise awareness are virtually the only way to communicate with them.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HOUSING
In 2017, eight measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing, four of them were targeted. All eight measures were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Even though under the Local Self-Government Act, the Spatial Planning Act and the Spatial Management Act, urban management and urban planning at the local level is under the competence of the municipalities, the Government and the local authorities worked to improve the housing situation of the Roma in 2017. Financial incentives were employed through public tenders for municipalities where the Roma live to install water supply systems, sewage, electricity, roads, etc. In order to provide resolve Roma settlement problems and improving the housing situations there, funds for the regulation of the basic communal infrastructure in Roma settlements were allocated to the municipalities from the state budget through special measures or financial incentives. The public tenders in this field are done by the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (MGRT). The purpose of the latest tender (2016) was to build basic communal infrastructure in Roma settlements. The objective is to achieve a more coherent regional development. With the help of the state level financial incentives, a faster development of areas and settlements was achieved. The objective of the public tender is to ensure basic living conditions necessary for development and life to residents of Roma settlements by co-financing investments in the basic communal infrastructure. The eligibility to apply lies with the municipalities that have communally unregulated built-up areas of Roma and have elected a representative of the Roma community to the municipal council in the current term of office of the municipal council in compliance with the act regulating the local self-government or, which as at the date of publication of the tender, in compliance the provisions of the ZRomS-1, had established a special work body of the municipal council to monitor the position of the Roma community, the members of which are also representatives of the Roma community. Subject to tender were EUR 2,000,000. Of this budget, EUR 1,000,000 were earmarked for 2016 and EUR 1,000,000 for 2017. These co-financed projects primarily tackled construction, electrification, road reparation, sewage and water supply systems building. In May 2017, the Government also established an Inter-ministerial work group for solving spatial problems of Roma (MDS). MDS remains active until 31 March 2018. The representatives of the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, the Secretariat-General of the Government, the Office for National Minorities, the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, the Ministry of Public Administration, and Roma stakeholders, participate in the MDS. The MDS has so far convened at seven work meetings, and on 11 January 2018, the Government took note of the interim report on its operation and the work performed so far.
The most important challenge
In relation to future prospects in the field of urban planning, the Spatial Planning Act, adopted by the National Assembly in October 2017, foresees drafting of a “regional spatial plan” or the spatial strategic act. This is based on Spatial Development Strategy, its action programme, other development acts of the state, and the development goals of the EU. The regional spatial plan is the basis for drafting the regional development programme according to the regulations on promotion of coherent regional development. This is an important novelty that municipal spatial plans, as set out with the Spatial Planning Act (valid until 1 June 2016), are no longer mandatory, except for city municipalities (Article 75 of the ZUreP-2). While this solution should bring disburdening of the municipalities and strengthening inter-municipal co-operation, the above also means that the state and municipalities must agree on spatial development of each individual development region, determine the essential development opportunities, and co-ordinate with each other. More information on implementation of measures of NPUR 2017–2021 in this field in 2017 are given in the second tab.
No information is available regarding the assessment of the situation in this thematic area.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, three measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. Two measures were mainstream and one was targeted. All three measures were implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Slovenia has already adopted individual resolutions, strategies, national programmes, etc. for individual population groups more exposed to discrimination due to personal circumstances. At the same time, it does not have a formed or established comprehensive non-discrimination policy within the framework of which measures for raising awareness on issues of discrimination in society could be formed and implemented, nor does it have effective legal means for victims of discrimination (for Roma, among others). Nevertheless, progress has been made as the Protection Against Discrimination Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 33/16) was adopted in April 2016, which replaced and updated the Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment Act of 2004. The Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of any personal circumstance. It is a framework act that stipulates protection against discrimination due to any personal circumstance in various fields of social life. The purpose of this Act is to provide adequate organisational autonomy and independence of operation of an advocate of the principle of equality, and thereby a consistent harmonisation of the Slovenian legal order to the EU acquis. Under the new terms, an autonomous and independent body in the field of protection against discrimination performs tasks of providing independent assistance to victims of discrimination, raising awareness, inspection supervision and participation in court proceedings, publishing independent reports, and drafting recommendations and exchanging available information with appropriate bodies of the European Union. The investigation and procedures in cases of discrimination, and raising awareness, are among the most important tasks of the police, included in the annual work plan of the police and in the Medium Term Police Term 2013–2017, in the Resolution on the National Plan of the Prevention and Combating of Crime 2012–2016, and in other strategic documents. With the purpose of raising awareness on discrimination, the Police Academy in 2009 adopted training programme FA012 “Recognising stereotypes, overcoming prejudice and eliminating discrimination in a multicultural society”. Police officers are being trained to properly respond in contact with those considered to be marginalised and socially excluded. Such trainings have been being carried out by the Police Academy for police officers since 2009, and since 2013 onwards also for other public employees who encounter members of the Roma community, members of the Italian and Hungarian national communities and members of other minority ethnic communities in the Republic of Slovenia. The training of police officers and public employees are included in the annual work plan of the Police and were also proposed as measures to be included in drafting the new programme document for Roma. The police also assumes an active role in security co-councils in municipalities and local communities where the Roma live. In some local communities, security co-councils are already operational. Mutual exchange of information and establishing security problems that refer to the operations of the police, has had a positive impact on increased confidence in the work of the police in the areas with Roma settlements. Some local communities, the advantages of such co-councils have not been recognised. The police will aspire to establish consulting bodies or use a multidisciplinary approach. The police also participate in municipal commissions for solving Roma issues or monitoring the situation of the Roma community. By doing so, it also actively participates in drafting municipal strategies for solving Roma issues and takes part at sessions of the commission, where specific problem situations are addressed. On 30 June 2015 the Police completed the implementation of the project “Raising awareness of public employees, the Roma and the general public with a view to overcoming social barriers and improving the quality of coexistence – SKUPA-J”, which was submitted within the context of tenders of the European Commission (DG Justice) referred to in the programme “PROGRESS (2007–2013), Section 4 – Antidiscrimination and Diversity”. The project aimed for a better understanding of cultural differences and to overcome stereotypes and prejudice through raising awareness and education of public employees that work with Roma, members of the Roma community and the general public. In 2015, the Police carried out training for public employees who work with members of the Roma community, at which the employees adopted some useful social skills and definitions, such as prejudice, stereotypes, xenophobia, discrimination, etc. In particular, the public employees gained insight into the tools with which they are able to recognise and prevent different forms of prejudice and intolerance. So, in 2015, 11 workshops were carried out for public employees of Social Work Centres (Slovenj Gradec, Celje, Velenje, Šentjur pri Celju, Grosuplje, Novo mesto), for public employees of the municipal administration of the Municipality of Črnomelj, the teachers of the Dragotin Kette Elementary School in Novo mesto and the employees at the Development and Education Centre Novo mesto. In total, 292 public employees attended the training sessions. Feedback of the participants indicated the need for such training, which was included in the annual work plan of the police for 2016, and later in the NPUR 2017–2021. In order to activate the Roma community organisations and include them in other measures at the national or local level, in 2017, the Office for National Minorities financially supported Roma organisations and associations in their activities. Here are some examples: 1.Roma Community Council in the Republic of Slovenia, which is directly financed based on the ZRomS-1, as it is an umbrella organisation that represents the interests of the Roma community in connection with the national authorities. The funds are provided in the state budget; 2.programmes of activities of Roma community organisations on the basis of a public tender. In 2017, the programmes of activities of the following organisations of the Roma community (federation of societies) were supported: Union of Roma of Slovenia, Union of Roma Community of Slovenia (umbrella organization), Union for Development of Roma Minority, Roma Union for Dolenjska, Roma Sports Association of Slovenia. Within the framework of the co-financed programmes workshops, conferences, consultations, awareness-raising and educational activities were performed either by the Roma community organisations themselves (federation of societies) or in co-operation with various institutions and organisations. By allocation of funds to the umbrella Roma organisation in Slovenia and other Roma organisations and associations, the capacity building of the Roma civil society is supported. More information on the implementation of measures of NPUR 2017–2021 related to the work of the Police and the Office for National Minorities in this field in 2017 is given in the second tab.
The most important challenge
The NPUR 2017–2021 also includes a chapter on “Implementation of police work in the community”. This aims to strengthen the partnership with the local communities and advocate for an effective resolution of various security needs. While such a partnership enables obtaining information for timely detection of security problems via preventive activities that focus on direct work of the police with the Roma community, this has required that the police intensify the implementation of their preventive work with regard to the Roma communities. The police at all three levels actively co-operate with legitimate representatives of the Roma community (Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia), Roma organisations, and individuals. Active cooperation with the Forum of Roma Councillors representing the Roma councillors elected as representatives in municipal councils of municipalities was conducted at regular meetings at which the police, as well as the Roma community and, ultimately, the local communities can devote more attention to identifying individual problem situations and solving problems. In 2017, three meetings were held (Novo mesto, Kočevje and Grosuplje). Both bodies regularly exchange information on individual problem situations. The police at all three levels also actively participate in the UN project – a National Roma Platform – that aims to strengthen the consultation process, establish an open and structured consultation process and to enhance the exchange of good practices and experiences. The project targets Roma (primarily children and adolescents), certain institutions, and the non-government sector. In 2016 and 2017, the police co-operated in the project to identify key challenges for solving problems in the Roma community, based on which needs were identified and measures for solutions formed. In 2017, representatives of the Police also actively participated in the inter-ministerial work group for drafting amendments and supplements to the ZRomS-1.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
Governance and cooperation
The Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities has no special budget to perform the tasks of a National Contact Point for Roma and does not receive any additional funds for this purpose. The funds for covering material costs to participate in regular meetings of the Network of National Contact Points are covered from the regular budget of the Office. Since the Office has not been allocated additional staff for the performance of the tasks of the National Contact Point and these tasks are carried out in addition to its regular tasks, it is impossible to determine the financial resources that are exclusively earmarked for the national contact point. As explained regarding the budget of the NCPR, the Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities, upon assuming the performance of the tasks of the National Contact Point failed to receive any additional employments or additional budgetary funds. These tasks are performed by just two employees at the Office along with their own regular work assignments. In view of the already high level of workload due to regular tasks of the Office, we estimate that at least one additional employee would be needed to perform the tasks of the National Contact Point. NRCP plays an important role in leading and contributing to the coordination of the implementation, monitoring and development of the integration strategy, being consulted and participating actively. It is also consulted with regard to funding decisions. The Office in the role of the NCPR co-ordinates measures and activities for the implementation of special rights and improvement of the position of the Roma community in Slovenia. It monitors the implementation of measures referred to in the national programme of measures. It also performs other obligations. The Office frequently encounters difficulties in managing its workload. This aggravates and delays the work of the Office and subsequently affects the success of drafting adequate measures and monitoring their implementation, and represents an additional workload to the employees at the Office. The Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities, drafting a new National Programme of Measures for Roma for the following five-year period, has invited all competent ministerial departments, the measures of which are to be included in the new programme document, to appoint contact persons. At the ministries, they are responsible for drafting the measures and contribute to drafting of the new national programme of measures. The Office also convened a working meeting to review the proposed measures. Representatives of the Roma community were invited to all these meetings, and were, along with the ministerial departments, invited to designate a contact person to actively participate in the preparation of a new national action programme. The Office prepared the first draft programme discussed by the Government Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for the Protection of the Roma Community. National Programme of Measures for Roma of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for the Period 2017–2021 (NPUR 2017–2021) thus resulted from the cooperation between the competent ministries and government offices and the Council of Roma community of the Republic of Slovenia as the umbrella organization of the Roma community, which was established based on the Roma Community Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/07). NPUR 2017–2021 also includes other Roma community organisations, self-governing local communities and their associations, and other interested public audience. The authority competent for national minorities coordinated the NPUR 2017–2021 and the same will also coordinate further activities related to the implementation and monitoring of NPUR 2017–2021. Additionally, a dialogue has been established before the adoption of the NPUR 2017–2021 between the representatives of the government of the Republic of Slovenia or the competent government departments and the representatives of the self-governing local communities and their associations, to be continued throughout until 2021. The NPUR 2017–2021 is a government programme of measures which shall respond throughout the entire period, via regular monitoring of the implementation of the measures, to the needs of the Roma community members and constantly adapt to the situation with the necessary changes and amendments. The Government Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for the Protection of the Roma Community is a governmental working body established based on the Roma Community in the Republic of Slovenia Act, Art. 6, (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 33/07) that is composed of eight representatives of the national authorities (in the current composition these are the representatives of the Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities, the Ministry of Public Administration, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Health), four representatives of the umbrella organisation of the Roma community, i.e. Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia and four representatives of municipalities (in the current composition these are: the Municipality of Trebnje, the Municipality of Rogašovci, the Municipality of Semič and the Municipality of Lendava). Even if the members of this commission are not representatives of all competent ministries, they are invited to the commission meetings. The Commission addresses the proposals of the National Programme of Measures for Roma as well as any other acute issues. Monitoring of the implementation of the National Programme of Measures for Roma is conducted in the form of a report, the drafting of which is co-ordinated by the Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities. The report is discussed by the Government Commission of the Republic of Slovenia for the Protection of the Roma Community, followed by a submission for consideration and adoption by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, and then sent to the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia for consideration. The Roma community is always involved as the draft report is sent to it for review and opinion. Roma community representatives are members of the government commission for the protection of the Roma community, which addresses the report, and they are also invited to the session of the competent main working body of the National Assembly. The Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities regularly monitors proposals for programme documents as well as regulations that are targeted or generally oriented and refer to the regulation of the situation of the Roma community in any way, the exercising of their rights or facilitating the integration of members of the Roma community into society. It alerts the relevant departments or proposers to submit the material for review and opinion to the Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia as the umbrella organisation to the Roma community. Art.12 of the Roma Community in the Republic of Slovenia Act stipulates that the Council may submit proposals, initiatives and opinions to the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, the Government, other state bodies, holders of public authorisations and local self-governing authorities. The state bodies, holders of public authorisations and local self-government authorities must obtain prior opinion from the Council when they adopt or issue regulations and other general legal acts that refer to the situation of the Roma community. The Government Office for National Minorities submits its suggestions of amendments and supplements to the proposals of programme documents or regulations. The Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities as National Roma Contact Point is involved in decision-making processes as much as possible. The Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities regularly cooperates with relevant stakeholders in areas important for Roma inclusion. It alerts them about the need to allocate funds for the implementation of such policies and programmes and makes concrete proposals. For example, in the area of improvement of living conditions for the Roma, the Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities addressed several letters to the relevant ministry to increase funding. Also, the Office was involved in preparation of the Partnership Agreement between Slovenia and European Commission for the period 2014-2020 as well as in preparation of the Operational Programme for the Implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy in the Period 2014-2020. The Office made efforts to ensure the basis for improved utilisation of the EU funds for Roma inclusion. Office of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for National Minorities decides on the implementation of the relevant policies aimed at better Roma inclusion that are within the competences of the Office. Regarding other relevant policies or programmes intended for Roma, the Office has an advisory role. However, due to lack of staff, the Office is not directly involved in the implementation of certain policies. Under the coordination of NRCP, Roma community organisations are actively involved in the implementation of the National Programme of Measures for Roma for the period 2010–2015 because they were one of the implementing bodies of certain measures. Roma community organisations remain actively involved in the implementation of also the new National Programme of Measures for Roma in 2017–2021. More detailed information is available under the description of each particular measure. The key stakeholders are: Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia (Svet romske skupnosti Republike Slovenije) , Union of Roma of Slovenia (Zveza Romov Slovenije) , Union of the Roma Community Umbrella (Zveza romske skupnosti Slovenije Umbrella-Dežnik) , Union of Roma for the Dolenjska Region (Zveza Romov za Dolenjsko) , Association for the development of the Roma minority in the Republic of SloveniaRebirth (Zveza za razvoj romske skupnosti Preporod), and Sports Union of the Roma in Slovenia (Romska športna zveza Slovenije). The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are the national authorities, the Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia as the umbrella organisation for the Roma, and the interested general public. Importantly, every national report on the implementation of the NRIS is always subject to a public hearing. The report is published by the Office and the public has a chance to comment). A few points remain challenging: a regular dialogue/cooperation has not yet been established between the Equality body and the NRCP. It is also difficult to establish targets or a baseline against which to assess progress for the implementation of your NRIS. Since data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected in Slovenia, there is no baseline against which progress could be measured.

SLOVENIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Pre-school and extra-curricular activities are organised in several multi-purpose centres in segregated Roma settlements on a project basis. ·Measures supporting Roma pupils are financed from ESF and include teacher assistants, Roma educational incubators and extra-curricular activities. Such measures have shown to be effective in addressing the challenge of school absenteeism and achieving better school performance. ·Legislation was amended to provide stronger support to schools educating Roma; they are eligible for additional funding for individual or group work with Roma children, lower number of students in a class, subsidies for meals, textbooks and excursions for Roma pupils. ·Roma students engaged in teaching studies are supported with scholarships. ·Implementation of the Adult Education Strategy includes provision of counselling and information activities for vulnerable groups of adults (including Roma), implementation of publicly recognised programmes for less educated or informal programmes to improve vulnerable adults’ capabilities.	·In several Roma settlements the inclusion of Roma in integrated kindergartens remains a problem, mainly because of financial barriers and lack of necessary transport to facilities. ·The proportion of Roma children who are sent to special needs schools remains problematic (between 6-12%). ·Roma school assistants are depending on project funding; moreover, they are limited to pre-school and primary education. This instrument should be extended to secondary education and receive sustainable funding. ·Many Roma are not aware of the opportunity of applying for scholarships at secondary or tertiary education levels. ·Training of professionals working with Roma pupils remains insufficient; only two seminars on the matter have been organised within regular teachers’ training.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are available to Roma jobseekers. Roma are explicit (but not exclusive) target group of several employment measures. ·Roma (as other vulnerable groups) can participate in public works programme for 2 years (as opposed to 1 year for persons not belonging to vulnerable groups). ·Employment service subsidises a higher share (95%) of wages of participants of public works programmes Roma population which include at least half of the long-term unemployed Roma. ·There are adequate legal provisions against discrimination in access to employment.	·There is no employment strategy for Roma in Slovenia, while this would be necessary to effectively tackle the problem of high unemployment among Roma. ·Roma mainly participate in public works or general counselling, which does not effectively help reemployment in open labour market. ·There are few appeals to enforce antidiscrimination laws in case of unequal treatment, probably due to lack of awareness.
Healthcare
·The NRIS aims to improve the health care services and bring them closer to Roma, to improve Roma health awareness. Several measures are planned to achieve these objectives targeting both Roma and medical professionals. ·Health workers are supported by Roma assistants who also promote healthy lifestyle among the Roma population. · A number of individual projects, many with international participation, were launched to improve the health of the Roma.	·Roma NGOs’ experience shows that there is still a lot of measures lacking in the field of both healthy lifestyles and reproductive and women’s health. ·The biggest barrier to Roma access to healthcare is the lack of knowledge and understanding of complex medical language. Hiring more Roma assistants and training of medical professionals in working with marginalised groups could improve the situation.
Housing
·Important achievements were made regarding legalisation and improvements to the communal infrastructure of some Roma settlements. ·The newly established dedicated governmental working group aims at resolving spatial issues; the prepared recommendations for the municipalities where Roma live to include Roma settlements in their spatial plans. ·Legislation has been changed which might have a positive effect on further legalisation of Roma settlements. ·Public tenders were implemented for co-financing of basic municipal infrastructure projects in Roma settlements.	·Lack of monitoring and evaluation or of clear budget lines of the relevant National Program of Measures 2017-2021 makes assessment of measures aimed at housing improvement difficult. ·Most Roma housing is still below the minimum standard of living, without access to basic infrastructure, like lack of access to water - especially in the south-eastern part of Slovenia. ·Irregularities of dwellings has allowed municipalities to refuse to provide clean water and sanitation. Central government does not intervene even if it could to address this problem in municipalities where local government is inactive. ·Roma often face discrimination in renting private apartments, and there is a general lack of social housing. ·Residential segregation and issues concerning lack of security of tenure persist.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·In 2016, the anti-discrimination legislation was amended, strengthening the role and independence of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, providing him with investigative powers. ·Equality policy focuses on Roma educational inclusion and increased access to preschool. ·Projects targeting discrimination, segregation and integration are outsourced to civil society organizations, yet funded through governmental grants.	·Low rights awareness, mistrust and the costs of court cases deter Roma from taking legal action. Two cases concerning access to clean water is currently pending before the ECtHR. ·Considerable share of Roma face forced eviction with little protection.
Fighting antigypsyism
·In cases of organised protests against the Roma, the police force usually intervenes. ·There is an optional subject in the 7th to 9th grade of primary education called ‘Roma culture’ for which teaching materials have been prepared by Roma. (Due to lack of qualified teachers and a lack of interest from Roma children, the subject is however offered in a limited number of schools.)	·Antigypsyism is not sufficiently addressed by the state. The term is rather unknown and Roma-targeted actions are not framed as efforts to address this specific form of racism. There is no research concerning the phenomenon of antigypsyism. ·The government should support initiatives aimed at raising media’s awareness on antigypsyism. Such initiatives should particularly focus on online media, which has an increasing number of readers and influence. ·Reports of police brutality, over policing, ethnic profiling and discrimination against Roma rarely lead to effective investigations.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·NRIS 2017-2021 in the field of health specifically targets on women and children, as the most vulnerable sub-groups among the Roma; focus is on awareness raising concerning sexual and reproductive health.	·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT+ issues, while Roma LGBT+ individuals may face a high level of hostility within their communities as well (thus may choose rather to hide).
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Slovenia has adopted a special Roma Community Act setting a basic framework of Roma inclusion policy. ·Roma have opened several lines of dialogue with members of the parliament and various government bodies and commissions; they cooperate or at least communicate with political parties in all the relevant regions and throughout the political spectrum. ·Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia was constituted in 2007 to represent the interests of Roma vis-à-vis public authorities. ·In 2016 with support from the Commission, the Office for Minorities of the Republic of Slovenia established a National Roma Platform.	·Official Roma inclusion policy targets only ‘autochthonous Roma’, Roma coming from other countries of former Yugoslavia are not targeted. ·Different from the Hungarian and Italian minority, Roma are not recognised as a national minority, but as a “minority community”, which is entitled to the election of a minority representative only at the local level in those 20 municipalities where Roma are recognised as ‘autochthonous communities’.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Roma National Council includes seven members elected every four years from among the Roma City Councillors and 14 members from the biggest Roma umbrella association, Roma Union Slovenia. ·One of the biggest and most recognisable organisations is the Forum of Roma city councillors, which connects Roma city councillors in 20 municipalities. ·Election participation has been decreasing both among the general population and among the Roma, especially the younger voters. ·In 20 (out of 212) municipalities recognising Roma as autochthonous community Roma have in addition to their vote in the general local elections also a vote for a local Roma Councillor.	·The composition of the Council has been criticised for not being representative of the whole Roma community and not being democratically elected (unlike the minority councils of the Hungarian and Italian communities). Roma Community Council is dominated by one big umbrella organisation. ·The distinction between ‘autochthonous’ and ‘non-autochthonous’ Roma has severe repercussions on the level of political participation of the Roma.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·In principle, only in 20 municipalities recognising Roma as autochthonous community, there are special Roma-targeted policies; in the other municipalities Roma are included in mainstream policies towards vulnerable groups. ·Competence to improve infrastructure within Roma settlements belongs to the municipalities; but the central government is also competent to intervene if a municipality fails to address issues around an irregular settlement.	·Roma councillors often do not enjoy majority support among the local Roma community, especially if the electorate feels that the Roma councillor represents only the particular interest of an individual (their own) Roma settlement. ·Central government’s power to intervene if the local government is not acting is rarely invoked. The state should intervene and take responsibility.
Data collection
·According to the 2002 census, 3,246 citizens in Slovenia declared to belong to the Roma minority, but experts estimate the number between 7,000 and 12,000, many of whom refuse to officially self-declare.	·Slovenia does not collect data disaggregated by ethnicity, thus there is little data on Roma besides the census. ·Also, Slovenia was not part of international surveys on Roma conducted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Bank, European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), OSCE and others.
Funding for civil society
·One of the biggest sources of funding for Roma organizations in Slovenia is ESF. ·The largest projects concerning Roma inclusion in Slovenia are aimed at the development of infrastructure and are mostly implemented by local authorities and ministries.	·In Slovenia, a very small number of open calls are explicitly aimed at supporting Roma-targeted activities, although in the last year there is a positive trend. ·The lack of transparency of funding for Roma civil society is a cause for concern. The government plans to reform the system to make it more democratic, transparent and enable expression of various interests of the Roma minority. ·Roma also often lack education and expertise to fully participate in all available funding opportunities.
Example of promising practice
Ministry of Economic Development and Technology and the Development Council of the South Eastern Slovenia Development Region signed a South-eastern Slovenia Development Partnership Agreement in November 2017, with the agreement on the implementation and financing of the spatial-planning arrangement of the Roma settlement Žabjak-Brezje, which is the project of the Novo mesto municipality. The project is currently being implemented and will be completed in 2020. The value of the project is 3.65 million euros, with the state contributing 3.1 million. This positive practice should be spread to as many Roma settlements as possible.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·To legalise informal Roma settlements and to develop of basic amenities for all their inhabitants. ·To actively address the problem of residential segregation; housing intervention should be driven by desegregation aims. ·To collect of records on school attendance and success rates of Roma pupils and stronger work with Roma parents to achieve higher levels of preschool attendance. ·To systemise the position of Roma assistants at all levels of education (from preschool to primary school and high school levels), where needed by pupils/students. Systematic professional capacity building of Roma assistants and sustainability of the programme ensured by systemic funding (not dependent on projects). ·To develop an employment strategy for Roma, including adjustment of employment programmes to Roma needs with special focus on Roma women.

SLOVAKIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Roma Communities
Strategic document	Slovakia has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	490.000 (9,02% of 5.435.343)
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, Proxies of ethnic identity used in the Population Census or in the standardized European Social Surveys (e.g. mother tongue), Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys, Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units).
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
In the area of education there were several notable successes and advances.The national project “School is open for all” is sending assistants and methodological support to over one hundred schools. The change in financing of schools with children from deprived environment is enabling more teaching assistants in schools. As no new diagnostic centres were opened and new regulation was announced, this opened up a space for implementing necessary systemic changes. And finally as of January 2018 the pre-school education for children from families in material need will be offered free of charge. There were some notable successes in the area of employment as well. The raising of minimum wage in conjunction with the steady reduction in the unemployment rate has assisted in incentivising the labour force and creates a demand for workforce. The Action plans for the 12 “least developed districts” resulting from multi-resort cooperation helped to create jobs in the most underdeveloped regions. EU funded active labour market measures have provided jobseekers with individualised support. Finally legislative changes have lowered formal qualification requirement opening up more entry positions for Roma to directly participate, particularly in projects for and within the local community. The project to help municipalities with settling land rights in Roma settlements is enabling the dwellers of informal settlements to achieve legal land and property ownership. The EU funded infrastructural programmes aimed at bringing more and better infrastructure to these areas such as kindergartens, community centres, but also basic services, potable water, sanitation and waste management and road access. A pilot multi-stage housing training scheme is being developed. These investments are being made under new desegregation, de-stigmatisation and de-ghettoization principle, the so called 3D methodology. There were significant improvements in the projects and programmes aimed at supporting the social system. The network of social field workers is currently active in over 250 municipalities while community centres are in over 100 municipalities. The successful project of health assistants was stabilised. The abuse of chemical substances such as toluene was successfully tackled. Furthermore financial issues of indebtedness and loan sharking was countered by limiting access to hazard games and slot machines in particular and by approving legal measures enabling effective personal bankruptcy. The renewal of the Roma neighbourhood watch project and its roll out into over 140 localities and new practice based manual for communal mediation between Roma and non-Roma in marginalised communities are successes that do not necessarily fall under a particular category, but are nevertheless very important in the fight against discrimination and fostering a more positive public opinion. The area of promoting of minority cultural and language rights has had three major successes in 2017. Intra office Roma language working group, creating an action plan for the advancement of Roma language, a pilot project introduced to promote an innovative methodology in teaching Slovak language to children of minorities in elementary schools and New Fund for Minority Cultures enabling autonomous allocation and increase in resources available to support Roma culture.
The main challenges
Priority is the improvement in the pre-school programmes. These measures include programme for pre-school assistants, universal compulsory pre-school education and a systemic change in the financing of teacher’s assistants after the current EU programming period, systemic reform of the diagnostic system and diagnostic centres. There is a need to change the informed consent for parents of children undergoing testing. On the primary level of education the ambition is to roll out mentoring/tutoring programmes applicable to secondary education as well. Secondary level of education is a key period for entry to the labour market and here the adjustment, both legislative and in organisational terms, in vocational schools, eliminating key identified problems is surely needed. (For more information on suggested measures on the Ministry of Intersior website, see http://www.minv.sk/swift_data/source/romovia/publikacie/koncepcne_riesenie-final.pdf ) Furthermore, there is an ambition to transplant a well-functioning model of Romaversitas colleges from abroad and replicate its success. And finally in order to fulfil the arising need for Roma teachers and Roma speaking teachers, teaching courses for prospective teachers must be developed and deployed. In the area of employment, we intend to improve the inclusion of Roma in the labour force through •Reconnecting inactive workforce outside of the unemployment benefits system. •The creation of state funded regional level labour agencies connecting employers and unemployed. •The Implementation of legislation that creates and supports subjects of social economy on one hand, while requiring state-funded labour intensive programmes to employ Roma workforce in various underutilised areas, such as green economy and housing projects. A long term ambition of the Office of the Plenipotentiary is to translate current projects and EU-funded programmes into sustainable jobs while at the same time enabling Roma to fast track into these programmes, particularly public jobs, such as social services, education and the law enforcement. The change in public procurement utilising the social aspect will help involve the beneficiaries of these infrastructural programmes by divesting them a stake of these projects. Formal legalisation of dwellings in accordance with the construction code and amending the legal framework enabling legalisation of dwellings and land titles of informal settlements will transfer these titles into the hands of the Roma themselves. It is the ambition of the Office of the Plenipotentiary to realise two pilot projects, one is to roll out an EU-funded project for self-help housing and secondly it is to develop a crisis housing and crisis prevention scheme in preparation for natural disasters occurring with devastating effects in informal settlements. Within the system of social benefits the aim is to raise the activation fee benefit given to jobseekers that find a job and reform the social assistance-related public work scheme to ensure better transparency and higher value for all involved. Other challenges are : decouple housing benefit from material need benefit thus helping to prevent spiralling debts incurred for services connected with housing and utility costs; increase the absorption of funds aimed at young unemployed (NEET); expanding health assistants programme to facilitate interactions between staff and Roma patients to prevent communication misunderstandings; introducing micro credit schemes not only for Roma coupled with a crackdown and further criminalisation on loan sharking. The greatest challenge is embedding the financing of various field workers and active community centre workers in the national budget after the EU programming period. In a similar vein there are other ambitious steps proposed by the Plenipotentiary, such as sensitization training for police and state officials as well as the media, camera systems for police officers entering informal settlements thus increasing transparency. Converting the Roma neighbourhood watch in the future into police assistants, consequently creating inclusive policing within informal settlements and promoting mutual trust and simultaneously creating sustainable jobs.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 68 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Slovakia, 26 mainstream and 42 targeted. 39 of the measures were implemented by a public authority (38 at national and one at regional level). 28 were implemented as joint partnerships between entities at different levels of administration and one – by different type of entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Slovakia also reported 10 measures as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment (seven mainstream and three targeted), 19 as relevant for empowerment (six mainstream and thirteen targeted), 26 as relevant for local action (one mainstream and 25 targeted), one targeted as relevant for monitoring and evaluation, three measures reported as relevant for the area of cuture (two mainstream and one targeted) and one measure in areas not specified by the Council Recommendation. 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
Seventeen measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "education", eight mainstream and seven targeted. Four were implemented in joint partnerships and 13 – by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The enlargement of kindergarten capacities in accordance with NRIS and the Government decree. In cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Managing Authority for the OP Human Resources in 2017; 138 new classrooms were built, 14 were sustained thus creating a new capacity of over 3000 new places in kindergartens. This measure was enabled through ESIF. The programme will continue in 2018 as well with further municipalities contractually pledged, the overall capacity ought to be over 5000 new places in 2018.
The most important challenge
The decrease in the financial support of children from socially disadvantaged environment brought by the unintended change in the Act 245/2008 on financing of elementary and high schools. However due to timely intervention of the Office of the Plenipotentiary and negotiating efforts with the Ministry of Education the impact was deflected. The financial subsidy was temporarily tied to the material needs benefit, thus restoring financial support for schools that were attended by children from socially disadvantaged environment.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
In April 2015 the European Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Slovakia for an alleged breach of EU anti-discrimination legislation, which are ongoing. If it fails to comply with EU law on this issue Slovakia could be subjected to severe financial penalties. This process is still ongoing.
EMPLOYMENT
11 measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "employment", seven mainstream and four targeted. Three were implemented in joint partnerships and eight – by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The start and successful launch of the programme of Local Civic Patrol Service (Miestne občianske poriadkove služby – MOPS). Launched in May 2017 in municipalities with Roma communities. The programme has several strategic objectives, to provide employment, to bridge a gap in the provision of basic human security and bridging the divide between marginalised Roma and State and Municipal Police creating a possible entry point into national Police Force, the breakdown of stereotypes, the improved level of civic cohabitation, the empowerment of members of Roma community to take over their own provision of security within legal remits alongside the Police. Due to high demand the original budget was doubled. And there is a proposal that after the end of this programming period, the programme will be integrated in the National budget under the auspices of the National Police. This project is implement in over 140 localities. With a view for further enlargement of coverage, pending approval of further funding.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge was legislative change of qualification requirements for field social workers. The relaxation of rules requiring all applicants regardless of prior experience to have completed a bachelors degree in social work presented a serious obstacle to the participation of Roma in what is primarily a programme aimed at Roma communities. The challenge however remains. Although the legislation was changed, the amended requirements need to be worked in to the existing National Projects of Field Social Work.
The situation in this thematic area improved.
HEALTHCARE
10 measures were were reported as relevant for thematic area "healthcare", two mainstream and eight targeted. Eight were implemented in joint partnerships and two - by a public authority at national level. Assessment for the thematic area "healthcare" was provided by the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. Public health authorities have contributed to the project Healthy communities with providing the health education to Roma communities and infection diseases surveillance.
The most important success
The most important success was the increased number of Roma health assistants (RHA). There is a plan to establish 264 positions RHA and 24 coordinating positions for the years 2017 - 2019. Main achievements – fewer barriers with access to health care for Roma people - more information about prevention activities in health care system - improvement in health literacy - improvement of life style and healthy behaviour.
The most important challenge
The most important challenge in the health assistance programme is sustainability and dealing with the complicated administration. Technical problems with the project implementation. There is a strong need to improve leadership and empowerment in Roma communities for better health.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same
HOUSING
13 measures were were reported as relevant for thematic area “housing", two mainstream and 11 targeted. Nine were implemented in joint partnerships and four - by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Land rights ACT 330/1991 - Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic submitted a draft amendment to the Act no 330/1991 on land consolidation, an arrangement of land ownership, land offices, land fund and land-based communities. This Act no 153/2017 enables to solve the arrangement of ownership and rights of use of the land located under the settlements of marginalized groups of the population in the form of land adjustments. If the process landscaping is successful, the land under the settlements will be acquired by the municipality, which can subsequently be sold to the inhabitants of Roma settlements. NP PVP - National project Support for land settlement in marginalized Roma communities. The decision to approve the request for funding was approved in September 2017.
The most important challenge
The implementation of the methodological document called Methodological explanation for the implementation of principles of desegregation, de-ghettoization, and de-stigmatisation. Operation programme Human resources uses this triple principle to implement its strategic goals. However the implementation of this principle focused on discrimination in the area of spatial segregation has caused a large number of projects submitted to various calls for proposals, mainly in the Operation axis 6 to be denied on the grounds insufficient administrative proof of compliance.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
Nine measures were were reported as relevant for thematic area "anti-discrimination", five mainstream and four targeted. Two were implemented in joint partnerships and seven - by a public authority at national level. Assessment on the thematic area of anti-discrimination was provided by the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of SR.
The most important success
The Department of Gender Equality and Equal Opportunities elaborated the Action Plan for Gender Equality in the Slovak Republic for the Years 2014 – 2019 (hereinafter “Action Plan”), which is a document realising the National Strategy for Gender Equality for the Years 2014 – 2019 (hereinafter “Strategy”) and which represents a complex conceptual framework for the promotion of gender equality in practice. Multiple goals set in the Strategy and related tasks preserved in the Action Plan explicitly refer to Roma minority – Roma women, marginalised groups, respectively. As regards multiple discrimination, the Department of Gender Equality and Equal Opportunities approved, under the terms of the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family’s grant scheme, projects directed at advisory services and further education in the area of discrimination for two active Roma civic associations. The projects were successfully carried out. The main goal of both projects was to ensure that women in the marginalised communities obtain knowledge in the area of discrimination and gender equality.
The most important challenge
The adoption of the Strategy and Action Plan aims at the progressive elimination of gender inequality. These documents represent potential basis for the change in the legislation and policies that create environment for systemic measures and introduction of changes at the institutional level, and without which the establishment of gender equality is not possibly to be reached, not even with regard to the vulnerable groups.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
The following legislative measures relevant for Roma integration were adopted in 2017: Amendment of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure: Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. Major redrafting of crimes of extremism - hate crimes. National Criminology Agency, Office of the Special Prosecutor and Special Criminal Court will now be exclusively mandated to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. The legislative measure should allow for more effective persecution of hate crimes and hate speech aimed at Roma, as well as persons perceived as Roma. Bankruptcy and Restructuring Act: Personal Bankruptcy reform provided a tool for persons living in poverty and in debt to be able to file for bankruptcy more easily, once in 10 years. The Legal Aid Centre is providing free legal aid and support to all who decide to use this tool. Main challenge this year was to increase the capacity of the Legal Aid Centre, enabling it to handle increased workload stemming from the Personal Bankruptcy Reform. Roma in marginalized communities living in a debt spiral should now have better access to and support of debt relief and consequently should be able to access the labour market again. Amendment to the Act no 330/1991 on land consolidation, an arrangement of land ownership, land offices, land fund and land-based communities: the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic submitted a draft amendment to the Act no 330/1991 on land consolidation, an arrangement of land ownership, land offices, land fund and land-based communities. This Act no 153/2017 enables to solve the arrangement of ownership and rights of use of the land located under the settlements of marginalized groups of the population in the form of land adjustments. If the process landscaping is successful, the land under the settlements will be acquired by the municipality, which can subsequently be sold to the inhabitants of Roma settlements. The administrative procedure may be proposed only by the municipality in which the settlement of the marginalized population is located. Amendment of Act no. 5/2004 Coll. on public employment services and other related law: The legislative measures are targeted at disadvantaged the job seekers. The law stated that an individual action plan to promote employment is binding for the job seeker,as well as for the Office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. It modified the terms of employment of the job seeker performing smaller general services for municipality, minor services for self-governing region or volunteer service. Activation activities in the form of smaller general services for the municipality or in the form of smaller services for the self-governing region for the purposes of this Act is to support the maintenance of working habits of the long-term unemployed citizens who are the recipient of the benefit in material need and the contributions to the material allowance need. Targeting disadvantaged the job seekers, the measures are expected to increase the involvement of Roma minorities in the labour market. Introduction of additional allowance for pupils from a socially disadvantaged environment: a contribution to improve the conditions for upbringing and education of pupils from a socially disadvantaged environment may be awarded by the Ministry of Education from the chapter of the Ministry of Education and from the chapter of the Ministry of Interior pursuant to § 4e, 597/2003 Coll. on the financing of elementary schools, secondary schools and school facilities as amended by the founder of the elementary school. The allowance is allocated according to the number of pupils from the CAP and the amount of the allowance for a pupil from the CAP. In 2017, the amount of allowance per pupil from the CAP is 260 €. The contribution is provided to elementary schools only for pupils who have expressed the center of pedagogical-psychological counseling and prevention and are enrolled in the normal class of elementary school.
Governance and cooperation
Resources for the NRCP In the programming period 2014-2020 the Office of Plenipotentiary has become a recipient of five national projects what reinforced personnel capacities of the Office. By the December 2017 altogether 76 persons were working full time for the Office of the Plenipotentiary. Wages of 23 of them were covered by the state budget and of 53 by ESIF. Cross sectorial coordination The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the coordination of the implementation and monitoring of the NRIS. The Plenipotentiary operates as an advisory body for the Government of the Slovak Republic on issues related to Roma Communities. The Office of Plenipotentiary fulfills tasks aimed at addressing those issues, particularly in the area of development, implementation and coordination of effective policies and systemic measures aimed at preventing social exclusion of Roma communities and promoting their integration into society. The Plenipotentiary participates in the formulation, implementation and coordination of government policies and European Union policies, including the implementation of the assistance provided by the European Union, in particular the processes of inclusion and integration of Roma into society within the context of the Europe Strategy 2020 and in a designated scope he fulfills his duty to inform the authorities of the European Union and other international organizations. The Plenipotentiary on the basis of his statute can create his own advisory bodies. He also applies multi-level form of cooperation and communication through existing platforms and working groups, which have been set up especially for the purpose of exchange of mutual information at the level of ministries, for the consultations aimed at finding common solutions and to intensify the process of implementation of objectives defined in the Strategy. One of such platform is the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Roma Community Affairs. This commission acts to implement government's policies aimed at improvement of unfavorable status and integration of Roma communities and participates in the coordination of the tasks imposed by the Government of Slovak Republic to the ministries and to other state administration bodies by the strategic documents on Roma minority approved by the government. According to the Government resolution no. 1 from 11th January 2012, the Office of Plenipotentiary is annually obliged to process and submit to the Government of Slovak Republic a Monitoring report on implementation of the NRIS. This assessment of the situation of the implementation of specific actions/activities in the monitoring period is done in cooperation with relevant ministries responsible for the implementation of measures. For the updating of the action plans of the Strategy of SR for integration of Roma up to 2020, the Consultative Commission of the Plenipotentiary of Slovak Government for Roma Communities was established. Main role of the Consultative Commission was to update existing action plans for the period 2016-2018 and to develop new ones. The Consultative Commission was further subdivided to the Steering committee for the update of action plans and seven thematic working groups for the priority areas of the Strategy: education, employment, health, housing, financial inclusion, approach towards majority – Initiative of Roma integration through communication and non-discrimination. The aim of the Consultative Commission was to comment and approve the major decisions regarding the content of the updated action plans and the new ones, while the thematic working groups were responsible for development of the particular action plans. The NRCP was both consulted and participated in the decision-making processes regarding DEVELOPMENT of relevant policies. The Office of Plenipotentiary was actively involved in the preparation of the new programming period 2014-2020. The key and source documents for the creation, commenting, resp. designing of the inclusive measures / investments in the area of Roma inclusion were the Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Integration of Roma up to 2020 with the Revised National Action Plan of the Decade of Roma inclusion 2005 – 2015 for years 2011 - 2015, the Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States and the Country-Specific Recommendations concerning the integration of Roma. As result, the Office of Plenipotentiary has become for upcoming seven years a recipient of five national projects which are going to be implemented in 150 municipalities suffering from the most serious situation and the highest rate of segregation: NP Field social work; NP Community centres in municipalities with MRC presence; NP Settlement and legalization of lands; NP Pre-primary education and NP Monitoring and evaluation of inclusive policies and their impact on marginalized Roma communities (MRC). Update of action plans of the Strategy and new action plans for years 2016 – 2018: As described in the previous article, the Office of Plenipotentiary was in charge of the process of updating of action plans of the NRIS. The outcome document builds on the initial strategy adopted by the Government of the Slovak Republic, taking into account analytical description of the situation of the problem areas, incorporating the experiences obtained in the implementation of policies for Roma inclusion and responds to the conclusions of the External evaluation of the Strategy for the integration of Roma into 2020. The Recommendations of Council of the European Union from 9th December 2013 on effective measures for the integration of Roma in the Member States were a major baseline for the revision. The action plans update was aimed at: - eliminating the challenges identified in the External evaluation of the strategy, - moderation of global objective - to improve the interconnection with the measures and activities of the Action Plans, - optimization the monitoring and evaluation system - preparation of workable action plans for each priority area for the period 2016 - 2018. The monitoring framework was assessed and adapted according to the recommendations of the external evaluation and transformed to correspond with the monitoring framework based on the Recommendations of Council of the European Union created in collaboration with the EU Agency for fundamental rights. The NRCP was consulted in decision making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. The Office of Plenipotentiary was consulted during the period of preparation of Partnership Agreement and set up some indicative allocations needed for particular areas of housing, education, health and employment. These indicative allocations were then reflected with some changes in allocations for national projects. Similarly, the Office of Plenipotentiary consulted with relevant ministries funding from state budget for particular measures and activities of action plans. The NRCP was consulted in decision making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. The role and remits of the Plenipotentiary for Roma communities and the rules governing the involvement of the Office of the Plenipotentiary is defined in the Statute of the Plenipotentiary. Its primary function is described as an advisory role to the Government with coordinating role. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. The Office of the Plenipotentiary uses supporting platforms in the form of working groups to strengthen the dialogue with local and regional authorities as well as with Roma civil society. Since 2013, the representatives of Roma NGOs had participated particularly in working groups meetings for the preparation, implementation and monitoring of the EU Funds for Roma Inclusion and the implementation of the ex-ante conditionality. Working Group of the Plenipotentiary for EU funds in the programming period 2014 - 2020 aimed to assist in the preparation of programming documents on inclusion of marginalized Roma communities for the programming period 2014-2020. The members of the working group were representatives of non-governmental organizations, local governments and ministries. Main goal of the working group was to provide expertise in preparation of concrete and effective measures in the new programming period and ensure that interventions carried out by the ministries would directly address areas with the greatest concentration of separated and segregated communities and at the same time create the optimum conditions for increasing participation of Roma NGOs in the actual programming period. Representatives of Roma civil society also participated in the process of the action plans update as part of working groups. In addition in 2017 The Office of the Plenipotentiary established a Consultative Body for Non-Governmental and Not-for-profit organisations. The Consultative Body is governed by the Statute issued by the Office of the Plenipotentiary. It represents a consultative organ that is in charge with fulfilling the goals as set in the NRIS and the implementation of obligations of the Slovak Republic as set by international treaties concerning basic rights and freedoms as well as issued recommendations based o these treaties and agreements, legislative and non-legislative acts of the EU in the are of Roma integration. First meeting was held on December 14th 2017, where the main topic was a compulsory pre-school education. The main civil society stakeholders are: ·Working group of the Consultative Commission of the Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities: ·KARI Banská Bytrica; ·Quo Vadis; ·The Council of NGOs of Roma communities (Rada mimovládnych organizácií rómskych komunít); ·Romano kher - Rómsky dom; ·Roma Institute; ·Wide Open School (Škola dokorán); ·The Association of Young Roma (Združenie mladých Rómov); ·Complete list of stakeholders participated in the process of updating of the action plans of the NRIS can be found in the annex 1 of this report (in Slovak). ·Consulatative Body members: Teach for Slovakia; Človek v ohrození; Konferencia biskupov Slovensk;, ATSP –Milan Glevický; PPZZS –Platforma na podporu zdravia ynevýhodnených skupín, Slovak Governence Institute; Lače Lava; Nadacia Milana Šimečku; Open Society foundation; Unia Materských centier; CVEK – Centrum pre výskum etnicty a kultúry; The following stakeholders are involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS: ·Representatives of Trnava, Žilina, Košice and Nitra region, ·The Association of Towns and Villages of Slovakia, ·Statistical Office of SR, ·Roma institute, ·EPIC, ·European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, ·People in Need Slovakia, ·Association of the Roma Employers (Asociácia Zamestnávateľov Rómov ), ·Open Society Foundation, ·Rural Parliament, ·Representatives of different ministries There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is a baseline against which progress for the implementation of the Slovak NRIS is being assessed. OP Human resources - priority axes 5 or 6 have a set of result indicators with set baseline as well as target values, which have to be achieved by the implementation of projects within those priority axes. Benchmarks for measurable indicators (baseline and target value) of particular measures and activities in action plans of the NRIS were set up during 2017 in cooperation with ministries and other stakeholders responsible for implementation of these measures/activities. The strategy has also measurable targets

SLOVAKIA
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The government decided on introduction of compulsory one year preschool education. ·The government utilizes ESIF to support educational efforts. Through the ESF-funded projects, the government provides extra assistance and staff for schools where the proportion of Roma children is above 20%. ·ERDF funds are used to construct and expand kindergartens (since 2016 49 projects) and must ensure that at least 30% of the children enrolled are Roma. ·The Government Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities targets 150 municipalities with the most marginalised Roma communities (actually only 52 localities have projects running) and provided support in employing teachers and assistants in kindergartens to increase the enrolment of Roma children. ·Two-year vocational training for jobs in administration, construction, food industry, and textile production is well funded and has potential.	·Pre-school is not compulsory and is financed through local income taxes and lacks funding. The state offers kindergarten support for low income families, although the 164 EUR per year is not enough, further the income threshold for eligibility for the support is too low. ·Despite promises to combat grade repetition, no legislative changes have been adopted and specific interventions have not been implemented. ·No substantive measures to address educational gaps between Roma and non-Roma, facilitate the relationship between parents and the educational system, support teacher training in inclusive education, address absenteeism outside of criminal punishment or promote enrolment in higher education have been adopted. ·Vocational schools are often in segregated areas, provide poor quality training, and prepare students in industries where the labour demand is decreasing; in consequence graduates have higher unemployment rate. ·There are no effective measures to eliminate or reduce segregation in schools. This is also a problem in implementation of ESIF, which lack effective safeguards (going beyond declaration of the desegregation principle).
Employment
·Public employment services and measures are considered the main tool to support labour market integration of Roma. ·Recent rule on personal bankruptcy tackles debt-traps and therefore can improve employability, as well as help reduce usury. ·Public procurement system provides some incentive to favour employers of socially disadvantaged groups. ·There are a few private initiatives to reduce employer discrimination and a few public ones to preferentially hire Roma in public organisations.	·Public employment services’ capacities are limited. Field social workers support outreach to Roma community, but have very limited impact on improvement of Roma’s employment. ·Systematic barriers such as lacking language and other skills hinder Roma access to PES services. There is a need to increase staff capacity so that PES can provide meaningful support. Post-placement follow-up services are especially lacking. ·Public works programme is ineffective in supporting long-term return to primary labour market. Its evaluations have shown that the programme is often the only available opportunity for many socially excluded persons for increasing their social income. ·There are no government efforts to directly address employer discrimination beyond basic legal provisions. There is a need for more comprehensive government action to promote anti-discrimination.
Healthcare
·The main and the sole implemented NRIS’s measure is the field health assistants programme, which seems to be effective in improving Roma’s access to healthcare. The programme piloted by NGOs was scaled-up by the government and is financed from ESIF. It employs members of marginalised Roma communities. ·Registered unemployed (as well as recipients of the benefit in material need, mothers taking care of children up to 6 years, etc.) are insured by the state. Every insured person does have the right to the same scope of healthcare services, but patients with outstanding payments are entitled only to first-aid health treatment.	·The programme deserves institutionalisation and sustainable budgetary funding within the Slovak health care system (rather than ESIF project-based funding). ·There is a need for a system of health-related data collection disaggregated on the basis of ethnicity and social disadvantage that would enable addressing the health conditions disproportionately afflicting the Roma. ·The government should also develop comprehensive tools to identify, monitor and tackle antigypsyism and discrimination of Roma in health care. ·Spatial accessibility of health services for Roma, in particular those living in segregated areas of marginalised regions, is limited. ·The prevalence of some diseases (in particular cardiovascular, tuberculosis hepatitis A) is significantly higher among marginalised Roma than the mainstream population. Vaccination rates in three regions with the highest share of Roma communities are also lower than elsewhere.
Housing
·The implementation of a legislative change relating legalisation of parcels, which is a major challenge for housing inclusion, will be supported through a national project including legal counselling and other types of support implemented in the 150 communities with the least developed Roma communities. ·Between 2000 and 2018, the government funded the development of 295 housing sites with 4,689 flats of lower standard with a state-funded budget of 68.3 million EUR. These flats targeting marginalised Roma are almost always located separated at the edges of municipalities and sometimes even in segregated or/and isolated settings.	·Slovakia continues to struggle to reduce enormous disparities in housing conditions between Roma and non-Roma populations and to address the vast residential segregation experienced by more than half of Roma living in Slovakia. ·The governmental housing programme of lower-standard housing continues to residentially segregate Roma communities. ·The housing benefit is sufficient to cover the housing fees in low-standard flats or older municipal housing but is insufficient to help families to move into standard housing, or economically prosperous areas with employment opportunities. Moreover, they exclude inhabitants of informal housing and indebted persons. ·Ethnic discrimination at the housing market makes it practically impossible for Roma (especially from disadvantaged communities) to find anything other than municipal housing. ·So far, the use of ERDF funds for the housing has been delayed greatly. ·The fundamental right to access to water remains fully contingent upon the will of local authorities. Local municipalities face no palpable legal penalties for failing to ensure access to water to Roma populations. There is evidence that municipalities collectively punish people living in segregated areas by not providing proper waste collection services.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The Racial Equality Directive (RED) has been generally well transposed into the Slovak legal system, allows NGOs to pursue strategic litigation and successfully challenge the segregation of Roma children in education or discrimination against Roma in accessing goods and services, especially using actio popularis. ·The Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (SNCHR) is the equality body responsible tasked with combating discrimination.	·NGOs pursuing strategic litigation have faced lengthy proceedings and problematic interpretation of antidiscrimination law by courts, and failures by state and municipal authorities to implement judgments. ·Observers have repeatedly questioned the autonomy, effectiveness, and capacity of the SNCHR. The SNCHR is limited in terms of enforcement; often it merely issues an opinion and closes the case. ·Public prosecutors would benefit from training focused on antidiscrimination as they have powers to review by-laws of municipalities. Residents of excluded localities would greatly appreciate legal aid, for instance, in issues relating to housing and problematic renewal of their rental contracts with municipalities. ·Discriminatory treatment of Roma by law enforcement authorities continues to be a serious problem.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Slovakia’s policy documents do not explicitly recognize antigypsyism, but they focus on its manifestations. ·In 2011, the government set up the Committee against Racism composed of state officials, independent experts and NGOs, including a Roma organization. ·A recent anti-extremist amendment of the Criminal Code addresses some of the barriers in the prosecution of hate crimes. The Ministry of the Interior set up a special antiterrorist unit in February 2017 with the power to investigate crimes of extremism. Extremist crimes also started to fall within the competences of the Special Criminal Court. ·There has been some improvement of prosecution of hate speech by politicians. Another positive step has also been the recognition of the Roma Holocaust by the Slovak government. There were significant improvements in the media portrayal of Roma in recent years.	·Despite a positive legal development, the law enforcement by authorities is missing. Police fails to classify crimes as racially motivated (unless the perpetrator admitted such a motive), hate crime and hate motivated violence are underreported. ·There are deficiencies in recognition of the practice of coercive sterilizations of Roma women, both during communism and after 1989, as well as in the proper investigation and remedying. ·There are also on-going deficiencies in the investigation of the police raids and excessive use of force are not properly investigated by an independent body. Roma victims who testified as witnesses to police raids were charged with perjury. The investigator relied on an expert report suggesting that the victims have a common ‘mentalica Romica’ characterised by low trustworthiness, a propensity to lie and emotional instability.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The National Project Education of Youth (funded from ESF) promotes requalification, improves key employment skills of youngsters and provides direct financial assistance for those NEETs who either started their own business or were able to find work. ·A national project called PRIM (which started in July 2018) aims to create an inclusive environment in kindergartens and increase the number of Roma children enrolled.	·Governmental policies should focus more on the protection of reproductive rights of Roma women; state authorities should finally fully investigate and remedy all cases of past involuntary sterilisation of Roma women. ·Targeted national initiatives creating employment opportunities for Roma women are missing. ·Beyond the financial support of NEETs, mentoring programmes would be needed to support transition from education to employment. ·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT issues. ·A more comprehensive plan of early childhood care and of pre-school education with a specific targeting on the most vulnerable children, including marginalised Roma children is to be developed and implemented.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Roma inclusion policy-making is shared between the government’s coordinating and advisory body (Office of Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities, with some 90 staffs) and line ministries responsible for key agendas. The Plenipotentiary is not member of the cabinet. ·In current ESIF programming period, the Plenipotentiary Office is not substantially involved in the planning and management of all EU funding for Roma; instead it implements several large-scale ESIF-funded projects. ·The main portion of funds for Roma inclusion is earmarked in the Operational Programme Human Resources (ESF+ERDF), managed by the ministry of labour, but implemented by several ministries (labour, interior, education).	·The Plenipotentiary Office’s builds a strong expertise in Roma inclusion, however its position toward the ministries and impact on policy-making depends on the personality and leverage of the Plenipotentiary appointed by the government. ·Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion agenda in the work of other central bodies could be reinforced. Relevant ministries (Education, Health, Labour, Environment) have departments addressing issues relevant for Roma inclusion, but their expertise and commitment to address barriers and discrimination experienced by Roma could improve. ·Implementation of the ESIF for Roma inclusion faces serious challenges and problems in interventions’ design (the Plenipotentiary has only limited control over them, as they are in hands of ESIF technocrats without expertise in Roma inclusion).
Civil participation and empowerment
·The NRIS envision that NGOs will partner on drafting guidelines for implementation, evaluate the NRIS, deliver services, and implement awareness-raising. NGOs participate in these planned activities only partially. ·The Plenipotentiary initiated formation of several of consultative bodies to assist in the preparation and implementation of Roma inclusion policies: one reserved for Romani youth, mayors and NGOs working in the area. ·The number of Roma people elected to local office has been increasing significantly.	·The selection of the consulting NGOs depends on the host institution. ·Roma typically do not occupy leading positions in the state administration with powers to prepare and implement policies relevant not only for Roma but also for the entire society.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Municipalities have all the key responsibilities in preschool and primary education, housing, infrastructure and environment as well as in health. Actual implementation of the NRIS and Roma inclusion largely depends on the political will, commitment, capacities and resources of municipalities and their leaderships. ·The financing of municipalities does not recognise additional costs that municipalities face with integration programmes targeting disadvantaged communities. Yet, municipalities with disadvantaged communities can typically draw funds from additional state grant schemes and in particular from ESIF funds. ·Slovakia has traditionally adopted a territorial approach to using ESIF for Roma inclusion, i.e., targeting municipalities with significant marginalized Roma communities.	·Over the last decade, several municipalities have become one of the main drivers and a model of Roma inclusion policies, followed by other local governments, or scaled-up into national policies. However, this scaling-up is often problematic, as local well-functioning models are often eventually deformed by formalism and over-administration of the central administration machinery. ·Municipalities are often the entities that (through neglect or conscious action) keep Roma communities at the margins of society. Enforcement of duties that municipalities have towards Roma or do not violate their rights, remains weak. Compliance with relevant findings of the Public Defender of Rights in cases of evictions, segregation in education or access to drinking water has been rather limited. ·Using the ESIF presents a significant administrative and financial burden for small municipalities. Recognising these barriers, some administrative simplifications (unit costs or non-competitive access to funding) have been developed in some centrally-planned ESIF funded interventions (national projects).
Data collection
·In 2004 and 2012, sociographic mappings of Roma settlements were conducted; a follow-up mapping is ongoing. Findings are available in Atlas of Roma Communities, providing information about available technical infrastructure, educational and healthcare facilities, political and civic participation. ·The Atlas of Roma Communities was used for targeting the ESIF. Municipalities with the identified 150 most marginalised Roma communities are eligible in national projects implemented by the Plenipotentiary and thus have non-competitive access to funding for field social work, community centres, legalisation of lands and teaching assistants. ·The Plenipotentiary Office implements an ESIF-funded project aimed at collection of data on living conditions of Roma (this will be part of the EU SILC, that will include a special Roma sample) and monitoring and evaluation of public policies’ impact on Roma. ·A think-tank of the Ministry of Finances has recently started to focus on producing data on Roma exclusion from different public services and their discrimination (e.g. special education, exclusion from labour market, segregation) aimed at identification of ineffectiveness of the public policies/services and bottlenecks in Roma’s inclusion.	·Line ministries should collect ethnically disaggregated data in their regular policy-making; particularly in education, official anonymous state data disaggregated on ethnicity would significantly help to identify the practice of segregation, for example, as well as the impact of their policy measures.
Funding for civil society
·The NRIS anticipate the use of state and ESIF funds for NGOs’ activities. ·The authorities have also earmarked 15 million EUR for NGOs in the Effective Public Administration OP to increase civic awareness and participation in the areas of transparency, social affairs and human rights, including Roma inclusion. NGOs requested more than 30 million EUR and the Government provided the additional funding. ·NGOs (and municipalities) can also apply for Roma inclusion funding through the Roma Plenipotentiary office (600,000 EUR annually). ·The Justice Ministry administers a permanent state scheme supporting human rights projects with 763,500 EUR annually. ·NGOs working on Roma cultures can apply for funding through a new fund for the support of cultures of national minorities, replacing a previous funding scheme incorporating aspects of increased self-governance.	·Grassroots NGOs report that the design of community work funding does not sufficiently consider NGOs; project funding reimburses personnel salaries only, not operational or overhead costs. Larger NGOs sometimes manage to raise overhead funding, but where municipalities establish their own operations, this may reduce the chances of NGOs providing such services. ·Administrative requirements associated with application involving submitting up to 15 certificates from various state agencies, although digitalisation of these processes may reduce this burden.
Example of promising practice
New legal regulation of bankruptcy was adopted, which effectively helps low-income families in debt traps that could not prevented them from entering the labour market (because the income from work would seize to repay the debts) or lose housing. The new law was designed with a view of the specific situation of Roma. By the new regulation, entering into force on 1 March 2017, each natural person who is insolvent and facing distrainment can file for bankruptcy to clean their debt record. The court should rule within 15 days from the date of the filed petition. Implementation of the new regulation has been supported by an ESIF-funded project with an allocation of 8.3 million EUR. A public Centre for Legal Aid set up by the Ministry of Justice supports applicants for the bankruptcy and represent them in the procedure. Moreover, The Centre offers to a debtor 500 EUR as a loan for the legal representation that shall be paid back in the upcoming three years, typically by a 14 EUR monthly instalment.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·curbing segregation in education (covering both special schools as well as regular schools, ranging from kindergartens to secondary schools), ·access to pre-school education from age of 3 for all, in particularly socially disadvantaged children and scaling of early childhood services for Roma children, ·employment of women and Roma youth, ·at least adopting some gradual efforts to curb residential segregation (at minimum in cases of new housing development).

SPAIN
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Directorate General of Services for Families and Children
Strategic document	Spain has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	750.000 (1,61% of 46.528.966)
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic identity asked in custom sociological surveys, Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units)
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The most relevant achievement this year in terms of policy process has been the completion of the mid-term evaluation of the NRIS with the relevant participation of the different stakeholders, including the regions and with active participation of Roma CSOs. Based on the findings of the evaluation and its recommendations, the new Operational Plan has been drafted for the period of 2018-2020 with improved structure and content. Also, in the framework of the ERDF OP sustainable growth, some municipalities have presented projects aiming to intervene in areas with relevant Roma concentrations, with an inclusive approach towards Roma. As with 2016, the following achievements can be seen: •EDUCATION levels and academic success of Roma has generally improved. •Access to HOUSING and the quality of HOUSING has generally improved among Roma and there has been a reduction of slums and substandard housing. •Better ALIGNMENT of national and regional strategies. •Higher COMMITMENT of national and regional governments: 90% of 2017 measures where implemented totally or partially by the regions. Almost 50% of the regions have their own Roma inclusion strategies or plans or are in the in process of adopting one •Higher INVOLVEMENT of key stakeholders: Almost 70% of regions have coordination mechanisms with other departments and with local authorities, over 80% of regions have participative mechanisms with Roma CSOs and over 60% have M&E mechanisms. •Better and up-to-date INFORMATION of Roma inclusion policies: type of measures, budget, beneficiaries, EU funds
The main challenges
There is a need to pay attention to the mid-term evaluations of the structural funds, notably ESF, and take the necessary measures to follow the recommendations of this evaluation for the implementation of the NRIS in the coming years. There is a need to better engage Roma in the Youth employment imitative. As with 2016, there is also a need to: •Continue reinforcing the political commitment for Roma inclusion •Continue reinforcing the combination of target and mainstream measures (social inclusion / thematic areas): more efforts are required to monitor and prevent early school leaving and improve academic success as well as access to tertiary education; more efforts need to be put in monitoring and promoting access to employment; more resources need to be invested in reducing health inequalities. Information shows that ESF funding is generally not available for this type of actions, a trend that should be reversed. •Continue reinforcing the involvement of all key stakeholders, especially at local level •More long-term programmes need to be implemented as these are more effective and efficient •Prevent and combat segregation of Roma in all key thematic areas •More Roma participation in public policies is needed •More cultural and public recognition activities are needed
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The mechanisms put in place for developing the Spanish NRIS have demonstrated positive results, as there is a better planning system in place, the methods of data collection and results have improved, the coordination between the Government and regional governments is working well, with increasing regional participation. There are also more spaces for exchange, mutual learning etc. Similarly, the annual thematic seminars organised in collaboration with regions have addressed issues that are relevant for the stakeholders. In addition, the engagement of the Roma CSOs and leaders through the State Roma Council has allowed better engagement of Roma in the whole process.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 113 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Spain. 35 of them were mainstream and 78 targeted. 111 were implemented by a public authority (81 at regional and 30 at national level), two were implemented by private sector or other entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described, Spain also reported 28 measures as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, 23 as relevant for in empowerment as relevant for the area of local action, three to monitoring and evaluation and five as relevant for the area of culture. 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, 23 measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. Nine measures were mainstream and 14 targeted. All 23 were implemented by a public authority. 17 were implemented at regional level and six at national level.
The most important success
20,23% of 2017 measures were in the area of education. Education levels and academic success of Roma has generally improved. Factors that are contributing to this achievement are: 1.Important investment on education measures: it is the area where more measures are being implemented both at national and regional level; 2.Combining mainstream measures with target measures is having a very positive impact. In recent years, initiatives to promote management of diversity and non-discrimination in schools as for example training sessions to schoolteachers and educator on diversity and Roma culture, seminars and workshops, and manuals are having a positive impact on how schools manage Roma inclusion in education. Collaborating closely with Roma Civil Society Organisation (CSOs) through specific programmes that support schools and Roma students has been vital to improve education levels of Roma children and young people. The greatest number of measures implemented in 2017 were aimed at promoting the continuity and success of Roma pupils in school, that is to say, aimed at reducing absenteeism, school failure and early dropout (specific measures with this aim also received the largest budget).
The most important challenge
1.Despite efforts, more effective and long-term measures are necessary to promote continuity and success in school for Roma pupils in collaboration with the Education community and Roma CSOs. 2.Enrolment of Roma pupils in vocational education and training should be reinforced together with measures to promote continuity and success, especially in apprenticeship studies. 3.Measures should be taken to prevent and reduce the high concentration of Roma pupils in certain educational centres or classrooms. 4.Transition between the different educational stages in collaboration should be reinforced. 5.Early schooling for the Roma population (0-6 years) should be an important priority.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, 18 measures were reported as relevant for the area of employment. Seven measures were mainstream. 17 were implemented by a public authority and one by a private sector. 14 measures were implemented at regional and four at national level.
The most important success
20.52% of 2017 measures were in the area of employment. There is still no specific updated statistical data on the situation of Roma in their access to employment. According to the opinion of key stakeholders, there has been some improvement in the access of Roma to mainstream employment and in their employability (as well as an expanding range of occupational sectors in which Roma are working, a decline in the black economy).
The most important challenge
1.Increasing access to employment and improving employability, especially among Roma women, paying particular attention to promoting Roma access to employment (increasing the rate of Roma employees); 2.Improving employment conditions and career development; 3.Promoting Roma access to public employment opportunities, not only in the area of social services but also in other areas. The general perception is that more efforts need to be put in this thematic area to improve access to diverse employment of Roma but also to ensure that they are not discriminated against in their access to employment or in their professional development and employment conditions. Investing in measures and programmes to improve the social perception of Roma in society (break stereotypes and prejudices) is necessary. In addition, special attention needs to be paid to ensure that Roma benefit from mainstream employment policies, in particular specific programmes such as the Youth Guarantee. Finally, particular attention needs to be paid to Roma from Eastern European countries who in general have higher unemployment rates and more difficulties in accessing employment than native Roma.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, ten measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare. Three measures were mainstream. All ten were implemented by a public authority. Eight measures were implemented at regional and two at national level.
The most important success
7.51% of 2017 measures were in the area of health. The most important success has been to promote the involvement of Roma in mainstream prevention health programmes as well as implementing initiatives to promote management of diversity and a better knowledge of Roma culture and traditions within health services. Training sessions targeted at health professionals on diversity and Roma culture are having a positive impact on how health professionals provide a better service for all and take into account Roma special needs and specificities. Since 2015, a new approach has been piloted whereby CSOs are involved in the design of certain training programmes aimed at health professionals to analyse what adaptations are required to ensure that they take into account Roma needs. This method is being used by several regions as well as at national level. Another important success has been the publication of a new study on health among Roma.
The most important challenge
There have not been many improvements concerning health inequalities among Roma; they remain at similar levels as in 2012 with very little improvements in some areas (e.g. domestic accidents). The main challenges that remain are: 1.Guarantee access to quality public health services. 2.Improve Roma health and reduce social inequalities in health through target health prevention and health promotion measures, especially regarding the risk factors addressed in the national Health Inequity Strategy: physical activity, food, tobacco, alcohol, injuries and emotional well-being. 3.Facilitate, with an equity approach, a good start in life for all Roma children, giving continuity to work started in positive parenthood. 4.Promote and/or reinforce the implementation of health actions with the Roma community from the national, regional and local administrations, and from the Roma civil society organisation. 5.Guide policies and measures with an equity approach.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
HOUSING
In 2017, ten measures were reported as relevant for the area of housing. Five measures were mainstream. All ten were implemented by a public authority. Nine were implemented at regional level and one at national level.
The most important success
6.94% of 2017 measures were in the area of housing. The quality of housing has generally improved among Roma and there has been a reduction of slums and substandard housing. We also observe a wider access of Roma to the mainstream housing market. 1.the percentage of slum dwellings among Roma homes has been reduced; 2.the percentage of Roma people living in dwellings considered as "substandard housing" has been reduced; 3.the percentage of Roma households lacking some basic facilities has been reduced; 4.the percentage of Roma households in areas with a lack of urban facilities has been; 5.the percentage of Roma households that are overcrowded has been reduced. At national level, 4 different seminars were organised with national, regional and local authorities to exchange knowledge and experience from different perspectives as well as to encourage regions to make use of the ESIFs, especially with regards to complementarity of ESF and ERDF. As a result, two regions (Madrid and Murcia) have included a specific programme to eradicate shantytowns within the framework of ESIF 2014-2020. In addition, five other regions have specific programmes to eradicate shantytowns (Aragón, Asturias, Catalonia, Galicia and Navarra). Finally, it is worth highlighting that in 2015, the Ministry responsible for housing policies at national level organised a seminar in collaboration with CSOs to share experiences on how to improve the access to housing and improve living conditions of Roma.
The most important challenge
Despite the efforts made to eradicate shantytowns and to implement housing programmes (mainstream and target), the high poverty and social exclusion rates of Roma in Spain is having a negative impact on their housing and living conditions. The main challenges are: 1.Addressing the challenge of spatial segregation and the eradication of slum-dwellings, especially in urban context, from a comprehensive and integrated approach and with a sustainable and long-term political commitment from all key stakeholders; 2.Improving the access and quality of housing among Roma, in particular those at risk of poverty and social exclusion; 3.Preventing and reducing stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes in the private housing sector to increase Roma access to the private housing market.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, 17 measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. Four measures were mainstream. All 17 were implemented by a public authority. 11 measures were implemented at regional and six at national level.
The most important success
6.65% of 2017 measures were dedicated to equality and non-discrimination. The most important success in this area in the past years has been to take a complementary approach to equality and non-discrimination: on one hand it has focused on promoting a better social and public image of Roma in society (actions and campaigns to break stereotypes but also disseminate their culture from a positive perspective and promote discussion and debate with media and other stakeholders), mainly through the Roma Culture Institute but also through specific programmes. On the other hand, the launch of the first working plan of the Ethnic and Racial Origin Equality Council in 2010 established a series of programmes and services aimed at improving the knowledge of equality and discrimination on the grounds of ethnic and racial origin, and at giving assistance to victims of discrimination. Finally, national and regional governments have also undertaken initiatives aimed at recognising the role of Roma in society from a cultural and historic point of view. Working with key stakeholders to break stereotypes and improve their knowledge and understanding of Roma culture are factors that have contributed to this objective. In this sense, there have been many initiatives taken at national and regional level to address this (educators, health professionals, media, businesses, civil servants, etc.). Involving Roma CSOs in these initiatives is key to success. This is also the case with programmes aimed at assisting victims of discrimination.
The most important challenge
Reduce stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes towards Roma, especially through mainstream media. Despite the efforts made to break stereotypes and assist victims of discrimination, the social image of Roma amongst society is generally negative. The fact that some TV channels are producing and airing shows that reinforce stereotypes on Roma is having such a negative impact on the social image of Roma that it undoes a lot of the work and efforts that are put in campaigns or initiatives to counteract this image.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, ten measures were reported as relevant for the area of multiple discrimination. Three measures were mainstream. All ten were implemented by a public authority, eight at regional and two at national level.
The most important success
The situation of GENDER EQUALITY AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE ROMA COMMUNITY is improving and a positive trend can be seen in light of the empowerment of Roma women. The greatest number of measures implemented are those specifically aimed at the Roma population (77% at regional level) and the majority of those were aimed at promoting gender equality among the Roma population.
The most important challenge
Despite improvements, this positive trend there still remains a large gap in gender equality among the Roma population and there is a need to implement a greater number of specific measures focused on: 1.Promoting gender equality and equal opportunities for men and women among the Roma population. 2.Promoting the empowerment and leadership of Romany women. 3.Preventing and raising awareness of gender-based violence among the Roma population.
The overall situation in this thematic area has improved.
Governance and cooperation
The NRCP does not have a dedicated budget as it is part of a unit with broader competences. It is not possible to estímate the budget allocated or spent. Currently the NRCP has one full-time officer, two full-time support staff and one part-time coordinator (18 hours/week). The NRCP is committed to the description of its role and functions included in the Operational Plans 2014-2016 and 2018-2020 and has been complying with it. The NRCP is both in charge and contributing to the coordination of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. NRCP promotes cross-sectoral coordination, especially at national level. The NRCP organizes an annual thematic seminar with the participation of representatives from different ministries, regions and Roma CSOs. It also facilitates the management of the Roma National Council working groups composed of representatives of national ministries and Roma CSOs. It also promotes cross-sectoral coordination in certain topics (e.g.: education and non-discrimination; education and health) The NRCP is both being consulted and participating in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies NRCP is involved in the decision making process of the policies on Roma inclusion and is consulted by other ministries in the process of development of their policies when it affects Roma inclusion. The NRCP is not involved in decision-making processes regarding FUNDING of relevant policies. The NRCP is participating in decision-making processes regarding IMPLEMENTATION of relevant policies. The NRCP is responsible of the implementation of policies related to social inclusion and is consulted and involved in the implementation of policies from other areas (mainstream or target) that have an impact on Roma inclusion. The NRCP is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS: Creation and reinforcement of thematic working groups within the National Roma Council and at regional level (coordinated by departments responsible for Roma inclusion) with the involvement of departments responsible for those thematic policies and Roma civil society organisations. The NRCP is responsible of the secretariat of the National Roma Council. It therefore facilitates its activities and the management of the working groups. It also facilitates and encourage the participation of the council in the consultation process of national policies and legislation. The main civil society stakeholders are the National Roma CSOs. The following stakeholders are involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS: •National Roma Council (National Roma Platform), •ministerial departments of national government (education, employment, housing, health, culture, non-discrimination, equality, youth), •Regional governments •National federation of municipalities and provinces There is a dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. The Equality body is also invited to participate in all activities organised by the NRCP There is a baseline against which progress for the implementation of the Spanish NRIS or set of policy measures is assessed. The strategy also has measureable targets. Please see NRIS here (in English): https://www.msssi.gob.es/ssi/familiasinfancia/inclusionSocial/poblacionGitana/docs/SpanishRomaStrategy.pdf

SPAIN
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The NRIS includes the objective, for the time period till 2020, of increasing the proportion of Roma children (aged 0-6 years) who attend pre-school, by awareness raising among Roma parents and by giving priority to families with social exclusion risk. ·Measures enhancing Roma students’ participation and inclusion in compulsory education is being done gradually but firmly (e.g. in terms of access, academic and social integration, curriculum adjustment etc.). ·Emphasis is placed on support of disadvantaged pupils and students, including those coming from socially disadvantaged environment. ·Education seems to be in the focus of the NRIS: 61.2% of the NRIS Operational Plan 2014-2016 measures were in the area of education and employment. ·Different projects and campaigns have been carried out by the Roma civil society sector to address the school dropouts.	·Due to lack of data, the actual achievements of the objectives in education are not known. ·Compared to the objectives set in the NRIS, the number of actions that have been carried out in the field of early childhood education is minimal. Roma children’s enrolment in pre-school education is still lower compared to the mainstream population. ·Dropout rate among young Roma (12-24) remains very high (60-65%); in consequence the education level of Roma is far behind the mainstream population. ·School segregation is often associated with residential segregation. The elimination of schools with a high concentration of Roma students has not been done yet.
Employment
·Small-scale Roma-targeted programmes of the regional public employment services are available (including explicit targeting of Roma women). ·NGO-initiated Acceder programme offers training and job exchange in most regions populated by Roma.	·Many Roma engage in informal and/or low paid employments. ·There is a need to monitor regional variation in Roma’s access to public employment services. ·Governmental programmes should focus on the transition process from education to the labour market. ·Youth guarantee should be strengthened to reach out to Roma youth and offer tailored services, especially to support school to work transition. ·There is no official monitoring of employment discrimination; there is a need for awareness raising among Roma about protection against discrimination in employment.
Healthcare
·Despite a brief detour explained by austerity needs, healthcare in Spain remains universal and the Roma are covered to the same extent as the majority. ·The Equis Sastipen network, created by NGO UNGA in 2010 and co-financed by the government, includes 21 associations and Roma federations from all over Spain with aim to sensitise, train and accompany public administrations and professionals working in the field of health. A manual for the promotion of health in the Roma community was also produced.	·Despite improvements, Roma life expectancy is still 15 years less than the average life expectancy of the population. ·Women’s health issues and low participation in preventive efforts remain areas of concern. ·It seems necessary to maintain and expand the health agents’ programmes among the Roma community.
Housing
·Further progress has been made in residential inclusion of Roma – i. e. reduction of shanty towns, desegregation and access to social housing – thanks to initiatives at various governance levels and cooperation with NGOs. ·Besides infrastructure and housing development subsidies, debt management schemes have been launched to prevent evictions.	·There was a detrimental effect of the 2008 crisis on the housing conditions of many Roma and funding of public programmes aimed at their improvement. ·The Roma communities are discriminated in the rental market. In consequence, many Roma continue to live in stigmatised or segregated neighbourhoods. ·A gap between Roma and non-Roma persist in housing quality and access to amenities; an increasing number of Roma households has been disconnected from heating due to problems with payments. ·Segregated Roma neighbourhoods lack public services, such as public transport, health care, secondary education centre, recreation and cultural facilities or social services.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Free legal aid services for victims of discrimination and hate crime have been established by bar associations of Madrid, Barcelona, Malaga, Seville and Cordoba. ·2018-2020 Inclusion Plan draft includes measures to avoid and reduce the concentration of Roma students in some schools. ·ESIF finance actions to raise awareness of equal treatment and the fight against discrimination against the Roma population. There is a special focus on discrimination faced by Roma women.	·The protection against discrimination is not regulated by a single law and does not cover all fields and grounds; the government has failed to prepare a single comprehensive instrument on equal treatment. ·The national equality body (Council of Equality and Non-Discrimination – CERED) is not independent and its role has been reduced to victim support service. ·Victims of discrimination should have access to free legal services country-wide. ·Segregation of Roma in education should be extensively researched to determine the real scale of the problem.
Fighting antigypsyism
·A declaration made by the Catalan Parliament recognised the persecution and genocide of the Roma. ·The state financially supports many initiatives to fight antigypsyism. For example: Barcelona Office for Non-Discrimination organised workshops to tackle antigypsyism and on activism in secondary education. ·The Autonomous Community of Catalonia has a ‘Bureau for Diversity in the Audio-visual sector’ that has a Roma member and cooperates with Roma organisations. ·All Spanish Autonomous Regions now have a prosecutor specialised in hate crimes and discrimination. ·In 2015, Ministry of the Interior published a protocol to address hate crime and discrimination for National Police and the Civil Guard, which includes a definition of antigypsyism and contact points for citizens in each province. ·Police forces in Madrid and Catalonia provide training on antigypsyism, intercultural policing, prevention of ethnic profiling.	·NRIS has neither indicators on antigypsyism, nor a specific budget to fight against it. ·The Victim Assistance Service cannot litigate; it can only be dedicated to mediation and extrajudicial resolutions that limits the capacity of management and defence of the victims. ·Public institutions should carry out campaigns aimed at raising awareness of antigypsyism.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The National Council for the Participation of Women and Spanish Youth Council includes Roma organisations. ·The NRIS provides for measures to support young people’s access to rental housing and protected social housing, particularly those with family obligations, as well as Roma people living sub-standard housing and slums. ·The Employment Council of Andalusia in cooperation with a Roma women’s NGO implemented a promising programme aimed at creating internship places and labour market opportunities for Roma women.	·It would be necessary to establish a plan, aimed at promoting the labour market situation of Roma youth (aged 16-25 years) within the framework of the Youth Guarantee Programme. ·Special support programmes should be provided for young Roma women, aimed at promoting their autonomy and self-esteem. ·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
·Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality was designated as NRCP and in cooperation with civil society and regions developed the National Strategy for Roma Inclusion 2012-2020. The NRIS integrated all specific programmes targeting Roma. ·NRCP established working groups with key ministries to coordinate Roma inclusion policies in housing, education and culture. The approach takes a horizontal rather than hierarchical perspective. ·The actual Roma inclusion policies are however largely designed and implemented by autonomous regions. ·State Council for the Roma Community (CEPG) is an inter-ministerial consultative and advisory body to promote equal opportunities and treatment for the Roma population with central authorities.	·There is no national specialised body with a mandate to promote specific policies for the Roma community. ·Due to a high level of decentralisation, the national government, that is responsible for the NRIS, can establish only a minimal framework for action in areas such as housing or education. ·Spanish National Parliament has no committee or other structure with an exclusive mandate to deal with issues affecting the Roma community. ·Accountability in Roma inclusion policies should be increased by strengthening the mandate and dedicated budgets of the CEPG and NRCP. ·It is necessary to strengthen coordination among public administration from different levels (national, regional, local), in cooperation with the CEPG to deal with Roma policies and programmes.
Civil participation and empowerment
·The CEPG has a parity participation of representatives of public authorities and civil society. ·In the last 30 years there have been different “Roma councils” at different levels to promote cooperation between the Roma and the public administration. ·At the local, regional and state level, various empowerment initiatives have been launched and managed by the Roma community and their NGOs. ·Local, regional and national governments support Roma participation in three main ways: financially, by participation in advisory bodies and through campaigns to promote Roma visibility and symbolical recognition. ·In recent years, several initiatives have been launched with the aim of encouraging Roma men and women to take part in the electoral process. Also, pressure has been placed on political parties to include more members of the Roma candidates on their electoral lists.	·The Spanish Constitution makes it impossible to introduce an affirmative action to increase Roma participation in the public administration. ·Further empowerment and participation of Roma youth and women in civil society should be supported.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Municipalities have full mandate to design and implement policies in fields crucial for Roma inclusion: housing, education, non-discrimination, participation and social assistance to persons in (at risk of) social exclusion. ·Some local governments have created posts of ‘ombudsman’ whose role is to defend fundamental rights; in Barcelona an Office for Non-Discrimination (OND) was created. These structures often deal with Roma’s issues. ·At the local level, advisory bodies working with Roma communities start to appear as a consultative body that acts as a stable platform for discussion and debate on questions referring to improving the well-being and quality of life of Roma in the city.	·In Spanish context public administration decentralisation and competences, the only tool to guarantee that local authorities comply with their obligations in Roma inclusion are political debates or strategic litigation. ·Regional and local administrations should develop specific plans for Roma inclusion with clear budget allocations and indicators to measure the progress. ·Advancing the promotion of inclusion policies depends mainly on political will, personal commitment and the priorities of the municipalities.
Data collection
·In Spain the collection of ethnically disaggregated data is not allowed. ·Different entities use data obtained from participants or beneficiaries of their programmes based on self-identification as belonging to the Roma minority.	·There is no comprehensive approach to collecting statistical or other quantitative data on measuring the potential impact of the NRIS and the corresponding measures. ·There is a lack of data on the impact of mainstream policies on Roma.
Funding for civil society
·Project-based funding is available to some civil society organisations implementing some measures in fields of employment, education, health, housing, gender equality, fight against social exclusion and others. ·The Roma Development Programme (since 1989) is still in force today and is managed by the national government in collaboration with the various autonomous communities which commit to co-financing the activities that will be implemented in their regions. ·The most important mechanism for funding Roma initiatives is through grants for implementing activities of general interest charged to the tax assignment of personal income tax.	·An European audit found that some regions (e.g. Andalusia) had not adhered to the 2014-2020 investments priority “socio-economic integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma” despite having significant marginalised Roma population that would have benefited from such targeting. ·Distribution of public funds among organizations that work with the Roma population has been criticised by a part of the civil society, that considers it preferential to large charities and disadvantaging smaller grassroots.
Example of promising practice
One of the keys to combating hate crimes and antigypsyism has been the creation of a special prosecutor for dealing with hate crimes and discrimination. After a ‘pilot phase’ that lasted several years, the service was rolled out in 2013. All Spanish provinces now have a prosecutor specialised in hate crimes and discrimination.
Most important priorities to be addressed
•To strengthen the position of the CEPG that will increase accountability of the activities aimed at Roma inclusion. •To adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that will clearly prohibit discrimination in all fields and based on all grounds provide defined by the EU law, and provide effective instruments for protection for victims of discrimination. •To include the issue of antigypsyism in the NRIS, including indicators to track the progress and necessary budgetary allocations for activities. •To systematically coordinate and scale up on the national level the existing efforts to fight against residential segregation; this should include a dedicated plan with specific measures and necessary budgetary allocations. •To promote an action plan within the youth employment strategy and Youth Guarantee programme that will specifically address young Roma.

SWEDEN
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of Culture
Strategic document	Sweden has a National Roma Integration Strategy
Roma population (Council of Europe estimation, updated in July 2012):	50.000 (0,50% of 9.995.153)
Available options for data collection	Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups). Data disaggregated by ethnicity are not collected
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
Municipalities have a key role in the work to improve the situation of Roma as they are responsible for activities that are crucial for Roma opportunities for inclusion in society. It was thus important that the Government passed a decision on grants to five new municipalities, which will develop municipal Roma inclusion models over two years. The decision has been extended for another 2 years (2016-2019). The work of the strategy for Roma inclusion shows that the work of the five new municipalities and state agencies has started properly in 2017. Work has been intensified in several of the strategy's areas of activity, which led to efforts that are more concrete and more opportunities to ensure participation and influence for Roma people. At the same time, the County Administrative Board's follow-up shows that in the national perspective, there is a limited number of municipalities that actively work with efforts based on the strategy for Roma inclusion. The County Administrative Board of Stockholm has developed a process to support municipalities to develop a right based approach to ensure Roma access to their rights. The majority of municipalities receiving state grants have taken part in a process with a rights-based approach. Several of the municipalities have been working to establish long-term structures for Roma inclusion in the municipal administration. Roma councils have for example a central role in the municipality's work and mediators are employed at strategic locations above all within the fields of education, workand health. The statement (p. 6 indicating the most promising measures) is based on a preliminary assessment based on state agencies reporting to the government and through dialogue with the Government Offices’ Roma reference group.
The main challenges
One challenge is that as far as possible, the strategy for Roma inclusion will be included in the framework of ordinary activities and structures in the local administration. The strategy concerns the municipality in its entirety. Municipalities need to continue and strengthen the work with a sustainable and long-term Roma inclusion at all levels of the municipal administration.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
The first four years of Roma inclusion work has provided important experiences, models, knowledge and tools that are now available for future actions on local and national level. A constructive dialogue with the Government Offices’ Roma reference group which represents many parts of the Swedish Roma community has been crucial for the development of these new assignments. During spring 2016 the reference group was renewed after a nomination process where Roma in Sweden were given the possibility to suggest participants to the group. The persons in the reference group are appointed till June 2019
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 13 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in Sweden, all targeted. 11 were implemented by a public authority (10 at national level and one at local), one was implemented by a transnational public organisation and one by a different type of entity. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, Sweden also reported one measure as relevant for the area of poverty reduction through social investment, five as relevant for empowerment, one as relevant for local action, and one as relevant for the area of culture. 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, two measures were reported as relevant for the area of education. Both measures were targeted, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Mediators who have Roma language and cultural skills to serve as a link between school and pupils and their families has been a positive experience in the area of education. The personal contact at the individual level is a positive factor of contribution.
The most important challenge
One challenge is to get teachers to use previously published material about Roma Culture, language, religion and history.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of employment. It was targeted, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
The Public Employment Service has identified that one success factor is dedicated resources in the form of employees with a special focus on Roma.
The most important challenge
More efforts are needed to involve Roma women in the activities of the Public Employment Service.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, two measures were reported as relevant for the area of healthcare. Both were targeted, implemented by a public authority at national level.
The most important success
Many Roma Health promotors have been trained, through peer-to-peer education. They have learnt about various health issues. Furthermore, Gävle municipality has declared its intention to the project of Roma health promotors and activism from Roma Youth organisation. Local participation and close geografic proximity. Flexibility in implementation. Roma educators.
The most important challenge
Administrative co-ordination and resource demanding.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
HOUSING
In 2017, one measure was reported as relevant for the area of employment. It was targeted, implemented by a public authority at transnational level.
The most important success
The personal meeting between Roma and non-Roma about the guidance material.
The most important challenge
Getting property owners and landlords to attend offered education and use the guidance material.
The overall situation in this thematic area improved.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
In 2017, five measures were reported as relevant for the area of anti-discrimination. They were all targeted, implemented by a public authority. Four of them were implemented at national and one at transnational level.
The most important success
Targeted support to newly involved municipalities and mediator activities which contributes to increased knowledge on Roma history, situation today, and rights as a national minority.
The most important challenge
Mainstreaming work in the new municipalities is an important challenge as well as making it long-term and sustainable.
The overall situation in this thematic area remained the same.
Governance and cooperation
The annual allocated budget for NRCP cannot be specified. The NRCP is in charge of the implementation and monitoring of NRIS. A network for Roma inclusion within the Government Offices has been created but the NRCP always involve other ministries in the shaping of new Government decisions. The network meets at least twice a year to discuss the annual progress reports, the outcomes from the meetings with the Roma reference group, and possible and upcoming measures on Roma inclusion. The NRCP ·is participating in decision-making processes regarding development of relevant policies; ·is participating in decision-making processes regarding funding of relevant policies. ·is not involved in decision-making processes regarding implementation of relevant policies. ·is facilitating participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. A constructive dialogue with the Government Offices’ Roma reference group, which represents many parts of the Swedish Roma community, has been crucial for the development of these new assignments. Meetings with the reference Group are held 2-4 times per year, are focused on policy development, and follow up and monitoring of the implementation of the national strategy. The focal points of the Strategy are: 20 representatives and experts that are nominated throughout an open process and appointed for three years. The Group consists of a variety of competences, ages, gender and Roma sub-groups. The stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS are: ·The County Administrative Board of Stockholm, ·The National Board of Health and Welfare, ·The Public Employment Service, ·The National Agency for Education, ·The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, ·The Public Health Agency, ·The Swedish Agency for Public Management, ·The Agency for Youth and Civil Society, ·The Swedish Arts Council, ·The Institute for Language and Folklore There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is a baseline against which to assess progress for the implementation of your NRIS or set of policy measures. In 2014, the Stockholm County Administrative Board, in close cooperation with Roma representatives and relevant agencies, produced a current status report on how activities in the previous five pilot municipalities for Roma inclusion ensure Roma access to their rights. The County Administrative Board’s current assignment 2016–2019 includes conducting a similar status report, which will make up the first more extensive follow-up of the strategy. There are no measurable targets.

SWEDEN
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·The right to education (guaranteed also to refugees and immigrant children) encompasses promoting the interests of children with different forms of disadvantages and guarantees the right to mother tongue education. ·‘Roma bridge builders’, knowing the Roma’s language and culture, work as mediators between the schools, the children and the Roma parents in some municipalities. ·Södertörn University is in charge of teachers’ education in Romani language, and is commissioned to build a training program for Roma bridge builders for municipal schools and social services. · There are folk high schools (independent adult education colleges) that offer education for Romani language speakers.	·Given the fact that there is a shortage of teachers in the Romani language, some municipalities do not guarantee this mother tongue education. ·One major issue is the lack of education on the Roma minority both in teachers’ education and school curriculum which leads to ongoing prejudices and children’s progress in school.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are accessible to Roma; a dedicated pilot for outreach Roma jobseekers via Roma mediators has been launched. ·Public employment services’ staff and municipal officers receive a diversity training to better meet Roma’s needs.	·There is a lack of systematic information on discrimination against Roma by employers or specific activities of the public employment services in this field.
Healthcare
·Strengthening equality in healthcare and reducing health gaps is a national goal adopted by the Parliament. ·A number of local projects aimed at improving health of young Roma (e.g. in reducing obesity) or training medical staff has been developed.	·In some regions, healthcare providers have limited awareness about Roma’s specific needs or rights to specific measures to make services accessible. . ·Roma’s awareness on healthcare is sometimes limited (e.g. in dental health). ·Efforts to build mutual trust and develop collaboration between Roma and healthcare can be strengthened.
Housing
·Five municipalities have actively responded to state initiatives to review the state of the art and develop local strategies to improve the situation (including accessing housing rights) of Roma in the local context by 2032. ·A guidance material aimed at property owners and landlords was produced to increase knowledge about the situation of the Roma in the housing market, counteract discrimination and prejudice against Roma. A training component supplementing it was launched.	·Roma have to hide their identity to avoid discrimination in the housing market, thus, there is presumably great underreporting of discriminatory actions. ·There is a need for increased awareness that the automated computer based queuing systems used by the housing companies for the allocation of housing may have a discriminatory effect in itself as not all housing seekers are literate (among them many Roma, especially elderly ones) and not all of them have computer skills.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Several official bodies on national (Swedish Equality Ombudsman), regional and local levels focus on countering discrimination and promoting equal opportunities on national, regional and communal level.	·Part of Roma still do not benefit from the elaborate and generous social welfare system and the well-developed safety net. ·The government should allocate means to antidiscrimination bureaus to strengthen their capacity to aid the Roma minority.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The Commission Against Antigypsyism that ended in 2016 resulted in several state initiatives to acknowledge historic and current abuse of the Roma people. A result is also a Government Official Inquiry about founding a national institute for Roma issues. ·The Swedish National Council on Crime prevention records and publishes an annual report on hate crimes in Sweden, where disaggregated data can be found. ·Since 2016 the Swedish police created special units in the three major regions for combating hate crimes. These units are building expertise in the field and reaching out and forming councils with minority groups, including the Roma.	·The Equality Body and the police need to be more proactive in making sure that hate crime and discrimination are reported by Roma. ·It is crucial to ensure that the Swedish judicial system operates in a way that consciously and actively strives for zero tolerance for antigypsyism within law enforcement. ·It is crucial to ensure that all school children are educated on history as well as on the lives of Roma people today. Teacher education should include knowledge on the Roma minority too. ·Reports of ethnic profiling persist; in 2013, the police authority in Southern Sweden had an illegal and active register of 4,000-5,000 Roma who were registered through family and social ties.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The NRIS identifies women as a priority target group; special measures are planned to improve Roma women’s health and labour market opportunities.	·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
·The County Administrative Board in Stockholm County (CABS) is assigned to coordinate the NRIS implementation and to provide support to other involved authorities. ·Ministry of Culture established a national Roma Council and aims at including Roma representatives from as diverse backgrounds as possible; with different professional backgrounds and expertise, from all range of ages, genders and competences.	·Some Roma representatives question the selection process of the national Roma Council from the point of view of transparency.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Today there are around eleven national Roma associations in Sweden that cooperate on diverse issues.	·Roma civil society perceives weaknesses in access to and distribution of information relevant for Roma. ·Evaluations of governmental programmes aimed at Roma inclusion are often done internally without Roma consultation, Roma participation or any feedback provided.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·NRIS requires that in order to achieve its expected results, all authorities and municipalities should actively take responsibility to pay attention to and ensure Roma´s access to their rights in their standard operations. ·CABS provide local governments with assistance in design and implementation of Roma inclusion measures. ·Local governments and other government agencies provide the CABS with inputs to the annual reports and NRIS evaluation. ·Roma inclusion measures are piloted in several municipalities in cooperation with central authorities. The CABS disseminates findings and experience from the pilot projects. ·An important success factor in some of the previous pilot municipalities’ work on Roma inclusion has been a human rights-based approach.	·Annual report from CABS does not seek feedback from the Roma Civil Society orother Roma representatives to a sufficient extent.
Funding for civil society
·Roma civil society can apply for public funding for their activities from a competitive grant scheme.	·The grants are provided on an annual basis and Roma NGOs consider the allocation as relatively small and difficult to access for less experienced organisations. Rejections come back without clear explication as to why the application was rejected.
Example of promising practice
The Swedish Government commissioned the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) and the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to put into effect a targeted education for Roma who will work as Roma bridge builders in pre-school, school, social services and health care. In addition, the government offers a grant to municipalities to pay for 50 % of the salary for the bridge builders during the two-year program. A Roma bridge builder is a person employed in the public sector to work as a link between the Roma individual or community and the public service provider. The first commission was given for 2012-2015 and the second for 2016-2019.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·To identify and address barriers that prevent that all Roma children complete primary education; and to significantly increase the share of Roma children who move on to and complete secondary education. ·To provide targeted support for young adult Roma to participate in vocational training, including fully subsidized internships and “new start” jobs to introduce young Roma to the labour market and encourage employers to hire them. ·To designate concrete sub-targets, budgets and process guidance as well as a regulatory agency responsible for monitoring the follow-up of different authorities on state, regional and municipal level obliged to implement Roma inclusion and who have a responsibility that the rights of the Roma minority are fulfilled. ·To tackle prejudice and antigypsyism affecting everyday life of Roma that force many to hide their Roma identity. There is a need for national campaigns that focus on raising awareness of history and current situation of the Roma minority in Sweden, including support to cultural institutions. ·To guarantee the implementation of the official school curriculum regarding minorities, The Swedish National Agency for Education, (Skolverket) and the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) should see to it that teacher education includes knowledge on the Roma minority. The Ministry of Education and Research (Utbildningsdepartementet) should ensure that current teachers as well receive this competence.

UNITED KINGDOM
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Strategic document	United Kingdom 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):	225.000 (0,34% of 65.808.573)
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the Population Census, Qualitative research (focus groups, structured interviews with members of ethnic groups), Territorial mapping (experts’ estimates of the distribution of the population at municipal level or other territorial units) Statistical data disaggregated by ethnicity is collected
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The publication of the Race Disparity Audit The Race Disparity Audit showed us Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities are amongst the most disadvantaged in British society. The publication of these results is a bold and important step which will have a lasting impact on public policy. We are proud of our commitment to transparency and welcome the wide public debate that will follow. Britain has come a long way in spreading equality and opportunity, but this audit is definitive evidence of how far we must still go in order to truly build a country that works for everyone. The Prime Minister was clear that more needs to be done to make sure nobody is excluded or left behind, and has challenged Government Departments to explain or change the disparities identified by the Audit by the autumn of 2018.
The main challenges
Poor integration of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are amongst the most disadvantaged in British society, and the recently published Race Disparity Audit shines a light on the disparities of these ethnic groups. While the Audit shows how far we need to go as a society to address these disparities, it also signals the Government's commitment to making Britain a country that works for everyone.
The main success factors and lessons learnt
Factors that have an impact on the integration of minority ethnic groups (including but not limited to Roma, Gypsy and Travellers) in Britain include: the level and pace of migration; school segregation; English language proficiency; residential segregation; unemployment- and under-employment; personal, religious and cultural values and attitudes and the quality of social mixing. The Government is concerned about the inequalities experienced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, particularly in health and education, and officials are exploring the need for policy interventions to address the poor life chances of these communities.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, 35 measures were implemented in all thematic areas in the United Kingdom, 19 mainstream and 16 targeted. 29 were implemented by a public authority (16 at national level, five at regional and eight at local level). Four measures were implemented by civil society organisations at local level, while three – by other entities. Apart from the key thematic areas described below, United Kingdom also reported four targeted measures as relevant for thematic area "empowerment" (three at local and one at national level) and three mainstream measures as relevant for "local action" (one at local and two at national level). 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 number of measures reported as relevant for the areas below is higher than the total number of implemented measures.
EDUCATION
Seven measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "education", five mainstream and two targeted. All seven were implemented by a public authority, six of them at national and one at regional level.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
EMPLOYMENT
Three mainstream measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "employment". All three were implemented in by a public authority at national level.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
HEALTHCARE
10 measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "healthcare", two mainstream and eight targeted. Seven of them were implemented by a public authority and three - by civil society organisations. Seven were implemented at local level, one at regional and two at national level.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
HOUSING
Three mainstream measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "housing", all three implemented by a public authority. Two were implemented at national level and one at local.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
Three mainstream measures were reported as relevant for thematic area "anti-discrimination". All three were implemented by a public authority, two at local level and one at national.
No information is available regarding the overall situation in this thematic area
Governance and cooperation
The National Roma Contact Point for the UK is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. No funding is specifically allocated for the Contact Point function. Co-ordination of reports to the Commission is the responsibility of the equalities and international team within the integration and faith division at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Department co-ordinates reports to the Commission and leads on race equality and community integration policy in England. The Integration and Faith Division race equality team co-ordinates reports to the Commission on the sets of policy measures carried out across Government (including the Devolved Administrations: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales). Policies are developed by specific UK Government Departments and by the Devolved Administrations (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales). The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government leads on integration policy in England. These are decisions for the relevant Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations. The NRCP is not involved. These are decisions for the relevant Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations. The NRCP is not involved. The NRCP facilitates participation and involvement of (Roma) civil society in the implementation of NRIS. The Department runs a Gypsy, Traveller and Roma liaison group which discusses issues of interest to the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma attendees. Officials meet with organisations and attend conferences organised by them. Relevant civil society stakeholders are: ·National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, ·Friends Families and Travellers, ·Leeds Gypsy and Traveller Exchange, ·London Gypsy and Traveller Unit, ·The Traveller Movement, ·Roma Support Grp The stakeholders are not involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the NRIS. There is no regular dialogue/cooperation established between the Equality body and the NRCP. There is no baseline against which progress for the implementation of UK NRIS or set of policy measures is assessed. There are no measurable targets.

UNITED KINGDOM
Position of civil society involved in the Roma Civil Monitor
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Statutory guidance on school exclusion stresses the importance of providing additional support to address the needs of children from groups at higher risk of exclusion, including Roma children. ·Higher education providers will be required to publish application data broken down by ethnicity. ·Higher education providers charging higher fees will be required to agree Access and Participation Plans. The plans will set out measures to support the access and successful participation for disadvantaged and under-represented groups, including Roma. ·There is no requirement in England to attend school, however, parents are required to ensure that children of compulsory school age receive an efficient full-time education.	·While the attendance rate of Roma children in pre-school education is very low, there is no government focus on this critical issue; all the initiatives in this field are implemented in individual settings (by schools, volunteers and community groups). ·Although the educational attainment of Roma children in England has improved in recent years, the attainment gap has widened. ·Both temporary and permanent school exclusion of Roma students from primary and secondary education remains a serious problem, in particular in specific cities. ·There is no co-ordinated response between primary schools, secondary schools and local authorities to improve transfer rates and maintain pupil engagement. ·Insufficient training of staff, and employment of Roma staff at all grades in early years of education. ·Insufficient school places available for children in the neighbourhoods where Roma have settled in England.
Employment
·Mainstream public employment services are available and some recent efforts to improve access by Roma. ·New plans on consultation on ethnic pay gap reporting and race monitoring as part of public procurement standards. ·Race Disparity Audit and website to collect and disseminate information on discrimination in employment.	·There are no public employment services dedicated to Roma and their access has remained limited. ·Roma often work informally and are low paid: need further regulation in zero-hour contracts and agency work. ·There is a need to evaluate effectiveness of existing public employment programmes from the perspective of outreach and effectiveness towards Roma. ·Anti-discrimination legislation in the field of employment is not enforced.
Healthcare
·As a matter of policy, access to National Health Service (NHS) is universal. ·Government established a working group on tackling inequalities experienced by Roma in 2012 and specific commitments to improve Roma health were adopted. ·Governmental authorities in partnership with the voluntary sector and health and social care services launched an initiative HWAlliance , aimed at promoting equality in health. Roma advocacy NGO is part of the alliance.	·There is often a gap between policy and practice for Roma communities seeking to access health care. Due to a lack of permanent residence address or ID proof, many Roma do not have access to healthcare. ·Despite formal existence of governmental structures aimed at improving Roma health, little measurable progress towards achieving the commitments has been recorded. ·Roma are significantly more likely to have a long‐term illness, health problem or disability, experience higher levels of anxiety and depression, suicidal tendencies, dependency of drugs. Members of these communities are also less likely to be vaccinated. ·Maternal health remains a grave problem; Gypsies and Travellers are more likely to experience miscarriage and the premature death of offspring. National Maternity Health Review (2016) mentions Gypsy and Traveller mothers’ health only once and Roma are not mentioned at all.
Housing
·Planning policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites has been improved and obliged local boroughs or districts to identify a five-year supply of land for site provision. Some local authorities are making efforts to upgrade sites. ·Many municipalities have introduced Selective Licensing to oblige all registered residential landlords to let properties according to minimum standards, and also enforce tenancy agreements. This may improve the housing conditions of Roma in the private rental sector. ·In Scotland, a housing acquisition and improvement programme are supported by the national and local governments.	·Despite legal obligation, few local governments have provided Gypsy and Traveller sites; many sites that have been provided are on unsuitable land such as land fill, close to a railway line or on contaminated land. Families who wish to remain nomadic are finding themselves with a reducing land pool. ·Housing benefit on Traveller sites is problematic and there are differences between local authority sites and private sites. Recent changes to UK housing benefit have also affected the security of some families. ·Reductions of spending and tightening of eligibility for social housing, and reductions in control of private housing developments impact housing affordability. Recently arrived and migrant households are especially affected. ·Many Roma families are denied access to council (municipal) housing due to eligibility criteria. Additionally, waiting lists are extremely long and much available council housing (e.g. one-bedroom flats) would be inadequate for many Roma families. ·There are no funding streams in England to support neighbourhood renewal programmes, whether community- or housing-focused.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Legislation to combat racial prejudice in UK is exemplary. There are numerous mechanisms to report discriminatory behaviour by police, and opportunities for structured dialogue and consultation with various police forces.	·Despite good laws in place, discrimination and racism towards Roma persists and ranges from verbal abuse to violent assault, with frequent biased media coverage and racist statements from local and national politicians. ·The lack of sites for Gypsies and Travellers means that many individuals and families are statutorily homeless. Many traditional stopping places have been blocked off, and families are increasingly forced to live on areas such as fields and car parks. Such families also lack access clean water, sewage disposal and electricity.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The UK Government’s plan for tackling hate crime specifically mentions Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. ·There are awareness raising programmes about antigypsyism for local government, the Police, the Health Service and other agencies; however, these initiatives are not State-driven. ·Where they have been set up third party reporting centre have been successful in encouraging community members (who may be reluctant to report hate crime to the Police) to come forward. ·The UK also has a facility for the online reporting of hate crime.	·Antigypsyism is often left out of discussions about racism. ·A clear strategy is needed to take action against the media or individuals that incite discrimination and racism against Roma communities and individuals. The media needs to take urgent action to address the discriminatory reporting. ·Any media that incites direct or indirect discrimination, hatred or violence against these communities should be condemned and legal action needs to be taken against them.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·The Department for Education collaborates with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on a pilot programme to improve the social integration Roma communities; within this framework.	·There is no specific approach for Roma youth within the national youth strategy (i.e. criteria for apprenticeship). ·The policy of decreasing access to various social security benefits for EU nationals left Roma school children out of the free school meal programme (i.e. Pupil Premium). ·Gypsy and Traveller women living at sites face disproportionate disadvantages within the planning system for housing, as status for planning relies on looking for work and many women with care obligations cannot meet these application criteria. ·The government has announced a programme to tackle inequalities in youth unemployment highlighted by the Race Disparity Audit (published in 2017); however, it does not include any specific policy measures targeting young Roma people. Roma youth should be addressed as a specific subgroup and provided with career guidance. ·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBT+ issues. ·Intra-EU mobile Roma are in danger of being unlawfully resident after the closure of the EU Settlement Scheme in Jun 2012, as they are often not able to apply for due to digital exclusion, language barrier or lack of information.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the MS approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·All-party Parliamentary Group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (APPG) exists to provide a forum for MPs concerned about the issues of Roma. The group acts a bridge between the NGOs and the Government Ministers. ·In 2012, a ministerial working group (MWG) produced a Report on preventing and tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, making 28 commitments for the UK Government. Parliamentarians in the Women and Equalities Select Committee review the progress against the 28 commitments. ·The NRCP is placed in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government with the role of coordination and advice. The NRCP is involved in drafting of the ministry’s reports. The ministry also co-organises, with the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, quarterly meetings of the liaison group. ·Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) oversees and encourages Roma inclusion. It regularly publishes research reports on discrimination faced by Roma and it holds information sessions for Roma organisations.	·The UK has still not established a National Roma Integration Strategy despite pressures from international organizations and repeated requests from Roma NGOs. ·Funding for the APPG has been extremely problematic. A more secure funding base and a permanent secretariat should be established. ·There is no systematic mainstreaming for Roma inclusion within central government. ·There were positions within the Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care which included a remit for Roma inclusion, but over the last three years, these posts/units have either withered or been amalgamated into wider areas of policy. There is no evidence of Roma inclusion in any other departments/ministries.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Governmental structures engaged in Roma inclusion (APPG, NRCP, EHRC) cooperate with the Roma civil society. ·EHRC commissioned a national charity which works on behalf of Roma to complete a short-term project focused on access to justice. ·There have been targeted courses, for example the Roma Intercultural Mediation (ROMED) Training, which the UK government joined in 2012.	·Roma NGOs criticized the 2012 MWG Report. The MWG did not consult with the communities, it largely ignored Roma from other EU countries, and did not address key issues such as targeted funding, employment or health. ·There are examples of homeless people and Travellers having difficulties registering to vote. Little accountability exists to ensure that local authorities are compliant with their duty to register residents with no fixed abode to vote and it is likely that complex processes surrounding this may be off-putting to potential voters.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Specific regions (Yorkshire & Humberside, East of England, and South East regions) have been working closely with local authorities to strengthen the profile of the needs of Roma communities in their areas. ·East of England Strategic Migration Partnership (SMP) have recently secured funding for a Roma rights project (Parallel Lives). In Kent, the SMP have supported funding by Big Lottery in a capacity development project led by an NGO Red Zebra. ·The National Roma Network (NRN) was developed in 2012 by Migration Yorkshire, a local authority supported network in Yorkshire & Humberside region. Since 2015, with dedicated funding, the NRN has held six national gatherings on themed subjects in Leeds, Sheffield, Peterborough, Salford and finally London (2017).	·Given that the UK Government’s approach is not to take a “separate” integration policy approach but rather to deal with Roma inclusion under wider social inclusion policies, there is little evidence of Roma inclusion being mainstreamed across local authorities. ·It is unclear what policies and frameworks local authorities have as statutory duties with regards to integration and cohesion.
Data collection
·With regard specifically to Roma, good data on the situation of migrant Roma in schools is published by the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). ·Health needs assessments done by local authorities’ public health departments are also good sources of data.	·There is not enough clarity with regards to the distinction between Gypsies and Travellers on one hand, and Roma, on the other hand. In the 2011 Census when the “Gypsy or Irish Traveller” ethnic group category was first introduced, there was no specific category for Roma. The three groups should be separate categories. ·There is also poor ethnicity data regarding those benefitting from funding. Consequently, there is a lack of data that would show if indeed Roma are actually directly benefitting from government funding.
Funding for civil society
·The Big Lottery (distributors of funds raised by the National Lottery, a quasi-governmental agency) has a record of supporting Roma groups at a local and national level. ·There has also been governmental funding for pilot projects covering improving English of Roma adults and access to primary care. ·The most relevant European funding stream is the European Social Fund (ESF). The Managing Authority for the delivery of the ESF 2014-2020 programme in England sits within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). ·In addition to ESF, there have been occasional small-scale pots of funding for NGOs e.g. with regard to the Hate Crime Action Plan, although these have tended not to be Roma-specific.	·A major problem is the lack of central funding capacity specifically designed to address issues of Roma integration. ·Only 10.3% of the LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnerships which decide on ESF target groups) refer explicitly to Roma communities or individuals. ·The latest monitoring from Big Lottery on Roma participation in the Building Better Opportunities (BBO) programme shows that just over 1% of participants of the programme (out of circa 4,500 participants) are of Roma background. The Big Lottery suggested that this data has not yet been verified by the Managing Authority.
Example of promising practice
The UK Government has announced that for the first time “Roma” will be an ethnicity category in the 2021 Census (“Gypsy or Irish Traveller” was included as a category for the first time in the 2011 Census but there was no “Roma” category). Civil society organisations are hopeful that by improving the data collected by government on racial disparities in life outcomes this will drive action to address these disparities and improve outcomes for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in the UK.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Government services should have a more uniform ethnicity framework for providing data regarding use of public services. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller ethnicity categories should be included for all equalities monitoring by government departments and other key agencies. ·The Government should ensure that recommendations arising from the Women and Equalities Committee enquiry into the inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are fully resourced and that there are specific civil servants tasked and accountable for their timely delivery. ·The Department for Health and Social Care should put in place a plan to address issues in accessing healthcare for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. ·The Government should re-introduce targets, and a statutory duty on local authorities to meet the assessed accommodation need of Gypsies and Travellers, as formerly existed under the Caravans Sites Act 1968. This should cover both permanent sites and temporary stopping places (e.g. transit sites and Negotiated Stopping sites). The funding necessary should be ring-fenced for this purpose. ·The EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) scheme will close in June 2021 and it is likely that many EU nationals (including Roma) will find themselves as outlaws and ‘without papers’ and so unlawfully living in the UK, if they haven’t registered with the government. For EU mobile Roma steps should thus be taken either to make provision for registration outside of the EU Settlement Scheme time limit, or to ensure that the entitlement to this status is not dependant on registration.

Annex II - Assessment of the situation in the enlargement region

1.Introduction

The enlargement annex of the Staff Working Document (SWD) provides detailed data on the Western Balkans implementation of the NRIS. It is based on data from the 2018 annual reports from the NRCPs on measures implemented in 2017 and the shadow reports prepared by enlargement Roma civil society networks. This analysis also takes into account the results of the 2019 Regional Survey “Breaking the cycle of Roma exclusion in the Western Balkans” 2 (RRS), which is based on 2017 data and its evolution from 2011, year of the first regional Roma survey in the region since the 2011 Roma Framework. It is worth noticing that both the 2011 and the 2017 RRS were financed by the EU through IPA pre-accession funding and implemented by the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP).

This annex includes both partner and thematic information concentrated on the five 3 priority areas: education, employment, health, housing and civil documentation. The focus is on the effect, on the ground, of measures taken, and their evolution in the period 2011-2017.

The six Western Balkans partners reported in 2018 on measures in the fields of education (121 measures), employment (92 measures), healthcare (73 measures) and housing (69 measures).

This section presents limited information on the situation of Roma in Turkey. The country provided the second annual NRCP report on the implementation of the NRIS in November 2018, which includes partial information. Turkey did not take part in the 2017 Regional Roma Survey.

2.General assessment

Estimates on the Roma population in the Western Balkans suggest that they represent between 1.6% in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 9.6% in North Macedonia of the total population.

The Roma population is diverse and this analysis focusses on the situation of marginalized Roma and identifies important gaps between Roma and non-Roma living in the vicinity. Roma have only limited access to education, employment, health and housing and often lack the necessary documentation to benefit in full from their fundamental rights.

During the period 2011-2017, limited progress on Roma integration is reported for the Western Balkans by the 2017 RRS. The demographic evolution of the Roma population together with the aging of the society in the region represent a challenge and an obligation to gear-up actions on Roma socio-economic inclusion and non-discrimination and to explore economic opportunities and potential fiscal gain. Advancing on Roma inclusion is a moral imperative and smart economics, particularly in the enlargement partners to set the ground for closer collaboration with the EU Member States.

In the averages across the five priority areas, data from 2011 and 2017 indicate continued minimal progress in coverage, limited access to basic services and few economic opportunities among Roma. The progress achieved does not surpass 3.3%. In inequality (gap between Roma and non-Roma living in the vicinity), there was deterioration in two countries (Albania and Montenegro), and 10% improvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Overall, a look at the performance of individual partners shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia and Serbia performed well in relative terms. These three countries improved, even if not much, in both coverage and inequality. Montenegro worsened in both coverage and inequality. Albania improved in coverage (only 2.6 %), but worsened in inequality.

2.1. Education

This is an area with significant, common improvement in the period 2011–2017. Despite progress, remarkable gaps between Roma and their non-Roma neighbours remain substantial, especially in upper-secondary and tertiary education with no clear trend of reduction.

In 2017, pre-primary enrolment rates among Roma, ages 3–5, ranged from only 3% in Bosnia and Herzegovina to 33% in Albania. Financial costs are identified as the most relevant barrier. Future improvement in this area is essential: reduced early childhood stimulation at home and restricted exposure to the majority language have, as consequence, that Roma children are less prepared when entering primary school.

Education is the great equaliser, a right of children and a duty of public authorities. Gaps persist in enrolments to compulsory education, where a compulsory public school system is essential in providing equal opportunities to children regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic background. In Albania and Montenegro, at least a third of Roma children, ages 7–15, were outside the school system in 2017. Compulsory education completion rates among Roma, ages 18–21, are generally low and range between 34% in Montenegro and 70% in North Macedonia. The regional completion average for non-Roma is 95%. The completion rate is especially low for Roma girls. Cost barriers are fundamental in limiting enrolment. In addition, child marriage, especially for girls, is an important hindering factor to enrolment and early dropouts.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data
Note: Compulsory education refers to ISCED 1 and 2.

In upper-secondary education, completion among Roma, ages 22–25, shows a wide range across the region, from only 3% in Montenegro to 32% in North Macedonia. Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia achieved progress between 2011 and 2017. Tertiary education completion is almost non-existent among Roma, with a success rate of 3% in North Macedonia as the highest in the region.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data

Adult education remains an area deserving important attention. Literacy rates of Roma population stays low, especially of Roma women. For Roma female youth and females of working age (15–64), literacy ranges from 58% in Albania and Montenegro to 82% in North Macedonia. The high relevance of the family background, notably the educational attainment of mothers for the enrolment of Roma children in compulsory education, is worth noting.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data

2.2.Employment

The labour market is the priority area that lags the most behind, with a substantial deterioration since 2011 in labour force participation and employment among Roma across the region. North Macedonia is the only country where the situation remains mostly unchanged. There is also a lack of progress in narrowing the gaps to non-Roma neighbours. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo 4* and Montenegro have especially bleak employment outcomes among Roma.

Unemployment is remarkably high among Roma. Over 50% of economically active working-age Roma are unemployed in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Employment among active Roma ranges from 13% in Kosovo to 22% in North Macedonia. Entrepreneurial activity is low, and Roma start-ups, when set up, are significantly more likely to be informal.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data

The gender gap in labour force participation among Roma is wide: it ranges from 23% in Albania to 33% in Kosovo. Furthermore, the majority of Roma youth are not in employment, education, or training (NEET), placing them at risk of social and economic exclusion. NEET rates among young Roma, ages 15–24, are high, ranging from 62% in Serbia to 82% in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The low level of education among Roma appears to be one of the key factors contributing to weaker labour market prospects.

There are several barriers influencing the capacity of Roma to enter the labour market: the lack of skills and experience constitutes the first and most important one. Other constrains are residential segregation, lack of childcare and eldercare at affordable prices, limited flexibility in work arrangements, lack of documentation, discrimination and antigypsyism, and employment programmes not adapted to the job market demand or the reality of Roma in terms of access to documents (e.g. proof of completed education as enrolment request).

Social assistance schemes do not seem to have generated disincentives to shift Roma individuals from employment or unemployment to inactivity.

2.3.Healthcare

Self-perceived health is poorer among Roma than among neighbouring non-Roma, despite Roma being a younger demographic group. The health status of marginalized Roma may be affected by poor living conditions and low social standing, in addition to deficiencies in the access to and use of health care services. Across the region, the majority of Roma report high costs or the lack of health insurance as the reasons behind their unmet need for medical care. In most cases, the gap in health insurance coverage between Roma and their non-Roma neighbours primarily revolves around sociodemographic characteristics: employment status and household asset holdings. Experience shows that there is also a large gap between Roma and non-Roma as regards the use of preventive health care services, e.g. cholesterol tests and gynaecological check-ups.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data
Note: Percentage of population reporting they cannot afford drugs is based on responses of household heads

From the different possible barriers, affordability (lack of insurance coverage or inability to afford the medicines needed) appears to be the bigger problem. Other important barriers are the perceived acceptability of health care due to lack of information, fear, language barriers and discrimination. The availability of health care centres does not seem to be a major barrier across the region, as the vast majority of Roma report that there is a health care centre in their vicinity.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data
Note: EU28 data are from 2014. The panels show the share of respondents reporting that they have accessed preventive services in the previous 12 months. Data based on the RSS are based on randomly selected household members. Preventive health care services include a dental check-up, an x-ray, ultrasound or other scan, cholesterol test, or heart check-up among individuals ages 16+.

2.4.Housing

Many disadvantaged Roma live in informal settlements to which they do not have legal titles and often experience severe overcrowding. Across the region, at least one-third of Roma live in dilapidated housing or slums, the shares range from 30% in Albania to 43% in Montenegro.

Additional evidence of the inferior quality of housing among Roma is the lower rate of access to basic public services, such as electricity, piped water, connections to public sewerage or wastewater tanks and waste collection. Access to electricity among Roma ranges from 84% in Albania to 93% in North Macedonia. A similar picture emerges on access to piped water inside the dwelling: while in Albania, less than one-half of Roma have access to this essential service versus 89% of non-Roma neighbours, this is the case for only three-fourths of Roma in Montenegro. Connection to public sewerage or wastewater tanks ranges from 55% in Montenegro to 84% in North Macedonia.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data

2.5.Documentation

In the Western Balkans, the burden and costs associated with civil registration are sometimes an important barrier that disproportionately affects Roma communities. In Serbia, for example, the lack of income to pay the high fees for naturalization, identification cards or legal assistance is a prohibitive barrier for many Roma. In Montenegro, there are still unregistered internally displaced persons (IDPs) whose status remains uncertain since January 2015 when their IDP status was supposed to be phased out, while no remedial legal actions were subsequently taken to solve the issue.

Throughout the region, there is a high coverage of birth certificates and identity cards, but qualitative evidence indicates that Roma often lack adequate documents - such as proof of residency - to gain access to social services.

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Survey data

Finally, access to documentation is an issue that overly affects returnee children, a lot of whom are Roma. Many Roma returnee children have benefited from schooling inside the EU. However, lack of documentation and certification often leads to delays in the enrolment in formal education systems or the enrolment of children in classes that do not reflect their schooling in the EU.

Regional Overview Tables

Table 1. Regional overview at a glance, 2011

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2011 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Roma Survey data.

Note: All values shown are in percent, except for rooms per household member. Color key: Dark green denotes the highest coverage and the lowest gap/inequality between Roma and non-Roma neighbors among all countries for each indicator. White denotes the lowest coverage and highest gap/inequality between Roma and non-Roma neighbors among all countries for each indicator. Not all differences between countries are statistically significant.

a. Compulsory education refers to ISCED 1 and 2.

b. Lower coverage for this indicator is desirable.

c. This indicator is calculated at the level of the head of household.

Table 2. Regional overview at a glance, 2017

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Roma Survey data.

a. Compulsory education refers to ISCED 1 and 2.

b. Lower coverage for this indicator is desirable.

c. This indicator is calculated at the level of the head of household.

Table 3. Regional overview at a glance, Roma, percentage point change, by sex, 2011–17

Source: World Bank estimates based on weighted 2011 and 2017 UNDP-World Bank-EC Regional Roma Survey data.

Note: All values shown are in percent, except for rooms per household member. Not all labor market indicators are strictly comparable between 2011 and 2017; for an assessment of comparability between the datasets for the two survey years, see Appendix D. Color key: ___ denotes an improvement; ___ denotes a worsening; and ___ denotes no statistically significant change at the 10 percent level.

a. Compulsory education refers to ISCED 1 and 2.

b. A positive change in the gap for this indicator implies a reduction in inequality.

c. This indicator is calculated at the level of the head of household.

Country summaries on the enlargement region

ALBANIA (Egyptians are included under the umbrella term Roma)
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The General Director for Social Policies at the Ministry of Health and Social Policies (MoHSP).
Strategic document	The National Action Plan for the Integration of Roma and Egyptians in the Republic of Albania was adopted in 2015. It replaces the National Roma Integration Strategy and includes, as a priority mechanism, to coordinate and monitor policies underpinning the inclusion of Roma and Egyptians in the country.
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	115,000 (3.59% of 3,204,284).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification are included in the population census; two Regional Roma Surveys (2011, 2017 5 ) were carried out by UNDP and the World Bank; the Roma Inclusion Index 2015; 2015 Poverty Mapping in Albania 6 ; the Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy (2017, 2018); the ROMALB monitoring platform (h ttps://www.romalb.org/ ).
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
Albania has made significant steps towards Roma integration with the adoption of a number of relevant laws. The Law on Minorities, adopted at the end of 2017, officially recognises Roma and Egyptian as national minorities. The Law on Social Housing prohibits forced eviction and foresees information to and consultations of citizens affected by public infrastructure investment projects. It also introduces a 5% quota dedicated to Roma for the different renting options, notably renting bonus, social housing and soft loans. The Law on Legal Aid also benefits Roma. Albania established a network of Roma focal points in the ministries and municipalities, who together with the ROMALB information system, allow for real-time monitoring of the implementation of the Roma Action Plan and automatic generation of report indicators.
The main challenges
Main challenges include the lack of ethnically disaggregated data to assess the impact of national policies and measures underpinning the inclusion of Roma and to monitor the impact of EU financial and technical support in priority areas. Compulsory education, with a significant gap of 31% in enrolments between Roma and non-Roma, is mostly driven by discrimination. At least a third of Roma children ages 7-15 were outside the school system in 2017. Employment and labour market access, with over 55% of economically active working-age Roma that are unemployed. Specific legislative measures aimed at supporting social enterprises, tax reduction and specific sectors, like, for example, waste recycling. These measures could be more effective if accompanied by vocational education measures and transition programmes from education to employment or self-employment. Access to finance and financial literacy would facilitate the creation of micro and small enterprises.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, four thematic areas were reported as relevant for the implementation of the Roma Strategy: 1) education and intercultural dialogue, 2) employment and VET, 3) health and 4) housing and urban integration. In addition, Albania reported on Access to civil registration and justice; Social protection; and Policy coordination, monitoring and assessment. These elements will not be reported on in this document. A total of 11 objectives and 80 measures were reported on. Hereof, 39 were implemented, 13 were partially implemented and 28 were not implemented. The objectives were a mixture of mainstream and partly targeted measures.
EDUCATION
Inequalities in education between Roma and non-Roma emerge early in life with generally low enrolment in pre-primary education (ages 3-5) in the Western Balkans. In Albania, this gap reaches 31%. Similarly, in compulsory education, the gap between Roma and non-Roma in Albania reaches 31% with 66% of Roma children enrolled. Advances as compared to 2011 are remarkable, although more improvement is still needed to catch-up with the country and EU averages. The Roma Integration Action Plan for Albania records as strategic goal in the area of education that Roma and Egyptians have full access to and inclusion in qualitative education without being subjected to discrimination and segregation. The thematic priority includes four objectives: 1) more Roma and Egyptians to complete all levels of education; 2) promote intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding through school-based community development; 3) strengthen the collaboration between schools and social services; 4) value and promote the recognition of the Roma and Egyptians identities as part of Albanian cultural heritage. These four objectives were structured in a total of 34 measures, out of which 19 were fully implemented, seven partially implemented, and eight not implemented.
The most important success
Albania witnessed the largest increase in the Western Balkans in compulsory education enrolment since 2011. Completion rates in compulsory education increased significantly, from 23% in 2011 to 43% in 2017. Nonetheless, 57% of Roma still do not complete compulsory education. The completion rate in upper-secondary education increased five times, from a low of 3% in 2011 to 15% in 2017. The re-evaluation of educational programmes in kindergartens and schools together with efforts in some municipalities to exclude Roma children from pre-school education fees contribute to address the existing gap between Roma and non-Roma attendance in pre-school education. The “Second chance” programme of school reintegration for adults has proven successful, enabling Roma adults to finish compulsory education and then continue further with vocational education and training.
The most important challenge
Segregation in education is still a challenge together with the increasing number of school dropouts due to both family migration and the attraction into the informal labour market, notably among early teenagers. The gap between Roma and non-Roma in attendance in pre-school and compulsory education remains a challenge for the country. At least a third of Roma children, aged 7–15, were outside the school system in 2017. Improving the outreach in support for school enrolment by use of mediators can affect the school attendance of Roma children. The gap in completion of tertiary education significantly increased in Albania, as the rate of Roma completing tertiary education remained around 1% in both 2011 and 2017.
EMPLOYMENT
Over 55% of economically active working-age Roma are unemployed in Albania. The gender gap in labour force participation among Roma is 23%, where the main reason behind female inactivity is the presence of children in the household and family responsibilities. Among males, inactivity mostly arises because of insufficient labour demand. Data from the Regional Roma Surveys of 2011 and 2017 denotes a worsening in labour force participation, employment to population ration, unemployment rate and NEETs (not in employment, education or training). The Roma Action Plan for Albania records as strategic goal in the area of employment and vocational education and training to provide equal opportunities for formal employment of Roma and Egyptians. The thematic priority includes three objectives: 1) integrate Roma and Egyptians in the labour market through VET and active employment programmes; 2) promote entrepreneurship and self-employment; 3) build capacity and improve the performance of the National Employment System and VET system for the integration of Roma and Egyptians in the labour market. These objectives were structured into 21 measures. Hereof, eight were implemented, three were partially implemented, and 10 were not implemented.
The most important success
The adoption in March 2019of the Law on Employment Promotion Programmes introducing specific programmes for self-employment addressing elements relevant for the Roma and Egyptian population. Still, access to funding and financial literacy for Roma is limited, hindering their possibility to benefit fully from the recently approved law.
The most important challenge
Roma labour market participation decreased between 2011 and 2017, notably for males aged 33-44. The employment-to-population ratio dropped significantly, from 42% of working age Roma employed in 2011 to only 18% in 2017. The implementation of employment promotion programmes subsidized from the state budget have limited impact on the Roma employment rates. According to official data from the National Employment Agency, in 2018 only 239 Roma out of 5,845 registered Roma job seekers were employed. Not all Roma remain employed and some of the reasons for their dropping out from jobs are discrimination and dire working conditions. A stronger effort is required to: promote social entrepreneurship and self-employment of Roma through sufficient funding and appropriate legislation and programmes; study the potential impact of tax exemptions for Roma transferring from unemployment; study the potential impact of concessions to waste collectors of recyclable waste; award grants to Roma farmers; or engage Roma in public services. The aforementioned measures would also serve to tackle informal work of Roma.
HEALTHCARE
In Albania, the situation in terms of health insurance coverage denotes a worsening, while an improvement is recorded in terms of self-reported unmet need for medical care and the use of preventive healthcare services. The Roma Action Plan for Albania records as strategic goal in the area of health to increase access for Roma and the use of mainstream healthcare services. The target is that, by the end of 2020, the whole Roma community is able to use mainstream healthcare services. The thematic priority included two objectives: 1) increase the number of Roma using the mainstream healthcare services; 2) improve healthcare information and promotion of the available healthcare services for Roma. These objectives are structure into 11 measures. In 2017, six measures were implemented, one was partially implemented, and four were not implemented.
The most important success
The merging of health and social protection sectors in early 2018 is resulting in more attention towards Roma health needs, notably information to women about free mammography tests, awareness campaigns on early and forced marriages and help preventing potential cases of domestic violence and/or human trafficking. Moreover, more health centres and immunization campaigns are reaching a larger number of Roma. In 2017, 30,354 Roma possessed health insurance cards, free of charge or based on paid insurance contributions.
The most important challenge
The lack of health insurance coverage is hindering access to certain medical examinations and the affordability of expensive medicines. A 2014 amendment to Law 7703 “For social Insurance” is depriving Albanians, including many Roma, of access to health and social services, posing new requirements in terms of contributions to the social security system, thus excluding many unemployed Roma. Health mediators should be part of the healthcare system so that dissemination of information and different governmental health campaigns can reach Roma living in remote areas. Anti-discrimination measures targeting staff in health institutions, such as developing standard trainings for healthcare workers on equitable provision of services, are not implemented.
HOUSING
Access to housing is a persistent issue among Roma in Albania. It can be also noted that access to electricity and connection to public sewage or wastewater tanks denotes a worsening between 2011 and 2017, while in the same period improvement in waste collection, rooms per household member and overcrowding rates is recorded. The Roma Action Plan for Albania records, as strategic objective, to improve housing conditions for Roma, with two main objectives: 1) improve mechanisms for facilitating legalization procedures for Roma families, aiming to successfully complete 80% of legalization procedures initiated by the end of 2020; and 2) inclusion of Roma families in the direct and indirect housing programmes. These two objectives are structured into 14 measures, out of which six are implemented, two partially implemented, and six not implemented.
The most important success
In May 2018, the Albanian Parliament adopted Law No. 22/2018 “On Social Housing” which introduces a 5% quota dedicated to Roma for the different renting options, notably renting bonus, social housing and soft loans. It also prohibits forced eviction, foresees legal procedures for information of and consultation with citizens affected by public infrastructure investment projects. The law introduces the obligation by public authorities to offer effective alternative housing and legal aid to affected citizens. The secondary legislation is planned to be adopted and enter into force during 2019. The definition of displacement and institutional cooperation procedures related to evictions, and the training of staff on prioritising Roma, are also planned for the upcoming period. The mapping of Roma informal settlements, together with investment feasibility studies, facilitated planning of social housing projects and legalisation of Roma housing.
The most important challenge
The issue of discrimination in the housing sector persists. The mainstream population is not willing to rent to Roma. As a result, they cannot enter rental contracts and benefit from rent support. Moreover, local governments have insufficient capacity to design housing policies and prepare investment proposals that take into account the needs of beneficiary populations and eradicate segregation.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP The NRCP is the Director General of the MoHSP. She is supported by one Roma Specialist from the Social Inclusion Directory at the MoHSP. The NRCP coordinates the implementation and monitoring of Roma policies in the country. The implementation of the Action Plan is monitored by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection. Cross-sectorial coordination The NRCP and the MHSP are in charge of coordinating line-ministries, inter-sectorial policies and local authorities in the implementation and monitoring of the Roma policies. The MoHSP has a coordination role in all social policies and action plans, including Roma. As a result, the MoHSP is fully involved in the decision-making process. Examples of participation include co-chairing the bi-annual Roma Seminars, representation in EU fora and policy workshops, participation in the meetings of the inter-disciplinary body Integrated Policy Management Group (IPMG) on Employment and Social Sector (ESS)’s Thematic Group on Social Inclusion, Gender Equality and Roma Issues, national Roma platform meetings etc. The key dialogue platforms among relevant stakeholders are the two-yearly Roma Seminars and the annual National Roma Platforms. The following actors are involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the Roma Strategy: •the government; •the NRCP; •the inter-disciplinary body Integrated Policy Management Group (IPMG) on Employment; •the Social Sector (ESS)’s Thematic Group on Social Inclusion, Gender Equality and Roma Issues; •Roma and pro-Roma NGOs. Dialogue/cooperation has been established between the Ombudsman/equality body and the NRCP: ad-hoc contacts. There is a baseline against which progress in the implementation of the Roma Strategy and Action Plan can be measured. This information can be found in the Action Plan. The 2016-2020 Roma Action Plan in Albania focuses on seven priority areas. The priority areas mirror those of the Roma integration framework in the EU, adding some elements needed to underpin the enlargement process in the Western Balkans. They are: •Education and promotion of intercultural dialogue; •Employment and vocational education and training; •Health; •Housing and urban integration; •Social protection; •Equal access to civil registration and justice; •Policy coordination, monitoring and assessment. More information is available at: •National Action Plan for Integration of Roma and Egyptians in Albania 2016-2020: http://www.al.undp.org/content/albania/en/home/library/poverty/national-action-plan-for-integration-of-roma-and-egyptians-in-th.html •National Platform and other documents: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive

ALBANIA

(Egyptians are included under the umbrella term Roma)

Assessment based on civil society country reports 7

SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS

Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Education

·Concrete efforts in enrolling children in early childhood care and education, as well as in the re-evaluation of educational programmes in kindergartens and schools.

·Efforts at municipal level to exclude Roma children from payment of fees to be enrolled in pre-school education, notably in Tirana, Gjirokastra, Fier and Elbasan.

·School textbooks are provided free of charge for all children in first to fifth grade of compulsory education, and for Roma children in sixth to ninth grades of compulsory education.

·Roma children are registered in schools despite lack of registration documents. Legal measures are stated to avoid segregation (monitoring tools by the Educational Directorates).

·Free university quotas for Roma students, exclusion of university fees for bachelor level and 50% reduction for master studies.

·Recently, as part of the reformed university education package, the tuition fees for master studies have been removed for vulnerable categories, including Roma.

·Roma pupils attending professional high schools benefit from scholarships. “Second chance”, a programme of school reintegration for adults, has proven to be successful, enabling Roma adults to finish compulsory education and then continue further with vocational education and training.

·The lack of childcare infrastructures appears to be a significant barrier to pre-school enrolment among Roma. Improved childcare services and outreach to most vulnerable Roma families can help the enrolment of children into the pre-school system. Support to Roma mothers can improve the access of children to pre-school and basic education. Needed pre-school textbooks and didactic materials, unless not provided for the Roma children, hinder their attendance.

·In compulsory education, the increasing number of school dropouts is due to family migration, or attraction into the grey labour market, especially among early teenagers. Providing employment opportunities for parents can minimise the school dropout of Roma children.

·Improving the outreach by the mediators can affect school attendance by Roma children. Distance from schools together with the absence of safe commute and transport is a barrier to the attendance among Roma children, especially girls.

·Qualification of teachers, involvement of support teachers and quality of the service assessment index can help monitoring the system. Gaps in primary education curricula hinder vocational education and training attendance.

·An increasingly lower number of Roma children access high school and university. Bilingualism, communication and cultural differences have a negative effect on most Roma graduation marks not meeting the requirements to enter university. Quotas for Roma students should be introduced for master studies.

·Continuous support for the “Second chance Programme” to be provided. Scholarships/incentives based on merit and progress starting for pupils in elementary schools and high schools can help the families to overcome the economic barriers affecting proper education.

Employment

·In March 2019, the Albanian Parliament approved Law No. 15/2019 on Employment Promotion Programmes. The law introduces a specific programme for self-employment, which addresses several segments among the Roma and Egyptian population who are engaged in informal economic activities or who are interested in developing a small business.

·There is an increasing interest from industry for Roma workers through more project incentives and government subsidies.

·Incentives for unemployed job seekers attending vocational education and training have been set up. Vocational training curricula have improved.

·Absence of ethnically disaggregated data hinders the monitoring of the impact of the measures.

·Need to simplify procedures to register in the National Employment Service.

·Discrimination is persistent.

·Vocational training is incoherent with the real market demand and the financial support to participate was stopped in 2019.

·Seasonal migration pays off better than local formal jobs.

·The implementation of the employment promotion programmes, subsidized from the state budget, has not been effective in terms of Roma and Egyptian employment. According to official data from the National Employment Agency, in 2018 only 239 Roma and Egyptians out of 5,845 Roma and Egyptian registered job seekers were employed.

·Need to tackle the lack of Roma employed in public administration. For instance by employing Roma mediators by the public administration.

·Need to address the gender gap though awareness raising, employment incentives, proximity of pre-school facilities, etc.

·Accelerate the approval of secondary laws to implement Law No. 15/2019 “For promotion programme”.

·Allocate necessary resources. According to official data, in 2018 the Ministry responsible for employment requested 730 million Lek (EUR 5.9 million) for employment promotion programmes, but the budget allocated to these programmes was only 490 million Lek (EUR 3.9 million).

·Access to finance, notably microcredit, financial literacy and entrepreneurial training is needed to link up with the recently approved self-employment programme.

Healthcare

·Health centres are present in Roma neighbourhoods, or easy to reach.

·Health cards are issued for most of the Roma population.

·Immunization and awareness campaigns have been launched in different areas where Roma population live.

·Though mentioned as a priority in the National Plan, there is no programme to introduce health mediators. A health mediators programme should be established and piloted with health mediators being trained and recognized as a professional qualification and working closely both with Roma and Egyptian communities and health services.

·Limited information on the services and family planning methods.

·Based on fieldwork, many Roma families still do not know their family doctor and have never received medical visits to their families.

·Certain medical examinations and medicines are not affordable for Roma.

·The exclusion criteria introduced in the 2014 amendments to Law 7703 for disability pension limited access of deprived people to their basic rights, in particular Roma and Egyptians. The law should be amended.

Housing

·In May 2018, the Albanian Parliament adopted Law No. 22/2018 “On Social Housing”, which introduces different renting options, notably renting bonus, social housing and soft loans. It prohibits forced eviction, foresees legal procedures for the information and consultation with citizens affected by public investment projects in infrastructure and introduces the obligation of public authorities to offer effective alternative housing and legal aid to affected citizens.

·Funds for improving houses have been channelled from the Ministry of Finance and Economy to the Local governments, aiming to improve the housing conditions for Roma. A positive development consists in the grants provided by the government for housing reconstruction for Roma and Egyptians.

·The Parliament adopted Law 43/2015 "On the Electricity Sector", which mentions a form of financial aid from the state budget for poor families to guarantee the supply of electricity. In order to implement the law, in 2016 the Council of Ministers should have adopted a decision listing the criteria, the procedures for obtaining the status of client in need and the concrete and actionable steps. Such a decision was not adopted bringing poor families to reconnect illegally to the electricity grid.

·Economic difficulties//Living on informal income exclude Roma from accessing the benefits of the Social Housing legislation.

·Hidden discrimination by property owners when renting to Roma families who benefit from the renting bonus could be prevented through using intermediary public agencies.

·Settlement in distant suburban areas exclude Roma from basic services such as access to water, roads, street lighting, etc. Investments should be encouraged in these areas.

·The effectiveness of the new legislation to avoid displacement of families is still to be proven.

·Absence of housing plans for Roma and Egyptians by the municipalities.

·The Legalization Agency should have one dedicated contact person for Roma and Egyptian families to provide information on legal criteria and the progress of their case. The Agency should take measures to respect legal deadlines with regards to the processing of houses legalization requests.

·Funding for housing programmes remains insufficient taking into consideration the scale of the needs of Roma and Egyptians and the rights given by the new legislation. Municipalities should increase the responses to requests for improvement of housing conditions by Roma and Egyptians.

HORIZONTAL MEASURES

Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Anti-discrimination

·Law No. 10 221 of 4.2.2010 “For Protection from Discrimination”.

·There are public institutions such as the State Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination, also with offices at municipal level

·There is TV time space for information in the Roma language.

·Insufficient understanding, especially at local level, of the antidiscrimination law and relevant enforcement mechanisms.

·Insufficient enforcement of the law.

·Lack of internal capacities in regularly addressing discrimination cases

·Need to amend Law 10 221 of 4 February 2010 "On Protection From Discrimination" to address the increased number of cases of hate speech in the last three years. The institutional mechanisms to recognize and sanction hate speech remain mostly ineffective. Based on the annual report by the Commissioner Against Discrimination, there were 43 cases for the period 2017-2018 on grounds of discrimination because of race. Roma and Egyptian community is not well informed about the rights, services or legal routes to provide these services.

·Training on avoiding discriminatory language against the Egyptian and Roma minorities within the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior for judges, prosecutors, police officers.

Fighting antigypsyism

·The Law on National Minorities provides more space for Roma integration and identity expression. This will bring in more financial support for the preservation of culture and identity.

·Dialogue with the central and local governments is established and growing: this process enables a necessary space where measures on fighting antigypsyism can be proposed.

·Delays in adopting the package of secondary legislation that will enable full implementation of the Law on National Minorities.

·Implemented measures mainly relate to law and education.

·Lack of recognition of the phenomenon.

·Media reports to avoid referring to Roma in negative contexts, which contribute to consolidating persisting stereotypes.

·Proportionality in provision of funds related to addressing identity, cultural preservation and integration having regard to the particular needs of Roma.

Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma

·Newly reformed scheme providing economic aid for families in need.

·Channels addressing domestic violence and child protection units are operating at municipal level.

·Roma have difficulties to access and comprehend information on the economic aid scheme, resulting in a low number of Roma applicants.

·Domestic violence is not properly dealt with by the state institutions. Training addressing Roma to be provided.

STRUCTURAL MEASURES

Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Stakeholder involvement at the central level

·Roma CSOs and activists are increasingly involved in open dialogue with the central government.

·The national focal point for Roma coordinates an inter-ministerial group. The National Action Plan on Roma and Egyptian Inclusion foresees involvement of several stakeholders.

·Government has been more open in terms of official consultation when preparing new legislation or the drafting of sectorial strategies.

·Importance to guarantee sustainable support to existing monitoring and participation mechanisms.

·Political awareness toward Roma inclusion to be raised further.

·Consultation with civil society sector to be structured with the intention to inform the decision-making instead of just fulfilling a legal obligation.

Civil participation and empowerment

·There is an ongoing process of empowering the Roma civil society and increasing transparency among CSOs.

·Monitoring of policies at central and local level is carried out by civil society coalitions.

·Involvement of civil actors in drafting local action plans in different municipalities through several projects/measures.

·Feedback provided by civil society should be institutionalised and given due consideration by respective decision-making authorities.

Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level

·Local Action plans on Roma inclusion are adopted or in the process in different municipalities in Albania.

·The civil registration of Roma children was improved, making it easier for mothers to register them.

·Roma sensitive budgeting continues to remain an unresolved issue. Moreover, local governments are often unable to properly channel the funds derived from central government in the respective plans for Roma inclusion.

·The transfer of the National Action Plan into local plans should be supported and also fed with dedicated funds for Roma integration by the respective municipalities.

·Civil registration to be further improved, following the actual progress.

Data collection

·There are platforms of data collection for the purpose of monitoring, such as ROMALB.

·There are additional data collection systems at municipal level within education, healthcare, economic aid.

·Systematic ethnic and desegregated data collection system should be ensured through ROMALB.

·Centralised system on social service delivery and civic registration, manageable at municipal level can increase the impact of combined service delivery.

Funding for civil society

·The main existing central instrument for civil society funding is through the Agency for Support to the Civil Society.

·In sporadic cases support from municipalities exist for non-Roma CSO.

·More funds could be channelled to Roma CSOs working in capacity building for youth along with service delivery, cultural heritage and identity through line-ministries and other agencies.

·Municipalities should regularly issue open calls to the local and central Roma CSOs to mobilize them in implementation of measures foreseen in the Local Action Plans.

·Monitoring activities and capacity building of CSO and civil society activists must obtain constant support in providing capacity building for the community members to empower the civil society itself.

Example of promising practice

·Capacity building for Roma civil society, e.g. the Roma National Coalition led by Roma Active Albania established in the framework of the project “Joint Initiative to Empower Roma Civil Society in the Western Balkans and Turkey” co-funded by the European Union, and the Roma Integration 2020 Roma network co-funded by the European Union and the Open Society Foundation (OSF).

·Promoting positive examples of Roma inclusion policies, recognition and appreciation of work done by respective stakeholders whether in municipalities or among civil society organizations and even individual activists, e.g. Most Roma Friendly Mayor, best projects for Roma integration, distinguished Roma women, etc.

·Setting up a feedback-response mechanism at local and central levels that would provide due consideration to recommendations provided by Roma civil society with regard to improving the implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy and respective local plans.

·The OSF for Albania is funding a project consisting in the creation of a new market where 100 Roma and Egyptian traders will be supported. The Municipality of Tirana has provided the infrastructure site while the OSF will invest in the physical construction of the market, provide support with the goods to be sold and assist with the registration of the businesses at the National Business Centre. The market will provide space for Roma merchants to exercise their activities, conditioned by children going to school and at least one family member following vocational training to transit to the formal labour market.

Most important priorities to be addressed

1.The most important priorities are in the field of housing and employment, followed by education and healthcare. Improvement of housing and employment can positively affect the fields of antidiscrimination and fighting antigypsyism. Furthermore, civil participation and empowerment can further contribute to the mainstreaming of Roma inclusion and help the overall integration process.

2.Capacity building for Roma civil society should be upgraded and continued in order to maintain and improve a more vibrant and principled civil society in the country.

3.ROMALB system to be upgraded with regard to availability and collectability of data, while better synchronizing it with other mainstream area-specific databases.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Assistant Minister in the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR).
Strategic document	Bosnia and Herzegovina has a Strategy on Integration of Roma, which is in force since 2005 with unlimited duration, a Roma Integration Action Plan for Addressing Roma Issues in the Fields of Employment, Housing and Health Care 2017-2020 implemented since 2017, and a Framework Action Plan on Educational Needs of Roma 2018-2022 implemented since 2018.
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	58.000 (1.54% of 3,760,149).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the population census; two Regional Roma Surveys (2011 and 2017 8 ) implemented by the UNDP and World Bank; UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster household Surveys 9 (Roma settlements MICS5 2011-12, MICS6 2019 (pending)); Roma Inclusion Index 2015; Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2017, 2018); territorial mapping 2019 (pending).
Summary of the reporting year
The complex institutional structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina requires close coordination among all levels of authorities (state, entities, cantons and municipalities) for the implementation of the 2005 Roma Strategy and its action plans. In 2018, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers adopted a new action plan on the educational needs of the Roma. Although Bosnia and Herzegovina has been quite successful in providing access to housing to a substantial number of persons, the need remains big. Compared with 2011, Bosnia and Herzegovina improved access to compulsory education for ages 7-15, access to public electricity and waste collection infrastructure as well as access to documentation, and reduced informal employment, self-reported unmet need for medical care and overcrowding. Overall, by 2017, Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrated a general trend across the five key priority areas towards not worsening the gap between Roma and non-Roma compared to 2011. In 2017 and 2018, the Ministry allocated around EUR 1 million per year for the implementation of Roma actions plans.
The main achievements
The EUR 2.5 million Roma Action II Project, which was finalized in October 2018, provided concrete support to 140 families in 9 municipalities across Bosnia and Herzegovina. They moved into reconstructed homes (72) or newly constructed social housing units (68). In general, more than 2,400 Roma individuals directly benefited from this project. The Action Plan on the Education Needs for Roma (2018-2022) was adopted in September 2018, and an IPA supported mapping of Roma needs is being considered.
The main challenges
The lack of ethnically and gender disaggregated data measuring policy impact that will help to assess the effectiveness of national policies and clarifying to which extent the Roma population benefits from mainstream policies. The existing unharmonised system of monitoring and reporting, including of budget spending, of MHRR does not reflect the real situation of human rights of the Roma population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no systematic, coherent and coordinated approach in comprehensively addressing the problem of discrimination among the main coordinating institutions (MHRR, Ombudsman and Gender Equality Agency (GEA)). The cooperation between those three institutions should be further supported in order to enhance communication and ensure complementarity of future actions, including communication with lower levels of government. For that reason, there is a need for coordinated action to support the effective protection of human rights and anti-discrimination, in particular towards the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a specific attention given to a tailored approach, especially at municipal level. Thorough coordination of this kind of action at all government levels is crucial for success; here the role of civil society organisations cannot be overestimated. Social exclusion of all vulnerable groups need to be tackled through better policy implementation. Establishment of robust mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and evaluation of social inclusion of vulnerable categories would enable the evaluation of the effect of social inclusion policies from a participatory perspective and proposing actions and priorities to improve access to human rights.
Thematic Areas
The 2017-2020 Roma Action Plan, together with the Action Plan on Educational Needs of Roma 2018-2022, identifies five strategic goals for the period. In 2017, the following actions have been taken under the respective specific objectives: 1) education, 2) employment, 3) health care, 4) housing in addition to a fifth on institutional capacities, which is partially analysed under governance and cooperation below. A total of 12 objectives and 31 measures were reported on. Hereof, 13 were implemented, three were partially implemented and 16 were not implemented. All objectives were mainstream, with partially targeted measures, and a public authority at government level implemented them.
EDUCATION
In 2018, Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a new Action Plan on Educational Needs of Roma 2018-2022. Most education measures in the Revised Action Plan of Bosnia and Herzegovina on educational needs of Roma 2010-2016 expired in 2014. Out of the eight measures planned, four were implemented or partially implemented and four not implemented. For the reporting year 2017, three objectives were identified and reported on: 1) Ensure that Roma children are included into the system of mandatory elementary education, 2) Encourage Roma population to continue high school and university education and 3) Preservation and promotion of Roma language, culture and history. The operational objectives were implemented through six measures. Hereof, four were fully or continuously implemented and two were not implemented. The measures reached a reported 1,332 Roma beneficiaries, which is lower than the 2016 figure of 1,966. There is no information on the total beneficiaries eligible for the education measures.
The most important success
Compared with 2011, 6% more Roma youth (ages 22-25) completed secondary education (15% vs. 21%, respectively). However, as the completion rates for non-Roma youth rose from 84% to 86%, it is clear that much needs to be done.
The most important challenges
12% of Roma children attend majority Roma schools compared with 5% non-Roma children. This may be due to the design of school districts as well as the global segregated structure of school offers by ethnicity. Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have official information about the number of Roma children enrolled in education. The 2017 Regional Roma Survey shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina has the lowest pre-primary enrolment rate in the region for both Roma (3%) and non-Roma (2%) children. This indicates that associated school fees may affect Roma and non-Roma alike. This represents a 50% drop in the enrolment rate since 2011 (6%). The lack of pre-primary education for 97% of Roma children is further reflected by the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina has the third-lowest completion rate (42%) in compulsory education for Roma children in the region. In 2011, the figure was 44%, i.e. this completion rate has not decreased as much as for enrolment into pre-primary education. The regional average in 2017 was 53%. This figure becomes especially relevant when comparing with the completion rate of non-Roma children of 94% in compulsory education. This represents a gap of 52%. A similar gap is evidenced for secondary and tertiary education, where 21% (86%) and 0% (21%), respectively, of Roma and non-Roma youth completed their education in 2017.
EMPLOYMENT
For 2017, two objectives were identified and reported on: 1) Improve employment and employability of Roma and 2) Programme for education, additional qualification/change of qualifications of Roma registered at the Employment Service offices. The operational objectives were implemented through eight measures. Hereof, one was fully implemented, one was partially implemented and six were not implemented. The measures reached a reported 132 Roma beneficiaries (33 women). There is no information on the total beneficiaries eligible for the measures. The budget for employment remains the same from year to year while the policy effect and the number of employed Roma continues to increase (103 persons were employed in 2016). The government clarified that this is due to low interest in participating in employment programmes. Consequently, funds from previous years are being utilized later than planned, leading to increased employment in the following years. The MHRR and the Roma Board have recognized that the current approach in employment does not yield results and are in the process of defining a new approach to employment of Roma.
The most important success
The informal employment rate for Roma in Bosnia and Herzegovina decreased from 80% in 2011 to 61% in 2017. This corresponds to the regional average. This, however, still represents a gap compared with non-Roma of 47% in 2017.
The most important challenge
The labour market situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina for Roma is the most precarious in the region. The registered labour force participation rate was 25% for Roma (regional: 31.17%), compared with 40% for non-Roma (regional: 42%). Only 11% of the Roma population has employment compared to 29% of non-Roma. The regional employment rate is 16.8% for Roma and 32.7% for non-Roma, respectively. Correspondingly, the rate of registered unemployed Roma was 56% in 2017 compared with a regional figure of 44.7% for Roma and 23.17% for non-Roma. This represents a stagnant development since 2011 where the corresponding unemployment rate for Roma was also 56%, while 7% more Roma labour market actives were employed in 2011 (18%). Concerning Roma youth, the figures are equally serious. As many as 82%, the highest rate in the region, of young are not in employment, education or training (NEET). The corresponding non-Roma rate is 43%. The low completion rates, and corresponding high dropout rates of Roma children enrolled in compulsory education, is a serious challenge. This significantly reduces their life-long expectations for a better life, their possibility for acquiring human capital and productive assets as well as impairs their use and returns of assets.
HEALTHCARE
For 2017, four objectives were identified and reported on: 1) Roma health mediators, 2) Ensuring access to health care through insurance in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 3) Preventive health care and 4) Health education and information. The operational objectives were implemented through nine measures. Hereof, five were fully or continuously implemented, two were partially implemented and two were not implemented. The measures reached a reported 2,376 Roma beneficiaries (1,569 women). There is no information on the total beneficiaries eligible for the measures.
The most important success
Compared with 2011, access to health care insurance improved slightly by 2017 (coverage increased from 70% to 73%). The improved coverage consequently reduced the rate of unmet need for medical care from 39% to 33%, and increased the use of preventive health care services from 46% to 49%. Workshops on general health, infectious diseases and addictive diseases were held by Roma CSOs. Preventive examinations for breast and uterine cancer were provided to Roma women. Planned activities, such as education on general health, reproductive health, how to exercise health care rights etc., were partially implemented.
The most important challenge
Although Bosnia and Herzegovina has a compulsory health insurance scheme, coverage is restricted to a number of specific types of beneficiaries, and in some cases health institutions are not able to increase the number of beneficiaries due to limited funds. In 2017, this effectively excluded 27% of Roma from accessing the scheme, with high out-of-pocket payments for health services or inability to cover for the retroactive refund of health insurance expenditures as a result. As few as 6% non-Roma faced the same problems. The regional average of health insurance coverage was 62.7% for Roma and 73.5% for non-Roma. This correlates well with a reported 33% unmet need for medical care by Roma (15% for non-Roma), and the second-lowest use of preventive health care services in 2017 of 49% for Roma compared to as much as 66% for non-Roma. A further challenge for Bosnia and Herzegovina is that the Roma inclusion activities that the country authorities seek to implement, cannot be implemented at all levels of government nor throughout the country unless the respective entities decide to ensure the citizens residing there the same rights and possibilities. Roma CSO would like to be better included in consultation processes.
HOUSING
For 2017, three objectives were identified and reported on: 1) Legalization of housing units in informal Roma settlements, 2) Construction of social housing units for Roma (individual and/or collective) and 3) Improve housing conditions in Roma housing units. The operational objectives were implemented through eight measures. Hereof, three were fully or continuously implemented and six were not. The measures reached a reported 1,850 Roma beneficiaries (980 women). There is no information on the total beneficiaries eligible for the measures.
The most important success
Bosnia and Herzegovina has for some time been very active on securing access to housing for Roma. By 2018, more than 1,000 housing units were allocated to Roma. Further, infrastructure projects for improving living conditions in Roma settlements and reconstruction of housing owned by Roma were implemented in 2017. While Bosnia and Herzegovina has a very good record of accomplishment in housing, much of the funding comes from EU and other international donors.
The most important challenge
It is estimated that a minimum of +2,500 housing units is needed to meet the current need. While the MHRR is active in implementing the housing policy, they do not have the mandate nor the human capacity to oversee housing projects. This leads to long delays in implementation and the risk of criminal offences, such as non-implementation based on structural antigypsyism. During the implementation process, end-beneficiaries cannot become reallocated to other beneficiary schemes, which de facto leaves them homeless until the access to housing is finally secured. Since 2011, 7% more Roma have access to electricity (83% to 90%) compared to 98% of non-Roma. 87% of Roma maintain access to piped water (no development), while 96% of non-Roma have access to piped water. 2% fewer Roma have connection to waste installations (70% down to 68%) compared to 80% (down from 90%) of non-Roma. This fall would indicate a general trend in society as regards reduced access to waste infrastructure. 6% fewer Roma do not have access to waste collection (down from 25% to 19%) as compared to 7% non-Roma (down from 26%) who do not have access to waste collection. The biggest gap recorded between Roma and non-Roma concerns overcrowding: 65% (down from 74% in 2011) of Roma have access to 0.7 (up from 0.6) rooms per household member, compared to 21% (down from 30%) non-Roma who have access to 1.3 (up from 1.1) rooms per household member.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP The NRCP is supported by one Expert Advisor in the Department for the protection of rights and cooperation with national and other minorities, religious communities and NGOs. The NRCP/MHRR has the potential to lead Roma integration, but needs continuous assistance and support from within the MHRR, from the Roma Board and from the Roma communities. The MHRR has access to funding and legitimacy for fundraising. The MHRR needs further assistance in the field of monitoring (i.e. setting targets and measuring impact), specific project development process (i.e. each measure represents a programme that needs to be further elaborated into an operational plan and may require additional funding), budgeting of policies, and donor coordination (fund raising and lobbying). The MHRR does not have mandate to perform its role in the field of education, as the policy area is not under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, increased support from the Ministry of Civil Affairs (responsible for education at the federal level) is required to ensure successful implementation of the Framework Action Plan and to serve as a link between the MHRR (performing coordination) and the entities. Cross-sectorial coordination The institutional set-up for Roma integration in Bosnia and Herzegovina is designed in such way that it includes relevant ministries, institutions and Roma representatives at all levels of government. The Roma Board, the inter-ministerial body, has 22 members 11 of whom are Roma. The Roma Board is designed to lead the Roma integration process considering the complex administrative structures and multi-layered decision-making processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The structure allows Bosnia and Herzegovina to plan activities targeting the Roma population and distribute funds to all levels of the government and institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Board could benefit from capacity building as regards knowledge and/or capacities for planning, implementing and monitoring the process. Were the MHRR to invite to a workshop, during which the methodology of planning, implementation and reporting is explained, possible misunderstandings as to results achieved through government efforts could be avoided that otherwise may lead to loss of trust by the Roma community. The NRCP: •is consulted and does participate in the development of policies. •participates in decision making processes regarding funding of relevant policies. •participates in decision making processes regarding the implementation of relevant policies. Examples of participation include co-chairing the bi-annual Roma Seminars, representation in EU fora and policy workshops, participation in the meetings of the Coordination Body for Monitoring the Implementation of the Roma Strategy, national Roma platform meetings etc. The key dialogue platforms among relevant stakeholders are the two-yearly Roma Seminars and the annual National Roma Platforms. Stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the Roma Strategy: •The inter-disciplinary body (Roma Board). •Representatives of entity governments and other ministries. •Country authorities at all levels of government. •Some local authorities also provide data annually. •The Roma communities. CSOs provide shadow-reports. Dialogue/cooperation has been established between the Ombudsman/equality body and the NRCP: ad-hoc contacts. There is to some extent baseline information against which progress for the implementation of the Roma Strategy can be assessed. This information is contained in the Roma Integration Action Plan for Addressing Roma Issues in the Fields of Employment, Housing and Health Care 2017-2020, albeit without source references. There are some measurable targets in the Roma Integration Action Plan for 2017-2020. The monitoring report covers the implementation of the Revised Action Plan of Bosnia and Herzegovina on educational needs of Roma 2010-2016 and the Revised Action Plan for Addressing Roma Issues in the Fields of Employment, Housing and Health Care 2017-2020, but not the Revised Action Plan of Bosnia and Herzegovina for addressing Roma issues in the field of employment, housing and health care 2013-2016 or the Framework Action Plan on Educational Needs of Roma 2018-2022. More information is available at: •Strategy on Integration of Roma 2005 https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=2#page3 •Roma Integration Action Plan for Addressing Roma Issues in the Fields of Employment, Housing and Health Care 2017-2020 http://www.mhrr.gov.ba/PDF/LjudskaPrava/4%20%20Akcioni%20plan%20BiH%20za%20rjesavanje%20problema%20Roma%202017-2020_ENG.pdf •Framework Action Plan on Educational Needs of Roma 2018-2022 Bosnia and Herzegovina https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/participants/2/bosnia-and-herzegovina •National Platform: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=1

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Assessment based on civil society country reports 10
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·In 2017, after broad consultation, the state authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina approved a Platform for the Development of pre-school and education (2017-2022) and in September 2018 a Framework Action Plan (AP) for Educational Needs of the Roma 2018-2022 was adopted. ·The AP recognises and defines the need for increased Roma education, and puts focus on Roma identity, history, culture and language - preconditions for preservation of Roma identity and a way to inform the general population of the Roma culture, increase understanding and combat discrimination.	·The complex legal framework and governmental organisation will only make the Framework AP for Educational Needs of the Roma operational after each Entity AP on Education has been adopted. Therefore, the recognition of Roma educational needs and support to Roma education by the Bosnia and Herzegovina educational systems is delayed. ·NGOs initiated the adoption of the AP on Education in Republika Srpska, but this initiative was stopped by the decision by the government of the Republika Srpska entity not to cooperate with civil society organisations. ·Each of the levels of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina should take ownership of Roma integration obligations. All levels of government should develop and adopt Local Action Plans (LAPs) with allocated budgets. Current and future LAPs/Roma Action Plans (RAPs) to be harmonized with the principles laid out in the Framework AP on Education and implementation ensured. ·The national legislation on compulsory pre-school education has not been harmonized across the country. ·Approx. 5% Roma children attend compulsory pre-school education; promotion of the importance of pre-school education is needed. Enrolment of Roma children is for the time being enabled only through project interventions by NGOs. ·The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR) has no competency over Roma education policies, which requires a stronger financial engagement by the responsible ministries and authorities. ·Founders of pre-school institutions (municipalities or ministries of education) do not allocate funds to (co)finance the enrolment of children from socially disadvantaged families into pre-school institutions/ kindergartens, as requested by the Law on Social Protection.
Employment
·AP adopted, including employment measures 2017-2020. ·The Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR) supports programmes for encouraging Roma employment in co-operation with the Entity Employment Bureau.	·Employment programmes to be linked with affirmative measures for additional education for Roma. ·Improved criteria for employment needed. ·Employers should be able to prolong programmes if positively evaluated by employees. ·Improved planning with needs assessment and gap analyses would contribute to mainstream Roma needs into general policies. ·Dialogue about priorities between different measures compared to effectiveness is necessary to prepare for transition to employment. ·Roma are under-represented in public administrations. ·A large percentage of working age Roma remain unemployed despite existing targeted employment policies and programmes under the Roma Action Plan (RAP) and public funding (approx. 0.65 million BAM/year from the state level budget alone). ·The number of registered unemployed Roma at the Employment Offices does not reflect reality: many Roma have not registered or declared their Roma status and many women are out of the system.
Healthcare
·Action plan (2017-2020) adopted, including health measures for solving Roma issues. ·The amended law on compulsory health care for ages +65 covers Roma. ·Roma registered as unemployed also have right to health care.	·2018 Roma Seminar operational conclusions to be implemented. ·Specific measures should be proposed to ensure mainstreaming of Roma needs into existing sector policies, e.g. through research into ineligibility and barriers to access health care for children under 15 years. ·Relevant ministries and institutes to develop annual health checks of the population and use the findings to suggest different vertical programmes for prevention and early detection in the most vulnerable population (women, children, persons over 65 years of age, smokers, pollution related conditions etc.). This would contribute to full mainstreaming of Roma needs. It will also especially benefit Roma, as some conditions affect them more due to poor nutrition, inferior housing conditions and various other indicators that are directly linked with difficult socio-economic conditions. ·Mapping of needs and data collection is essential. Authorities to introduce new ways of looking at the health of the population and find ways to invest in prevention and education. ·All levels of government to enable access to health care. ·Roma Action Plan measures to be financed. ·Systematic prevention of health risks among Roma to be undertaken in partnership with civil society organisations. ·Health care for Roma returned trough readmission to be solved systematically.
Housing
·Action Plan (2017-2020) in place, including housing measures for solving Roma issues. ·The MHRR supports the programmes in partnership with civil society. ·Local governments implement the housing programme focused on the most vulnerable members of the Roma communities.	·Housing to be included in a holistic and multi-faceted policy intervention that, through synergy with other measures, achieves the goal set forth by the Roma integration policy. ·To improve the upcoming Spatial Planning of Roma Settlements with respect to Roma culture of living. ·Donor community to be consulted pooling resources to start implementing AP measures, especially measure M1.1 “Mapping of illegal Roma settlements and illegally built individual housing units and determining the condition of the space” and M1.2 “Developing programming plans for legalization or relocation of Roma housing settlements in the local communities”.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The 2009 anti-discrimination law (Law on prohibition of discrimination). ·The Ombudsman institution works as national human rights institution and equality body.	·The anti-discrimination law lacks concrete mechanisms and strategies that would help fight prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. ·Adoption of anti-discrimination programmes and mechanisms. ·Hate speech based on racial discrimination in social media to be regulated by law. ·Information material in the Roma language needed. ·Increased free legal aid to support civil legal procedure, which is long and expensive. This prevents even persons who know their rights from entering into legal proceedings. ·Introduction of Roma history and culture in the general education curriculum.
Fighting antigypsyism
·The Anti-Discrimination Law, forbids discrimination based on e.g. ethnic origin. ·The Ombudsman institution has published a special report on the situation of the Roma in Bosnia and Herzegovina.	·To address antigypsyism at all levels and recognise its devastating impact on society. ·To adapt legal framework for fighting antigypsyism and provide affirmative measures that will facilitate Roma women and men access to rights. ·Increased focus on combatting latent discrimination caused by antigypsyism and public information campaigns to inform potential victims about their legal rights and the mechanisms of defence against discrimination.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Civil society takes a major responsibility for dealing with the most vulnerable groups among Roma, researching their needs and providing interventions through various programmes.	·Criteria for selecting members of the institutions (e.g. Roma Board, Council of National Minorities) to be adopted that takes into account gender equality and women’s participation in decision-making processes. ·Specific needs of migrating and Roma returnees arriving trough readmission agreements to be recognised by the institutions and dealt with systematically. ·To mainstream Roma needs into sector policy reforms. ·To introduce Roma-responsive budgeting with adequate data collection and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (including In-Year and Mid-Term Reviews).
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·MHRR is charged to follow-up and monitor the implementation of APs and the needs of the Roma. ·Advisory board on Roma at the Council of Ministers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. ·National Minorities Council of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina: as an advisory body providing opinions, advice and suggestions to the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina on all issues related to national minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.	·Implementation of most strategies and action plans are directly dependent on the involvement of the entity and cantonal levels, which seldom show interest in dealing with Roma issues. ·To amend criteria for the selection of the Roma Board members giving bigger priority to competence and knowledge criteria. ·More proactive engagement of the Roma Board is needed on the implementation of Roma Actions Plans. The Roma Board should systematically monitor implementation of the Action Plans; suggest measures for their implementation; initiate activities to ensure budget is allocated for their implementation at the state and entity levels; monitor budgets; and actively work with donors.
Civil participation and empowerment
·A civil society sector of about 100 Roma NGOs is very active in follow-up of the Roma issues and advocacy for improvement of the Roma position and access to rights. ·Roma and pro-Roma civil society organisations improve capacities through various programmes and trainings. ·Roma are involved in the development of the AP and in the monitoring of its implementation.	·Pro-Roma organizations are exposed to pressures and discrimination, e.g. their legitimacy to work on issues related to Roma is disputed.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·22 local communities have Local Action Plans for inclusion of Roma.	·The LAPs seldom contain an integrated gender component or provisions to address the specific needs of the most vulnerable groups among Roma (women, migrants, etc.). ·Need to design interventions that contribute to the implementation of the SDGs (SDG5 Gender equality; SDG10 Reduced Inequalities: SDG16 Peace, Justice and strong Institutions). ·Importance of increasing mainstreaming of Roma issues also at local level. ·AP to be properly budgeted. Roma-responsive budgeting and planning will become a key issue in the upcoming period. ·Municipalities to use the same methodology for developing LAPs (format, tables etc.) as at central level and to cover all areas of concern: education, health care, housing, employment, combating discrimination and preservation of Roma history, language and culture.
Data collection
·MHRR country approach for data collection and mapping of Roma needs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.	·A system for collection of Roma-relevant data needs to be further developed. ·Better data collection is required, in cooperation between all responsible authorities, to ensure access to reliable, annual, disaggregated financial and non-financial data for Roma. ·Monitoring and reporting to be improved through unified annual reports for each policy area with financial and nonfinancial data (to be reported annually by the participants in each policy area at all levels of government who are different legal subjects). The report should list financial data about unspent assets by previous and current years - especially for housing and employment.
Funding for civil society
·Grants at different levels: MHRR grants for national minority, entity level ministry grants for education, municipality grants. ·Grants with very specific goals within which it is possible to realize small projects for the amount of up to 10,000 BAM. ·International organizations support with projects/ programmes.	·Most of the funds invested in Roma integration are provided by international donors. ·Local communities and MHRR provide funds that are insufficient for the needs detected in Roma communities. Entities and cantons should allocate appropriate funds also.
Example of promising practice
·Thanks to EU support, a total of 140 Roma families (652 persons of which 320 children) in nine municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina moved into new or rebuilt social housing units, and improved their social and economic conditions. State and local authorities were supported in preparing action plans for the social inclusion of the Roma population.
Most important priorities to be addressed
1.Entity Action Plans for Educational Needs of the Roma must be adopted to allow the Framework AP for Educational Needs of the Roma to be operational and improve Roma access to education. 2.The potential of the implementation of the SDGs (especially SDG5 Gender equality; SDG10 Reduced Inequalities; and SDG16 Peace, Justice and strong Institutions) should be used for mainstreaming of the Roma issues in all relevant policies and action plans. 3.Fight against antigypsyism as major concept for improvement of the position and inclusion of Roma must be recognised, defined and fostered in Bosnia and Herzegovina at all levels of government.

KOSOVO (Ashkali are included under the umbrella term Roma)
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Office for Good Governance in the Office of the Prime Minister.
Strategic document	Kosovo has a Strategy and an Action Plan for inclusion of Roma and Ashkali communities in the Kosovo society 2017-2021. The previous Roma integration strategy covered also the Egyptian community.
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	37,500 (2.07% of 1.815.000).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the population census, 2017 Regional Roma Survey 11 , 12 implemented by the UNDP and World Bank; UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster household Surveys 13 (Roma settlements MICS5 2013-14, MICS6 2019 (pending)); Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy in Kosovo (2017, 2018).
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
According to the 2017 Regional Roma Survey, in terms of inequality between Roma and their non-Roma neighbours, Kosovo shows the smallest gaps in the region.
The main challenges
Roma continue to suffer from marginalisation and discrimination, with women particularly affected. The poverty levels affecting these communities remain high compared to other communities in Kosovo. The general lack of ethnically and gender disaggregated data forms a major obstacle for assessing the effectiveness of the Strategy and Action Plan and its implementation. This problem is exacerbated by the absence of effective monitoring tools and the informal consultation methodology of the inter-disciplinary monitoring body. The 2017 report of the Kosovo government on the implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan does not provide values for the indicators. Kosovo did not implement an IPA project targeting Roma integration specifically.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, four thematic areas were reported as relevant for the implementation of the Roma Strategy: 1) education, 2) employment and social welfare, 3) health care and 4) housing. A fifth thematic area, social protection, is not reported on in this report. A total of 10 objectives and 53 measures were reported on. Hereof, 15 were implemented, 15 were partially implemented and 23 were not implemented. All objectives were mainstreamed with partly targeted measures.
EDUCATION
In 2017, there were three specific objectives in the area of education: 1) To improve participation in education, 2) to improve students’ performance and 3) to increase awareness to support Roma and Ashkali education. 15 education measures were foreseen. Hereof, six were fully or continuously implemented, four were partially implemented and five were not implemented in 2017.
The most important success
The enrolment rate at all levels has been increasing, although it is still significantly below the national average and many young Roma and Ashkali do not reach higher levels of education. Inequality in education is below the regional average.
The most important challenge
While 73% of Roma children (compared with 92% of non-Roma) were enrolled in compulsory education, the compulsory education completion rate for ages 18-21 is only 62% compared with 95% for non-Roma. For secondary and tertiary education, the completion rates fall to 21% (77%) and 3% (24%), respectively. Roma girls have less access to education at all levels than both Roma boys and non-Roma boys and girls. In upper-secondary education there is significant gender gap in favour of Roma boys of 12%. On gender equality in education Kosovo ranks among the lowest in the region. The existing mechanisms for reintegration into education and adult education are difficult to access for Roma that dropped out and those not able to provide certificates for education attended abroad. Discrimination in education should be addressed.
EMPLOYMENT
In 2017, there were two specific objectives in the area of employment and social welfare: 1) to improve the level of employment and 2) to improve participation in the social welfare schemes and better access to social services. 14 and 12 mainstream measures, respectively, were foreseen. As elsewhere in this Annex to the Staff Working Document to the 2019 Communication on Roma integration, due to the focus on the four key priorities in the EU Roma Framework for the EU Member States, the measures regarding social welfare are not reported on in this document covering the enlargement region. Of the 14 employment measures, three were implemented, three partially implemented, while eight remained unimplemented in 2017.
The most important success
In a regional perspective, Kosovo’s NEETs rate (youth between 15-24 not in employment, education, or training) of 69% lies below the regional average of 72.3%. With a 30% NEETs gap ratio to non-Roma, the NEETs rate indicates that the ethnic gap is less pronounced than in the region (37.2% gap), except for Serbia (29%).
The most important challenge
The overall figures show that labour market participation of 13% in general is lower than the regional average for both Roma and non-Roma, with even lower figures for Roma women (4%). With 70%, informal employment is the highest in the region. The registered unemployment rates for Roma and their non-Roma neighbours in 2017 were 48% and 32%, respectively. The 33% gender gap in labour force participation among Roma is the largest in region. The annual monitoring report by the government for 2017 did not allow an assessment of the achievements, as values for the indicators for 2017 were not provided. None of the planned Roma-targeted measures in the Action Plan were implemented in 2017.
HEALTHCARE
In 2017, there were three specific objectives regarding health: 1) to improve access to health services, 2) to improve health routines and practices and 3) to provide a healthy environment. Of the 12 measures, four were implemented, three were partially implemented, and five were not implemented in 2017.
The most important success
Kosovo has the lowest health insurance coverage in the region for both Roma and non-Roma, but scores above average on other health indicators. This indicates that low health insurance coverage does not appear to be hindering Roma from obtaining access to services comparable with the services available to Roma in countries with higher health insurance coverage and their non-Roma neighbours. The gap towards non-Roma is the lowest in the region. Both Roma and non-Roma report comparable levels of self-perceived health (68% and 76%), health insurance coverage (10% and 12%) and self-reported unmet need for medical care (26% and 23%). Three of the implemented measures under the objective of access of Roma to health services covered: breast cancer and mammography screenings (102 female beneficiaries), home visits to mothers and children by mobile teams (1,950 beneficiaries), and purchase of medical equipment for a health facility near a Roma settlement (7,224 potential beneficiaries).
The most important challenge
The above figures of reported equality in access to health services are largely due to the fact that Kosovo does not provide universal health insurance, although authorities inform that all persons are entitled to public health services. The annual monitoring report from the government did not provide values for 2017 for the indicators, thus the assessment on the achievement of the strategic goal is not possible. The 2017 Regional Roma Survey reports that only 10% Roma (same for females) have health insurance, but the rate is as low for non-Roma as well.
HOUSING
In 2017, there were three specific objectives regarding housing: 1) to identify needs for adequate housing and social housing, 2) to increase awareness about active participation in solving housing issues and 3) to progress significantly towards settlement of the housing problem. Of the 12 measures, two were implemented, five were partially implemented and five were not implemented in 2017.
The most important success
Kosovo’s coverage in housing lies above the average across the region. Kosovo has relatively high access to piped water inside dwellings and connections to public sewerage or wastewater tanks. The share of Roma who report that waste is never collected is also lower than the regional average. 771 Roma families have been identified as families living in inadequate housing conditions, from the 12,337 identified.
The most important challenge
Kosovo has a greater overcrowding rate (71%) than the regional average (67.7%). This is mostly because of larger households. Compared to non-Roma neighbours, a lower number of Roma households has connection to water (84% vs. 97%), sewerage (75% vs. 91%) and electricity (89% vs. 97%). A three-year housing programme has been developed with a budget of 90,000 EUR. However, as it is not Roma-specific it is unclear why the budget is reported as spent for Roma. Legalisation of informal settlements and identification of properties for constructing social housing remains to be implemented.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP The Director of the Office for Good Governance within the Prime Minister’s Office is charged with the coordination of the implementation of the Roma Strategy and Action Plan that is adopted by the government. The Roma portfolio is only one of the numerous tasks of the NRCP, which limits the capacities of the NRCP to perform this role. There is only one staff in the Office of Good Governance supporting the NRCP in his Roma related tasks (a Senior Officer on Equality and Communities). Cross-sectorial coordination The NRCP is chair of an informal inter-disciplinary body consisting of a number of Contact Points in some of the institutions central to Roma integration. Although there are no formal coordination mechanisms or meetings, the body coordinates the strategy’s implementation. The NRCP further consults with civil society through thematic Working Groups whose members are representatives from relevant institutions and civil society. Local municipalities are tasked to appoint a Contact Point who is responsible for establishing a Municipal Action Committee (MAC). In 2017, such MACs were yet to be established in most municipalities due to local elections. Examples of participation include co-chairing the bi-annual Roma Seminars, representation in EU fora and policy workshops, participation in the meetings of the informal inter-disciplinary body, national Roma platform meetings etc. The key dialogue platforms among relevant stakeholders are the two-yearly Roma Seminars and the annual National Roma Platforms. Relevant stakeholders •National authorities (line-ministries, agencies, municipal offices, public health institutes, schools etc.). •The informal Inter-Institutional Steering Committee, •The thematic Working Groups, •Some regional and local authorities also provide data annually. •Roma and pro-Roma NGOs. Roma civil society provide shadow-reports. •Regional/international organisations, including the Regional Cooperation Council, the Council of Europe, OSCE, UNDP, UNOPS, GIZ, UNICEF, etc. Dialogue/cooperation has been established between the Ombudsman/equality body and the NRCP: ad-hoc contacts. There is a baseline against which progress for the implementation of the Kosovo Strategy for inclusion of Roma and Ashkali communities in the Kosovo society 2017-2021 and its Action Plan 2017-2021 could be assessed. There are target indicators for some of the overall objectives. No such information is provided for the specific activities/results in the Action Plan. Baseline source references are provided. Policy measures may contain non-measurable target information without source references. The current Action Plan has overall objectives focussing on: 1) education, 2) employment and social welfare, 3) health, and 4) housing. Some of the specific activities/results are budgeted, while most are not. No gender disaggregated information is provided. The 2017 report by the government does not provide values for the indicators. It is therefore impossible to assess in how far the situation has improved in comparison to the baseline. More information is available at: •Strategy for inclusion of Roma and Ashkali communities in the Kosovo society 2017-2021. It contains an Action Plan of the Strategy for inclusion of Roma and Ashkali communities in the Kosovo society 2017-2021: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=2 •National Platform: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=1

KOSOVO

(Ashkali are included under the umbrella term Roma)

Assessment based on civil society country reports 14

SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS

Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Education

·Approved Administrative Instruction for Establishment and Functionalization of Learning Centres with EUR 500,000 budget from the government.

·Support to secondary school scholarships by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

·The steady increase in Roma and Ashkali students at almost all levels of education has 1) contributed to breaking community prejudices regarding education and raised awareness among other members of the society and 2) increased capacity building of community members in the civil society.

·Required transfer of funds from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and municipalities.

·Institutionalization of the national scholarship programme.

·Very important gap between Roma and non-Roma in secondary education.

·The socio-economic situation of the community directly affects the pursuit of education, especially in the field of primary education.

Employment

·Employment quota of 10% for minority communities in public institutions (Civil Service Law).

·Various active labour market measures by the Employment Agency, for example subsidized wages, internships.

·The gradual increase of Roma and Ashkali students stimulates reasonable competition and influences the professional growth of applicants.

·Opportunities for practical work during the various phases of studies has made community members familiar with the work as well as other related subject matters.

·Public institutions do not respect the Roma employment quota.

·Public institutions to fight misuse of the quota system by non-Roma during selection processes.

·Decreased number of Roma applies for public positions.

·Low number of Roma participating in regional training centres.

·Low level of education remains an obstacle towards employment opportunities.

·The Employment Agency should provide more internships and on-the-job-training programmes to Roma youth to increase their soft skills and create more job opportunities for them.

·Public institutions to fight discrimination in employment.

·Public institutions and private companies to fight nepotism and misuse by political representatives.

Healthcare

·The National Strategy for Integration of Roma and Ashkali in Kosovo Society 2017-2021 Health Action Plans (AP) improves the health status of Roma and Ashkali.

·The promotion of medical examinations for basic needs has created a situation where members of the community have become aware of the importance of health care. This is also linked with the promotion of care for the environment where they live and the removal of waste dumps, which affects positively their health situation.

·The AP lacks adequate allocation of budget funds.

·The lack of political will to prioritize the poor health status of Roma and Ashkali remains a concern.

·Roma have limited access to health services.

·Importance to reduce distance from Roma and Ashkali settlements to healthcare facilities.

·Develop the possibility of reduced health expenditures for the most vulnerable (79.5 % Roma and Ashkali were not able to visit the doctor due to their inability to pay for the medicine or treatment).

·Hygiene possibilities often severely limited due to scarce or lack of access to infrastructure due to extreme poverty: lack of water, insufficient means for spending water and other cleaning materials, etc.

·Eliminate barriers to address health problems and medical healing processes; at times, members of the community are denied treatment on ethnic and racial grounds.

Housing

·Law on property legalization.

·Law No. 03L-164 on Financing of Special Housing Programmes.

·Housing, informal settlements, lack of cadastral documents and non-compliance with legal requirements for buying and selling housing are some of the major problems faced by the community.

·The government has promised to build some houses for community members. This promise remains to be realized.

·The legalization process is slow. Partly due to the low number of applications especially from the Roma and Ashkali community.

·Large households living in small spaces continues to be a concern in settlements.

HORIZONTAL MEASURES

Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Anti-discrimination

·Anti-Discrimination Law.

·Various campaigns, gatherings, artistic performances, to fight discrimination and awareness on the importance of diversity.

·Low commitment of government to tackle discrimination of Roma in education, employment and healthcare system.

·Discrimination is an element that the community faces daily in society. It affects in particular the denial of their rights within society.

·Discrimination precedes racism, and as such, a complete change of state on the awareness of the historical and cultural elements of this community is needed.

Fighting antigypsyism

·The government supports Roma day on 8 April.

·The KOSINT programme aims to foster ideas that combat antigypsyism.

·Antigypsyism remains an unknown terminology and phenomena for the institutions.

·Lack of understanding and recognition of antigypsyism and hate speech by the authorities in the judiciary.

·Antigypsyism is a social problem that is mainly manifested by community members being labelled with distracting names that produce stigmatization and prejudice in society. As such it is exceedingly difficult to combat as it also produces Roma self-denial in society.

Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma

·Regional and national projects supported by different donors contributes to the improvement of living conditions for Roma and Ashkali. They further create a healthy Roma civil society who acts as watchdog, promotes transparency and accountability and holds institutions accountable towards the Roma community.

·Addressing the needs of community members is at a stage where technological systems provide increased opportunities for meeting their needs while at the same time raising awareness about the work of the specific institutional mechanisms that manage their submissions.

·No measures have been adopted to address (explicitly) Roma LGBTI issues or the difficulties faced by Roma women.

·Part of the community, due to lack of education, have problems with submitting administrative requests. This causes problems with various administrative processes and no initiative is taken to acknowledge and address these problems.

STRUCTURAL MEASURES

Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach

Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations

Stakeholder involvement at the central level

·The National Strategy for inclusion of Roma and Ashkali in Kosovo Society 2017-2021 foresees in its implementation the involvement of municipalities, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Ministry of Communities and Return, Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning.

·Authorities seek to involve different stakeholders.

·Public authorities at central and local levels employ a number of Roma community members.

·Lack of budget allocated from public institutions for the implementation of the strategy remains a concern.

·Involvement of stakeholders at central level was influenced by the lack of a greater dynamic of socio-political engagement.

Civil participation and empowerment

·Civil society is involved in the creation of new policies, administrative instructions and changes to existing laws.

·Civil society sends in shadow reports.

·Civil society organizations continuously propose measures to empower vulnerable Roma.

·Citizen participation and empowerment in political, cultural and other fields has reached a higher level than a few years ago.

·Roma leaders need to promote Roma interest at national level.

·Lack of political influence of Roma leaders.

·Participation and empowerment is confronted with discriminatory situations in society and limited access and participation in various forms.

Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level

·Creation of Local Action Plans in almost all municipalities with Roma and Ashkali communities based on the National Strategy for Inclusion.

·Creation of Municipal Action Committees for monitoring the implementation of local action plans (e.g. EU co-funded ROMACTED process).

·The integration of Roma inclusion at the local level is mainly based on their representation in Committees for Communities, and the mechanisms that address the integration idea.

·The budgets allocated by municipalities differ. As a result, many planned activities cannot be implemented due to budget limitations.

·The Municipal Action Committees do not meet as regularly as planned. This negatively affects the necessary and dynamic cooperation between non-governmental organizations and mechanisms such as the Communities Committee.

·Problems related to the divergent views of the Committees and other mechanisms vis-a-vis the planned municipal budgets and the benefits of the most appropriate lines that address the needs of the Roma community.

·A major obstacle concerns inappropriate political strategies that influence the representation of communities in municipal assemblies and their voicing of their needs.

Data collection

·Population census of 2011.

·The collection of data on various community issues has increased. This shows an increase in the intensity of interest in dealing with issues which community members themselves often face.

·Several public institutions do not disaggregate statistics based on ethnicity, but they do disaggregate data for other minority groups (Albanians, Serbs and Others). This does not allow accurate information on Roma receiving services from public institutions.

·Outdated data.

·The collection of data during various research on Roma community issues has been challenged by the problems of obtaining complete information.

Funding for civil society

·The civil society, which acts in the context of community rights and their development in diverse aspects, has almost always been supported financially by various donors, ranging from public institutions, embassies, foundations and different international organizations.

·Co-funding from municipalities.

·The funds for the implementation of the National Strategy for Inclusion of Roma and Ashkali in Kosovo Society 2017-2021 are planned in a theoretical way with no clear link with what is available in reality from different institutions and donors.

·Civil society are sometimes hampered by co-operation with other actors resulting in problems being treated superficially and without necessary concrete results.

·Civil society sometimes have problems with the complete and successful completion of projects.

Example of promising practice

·The budget allocation of EUR 500,000 from the Government towards Learning Centres in Primary Education is an example that could be adopted/replicated for national scholarship programmes in secondary education as well.

·The increased amount of funds for housing in the municipality of Fushe is an example that could be adopted by other municipalities with a higher number of Roma communities living in poor conditions with minimum living standards.

Most important priorities to be addressed

·Offering equal opportunities for education and employment of Roma children and youth.

·Adoption of legal definition of hate speech and fighting discrimination.

·Access to health services, especially to those living in poor conditions.

·Strengthening capacities and resources of Offices for Communities and Return within municipalities, to provide, in cooperation with other relevant institutions, information and effective assistance to Roma citizens exercising their human and civil rights.

MONTENEGRO (Egyptians are included under the umbrella term Roma)
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The General Director of the Directorate for the promotion and protection of the rights of minorities and other minority communities in the Ministry of Human and Minority rights (MHM).
Strategic document	“Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma and Egyptians 2016-2020”. Annual Action Plans for its implementation have been adopted (2017, 2018). The 2019 Action Plan was adopted in the first quarter of 2019.
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	20.000 (3.17% of 631.490).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self-identification included in the population census; Survey of Roma and Egyptians in Montenegro (2008) implemented by MONSTAT Statistical Office of Montenegro; two Regional Roma Surveys (2011, 2017 15 ) implemented by the UNDP and World Bank; UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster household Surveys 16 (Roma settlements MICS5 2013, MICS6 2018); Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy in Montenegro (2017, 2018); research on Social Position and Social Inclusion of Roma and Egyptians in Montenegro (2016) implemented by the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights; Roma Inclusion Index 2015; survey on child begging in Montenegro implemented by the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) (2017); employment of Roma and Egyptians in Montenegro: Research on Attitudes of Companies' Representatives and Socio-Economic Position of RE population (2018); participative assessment of inclusivity of the Employment Agency of Montenegro (2018). Official statistical surveys on the Roma population in Montenegro currently remain outside of five-year and annual plans of official statistics. Ethnically disaggregated information on Roma was collected by MONSTAT in 2008 as a one-time statistical exercise. Line-ministries provide some of the ethnically disaggregated data, but do not officially collect them according to the standardised methodology. Impact assessment information comparing the position of Roma with that of the general population exists on education and is available from the Ministry of Education Information System (MIES).
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
Montenegro started a set of activities for promoting inclusion of Roma in education, which should be continued and scaled-up. Coverage increased mainly thanks to a substantial improvement in pre-primary education. Roma who are internally displaced persons benefitted from social housing allocated through the Regional Housing Programme in significant numbers. The government’s expenditure for Roma integration is continuously increasing according to its reports.
The main challenges
Overall, Montenegro went backwards in both average coverage and inequality. There is a wide gap between marginalised Roma and neighbouring non-Roma in terms of education, access to labour market and material well-being. The gap is especially large for young people. The Action Plan for Roma Integration is adopted for a single year. The deadline for adoption is 31 March each year, which means that the state is effectively without an action plan for up to three months each year. The NRCP and its team needs significant strengthening in terms of their capacities and the coordinating mandate vis-à-vis other responsible institutions in charge of implementing Roma integration policy. Donor dependency is strong. In 2016, about 3.3% of the total expenditure for implementation of the Roma integration policy was allocated from the central budget, increasing to 4.1% in 2017. The numbers on government expenditure are only approximations, as the structure and the methodology of budget planning and reporting does not provide clear information on spending for a particular population group.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, four thematic areas were reported as relevant for the implementation of the Roma Strategy: 1) education, 2) employment, 3) health care and 4) housing. A total of 14 objectives and 41 measures were reported on. Hereof, 20 were implemented, 14 were partially implemented and 7 were not implemented. The objectives were a mixture of mainstreamed and targeted measures. Montenegro further reported on Legal status; Social Status and Family Care; and Culture, Identity and Information, all of which are not reported on in this report.
EDUCATION
Five operational objectives were implemented through 20 measures, 16 of which were Roma targeted. 13 measures were fully implemented and seven were partially implemented. Five operational objectives were identified and reported on for 2017: 1) increase the enrolment level and reduce drop-out rates, 2) expand enrolment in preschool education, 3) enhance school achievements of children through engagement of parents and community 4) specific measures for reducing drop-out rate, 5) raise awareness on the importance of education.
The most important success
Pre-primary education enrolment rates among Roma increased significantly between 2011 and 2017, but remain well below those of their non-Roma neighbours. The increase was mainly driven by boys in urban areas. There has been a significant rise, to 62%, in the rate of enrolment into compulsory school for Roma children, resulting in the reduction of the gap vis-à-vis neighbouring non-Roma children attending compulsory school (92% enrolment rate). However, despite recent improvements, the adjusted net compulsory education enrolment rate of Roma in Montenegro is still the lowest in the Western Balkans. Montenegro is continuously putting significant efforts into ensuring desegregated education for Roma children by providing daily transportation to mainstream schools and back home. Since recently, measures in education are managed from the budget of the Ministry of Education.
The most important challenge
The low completion of compulsory education 34%. Around two-thirds of marginalised Roma aged 18-21 lack basic education. This group is also at a significant disadvantage with respect to their neighbouring non-Roma counterparts, almost all of whom have this level of education that is often a prerequisite for even low-skilled jobs. Upper secondary and tertiary completion is very rare; the completion rate of 3% for upper secondary education is the lowest in the Western Balkans. Data on Roma children not enrolled in school and children who dropout are not available. Stronger effort is required to identify these children and to integrate them into the mainstream school system. More efforts are also required to systematically prevent and address child begging.
EMPLOYMENT
Four operational objectives are identified and reported on for 2017: 1) increase participation in active employment measures, 2) increase the level of vocational qualifications, 3) direct employment measures, 4) strengthen capacity of employment bodies to deal with Roma population. The operational objectives are implemented through 13 different measures, five of which are Roma targeted. Five measures were fully implemented, two were partially implemented, whereas six measures were not implemented at all or Roma did not benefit from them.
The most important success
The fall in the unemployment rate. 23% of registered, economically active Roma aged 15-64 were unemployed in 2017, the lowest rate in the Western Balkans. This fall was largely driven by females gaining employment.
The most important challenge
Access to economic opportunities deteriorated. Marginalised Roma are much less likely to be employed than their neighbouring non-Roma counterparts, and gaps between the communities are increasing. Labour force participation among Roma fell, and in 2017, it was the lowest in the Western Balkans (19%). The great majority (78%) of marginalised Roma youth (ages 18-24) in Montenegro were not in employment, education or training (NEET) in 2017; this was a significant increase compared to 2011, and the gap vis-à-vis neighbouring non-Roma is widening. Effects of active labour market employment measures are insufficient to enable sustainable employment of Roma. Conditions for participation in some of the mainstream active labour market employment measures de facto exclude them from participation. There is a need for employment promotion programmes specifically targeting Roma, including those who engage in informal work. Proposed activities to tackle informal work within the Economic Reform Programme 2019-2021 do not account for the specific position of undeclared workers. Legislation on social entrepreneurship, which could be used in support of implementing specific programmes for employment of Roma, is not in place. The subsidy to employers for employing hard to employ groups, including Roma, was revoked in 2019.
HEALTHCARE
Three operational objectives were reported for 2017: 1) increase access to health care, 2) provide health prevention at health facilities and in the field, and 3) raise awareness on importance of health prevention. The operational objectives were implemented through five different measures: one mainstream and four Roma-targeted. Two measures were fully implemented; two were partially implemented, whereas one measure was not implemented.
The most important success
The majority of marginalised Roma in Montenegro have health insurance coverage (80%) and three Roma health mediators are employed in state-run health centres.
The most important challenge
The use of preventive health care is especially low, although it is on the rise; the gap vis-à-vis non-Roma neighbours is still the largest in the Western Balkans. Distance and lack of transport to local health centres has been identified as a problem. Only three associates for Roma inclusion were engaged to work with Roma in 2017, and there is no information about the number of people who benefited from their support services. Roma are insufficiently supported to obtain prescribed therapy and medications, which are often not affordable for them. Three out of five measures planned for 2019 are in fact awareness raising measures.
HOUSING
Two operational objectives are reported for 2017: 1) to improve housing conditions of Roma and 2) to close the informal temporary collective centres by resettling Roma to constructed, sustainable and decent housing. The operational objectives were to be implemented through three measures: 1) creation of database of available social housing and review of the legal basis for its use, 2) construction of social housing for internally displaced persons, and 3) presenting the needs for closure of collective centres to potential donors. The three measures were partially implemented.
The most important success
Within the Regional Housing Programme, a minimum of 238 Roma benefitted from social housing through 2016-2018. This officially led to the closure of the Konik camp. Tivat municipality recently allocated land parcels for the construction of social housing benefiting Roma families.
The most important challenge
Overcrowding among Roma has been rising in recent years and is now the highest in the Western Balkans. Higher overcrowding occurs not only because they have larger households (typically with a higher number of children), but also because the dwellings they live in have a smaller number of rooms. Contrary to the regional evolution, since 2011 there has been a worsening of the housing situation of Roma regarding access to public services: piped water, connection to public sewerage and waste collection. The activities on legalisation are not included in the Action Plans, although activities on legalisation of Roma owned housing and Roma settlements are envisaged by the Roma Integration Strategy and the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction of Structures governing legalisation adopted in 2017. Domiciled Roma are insufficiently benefitting from the housing support. There remains a strong donor dependency in construction of housing.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP Three advisors work as technical support to the NRCP in the Department for Promotion and Protection of Rights of Roma and Egyptians. The Department is without an appointed Head of Department. Cross sectorial coordination The NRCP coordinates the implementation and monitoring process and chairs the Commission for monitoring the implementation of the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma and Egyptians 2016-2020. Examples of participation include co-chairing the bi-annual Roma Seminars, representation in EU fora and policy workshops, participation in the meetings of the Commission for monitoring the implementation of the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma and Egyptians, national Roma platform meetings etc. The key dialogue platforms among relevant stakeholders are the two-yearly Roma Seminars and the annual National Roma Platforms. Relevant stakeholders The interdisciplinary Roma integration coordination body includes representatives from the Ministries of Human and Minority Rights, Education, Labour and Social Welfare, Internal Affairs, Culture, European Affairs, Sustainable Development and Tourism and Finance. Other members are: Fund for Protection and Realisation of Minority Rights, Office of National coordinator for Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, Employment Agency, Red Cross, Roma Council, Center for the Preservation and Development of Minority Cultures, Ombudsman's office, Directorate for the Care of Refugees, Statistical Office - MONSTAT, Union of Municipalities of Montenegro, Municipality of the Capital Podgorica and a representative of Roma NGOs. Civil society stakeholders. The role of the interdisciplinary body: preparation of Action Plans for implementation of the Strategy, monitoring of action plans and the Strategy implementation, assessment of achieved results, proposing amendments to the Strategy on a yearly basis, informing the Government of Montenegro about the Strategy implementation. Existence of baseline against which progress for implementation of NRIS /set of policy measures is assessed: Regional Roma Survey 2017 and 2017 information from MIES (last available baselines). For further information: • Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma and Egyptians in Montenegro 2016 - 2020 - Montenegro • Action Plan for the Implementation of Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma and Egyptians 2016-2020 - Montenegro •National Platform: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=1

MONTENEGRO (Egyptians are included under the umbrella term Roma)
Assessment based on civil society country reports 17
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·An increase in enrolment and decrease in dropout rates. ·Standardisation of the profession of education mediator and introduction of more than 10 mediators in schools. ·Delivery of free books for primary school children. ·Scholarships for all Roma and Egyptian high school and university students. ·Free-of-charge kindergarten for Roma children. ·Arranged transportation to school for Roma children by bus (running in three municipalities).	·Insufficient enforcement of measures and low visibility of process and outcomes related to prevention of early school leaving. ·Existing (growing) gap of children who do not finish primary school and transition to secondary school. ·Number of children per mediator in education should be reduced (currently, the regulation foresees 70 children per mediator); more Roma mediators should be employed. ·Introduction of mentoring and tutoring for students in the school system. ·Amendment of the Law on High Education to allow Roma students to be exempted from paying scholarship fee.
Employment
·Standardisation of the profession of employment mediator. ·Introduction of mediators in certain municipalities. ·Involvement of Roma in active employment policy measures and in public works by the Employment Agency. ·Development of vocational qualifications, e.g. collector of secondary raw materials, and standardisation of profession. ·Small-scale projects aimed at improving employment exist at municipal level.	·High percentage of Roma engaged in informal work. ·Mediators are still not officially employed. ·Abolishment of the Regulation on subventions for employment of certain categories of unemployed persons (including Roma). ·Introduction of subventions and grants for Roma entrepreneurs. ·Establishment of a Fund for Employment of Roma.
Healthcare
·Standardisation and training for the profession of health mediator. ·Ministry of Health successfully piloted a project on health mediators and engaged them in three municipalities. ·Most healthcare services targeting Roma, such as preventive examinations for women and vaccination for children, are being implemented.	·Ministry of Health should engage health mediators in more municipalities. ·Quality of health services could be additionally improved, particularly in relation to obtaining prescribed medicines free of charge.
Housing
·Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare is implementing the Regional Housing Programme in 13 municipalities. ·Law on Legalisation of informal objects enforced by the Ministry for Tourism and Sustainable Development ·Delivery of an additional 51 housing units for inhabitants of the Konik camp in Podgorica. ·Official closure of the Konik camp.	·Deadlines for submission of documents for legalisation of informal objects needs to be extended. ·Mapping of “informal Roma neighbourhoods” required. ·Finding housing solutions for domiciled Roma and Roma settled on private properties. ·170 families at risk of eviction in coastal municipalities.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·Organisation of training on anti-discrimination for public servants and employers by the Ministry for Human and Minority Rights. ·Anti-discrimination Law in effect since 2010. ·Ombudsman’s Office work on addressing complaints.	·Roma are still facing a lot of discrimination, which is most visible in the area of employment.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Roma are recognised as a minority in the Montenegrin legal system. ·The Roma Council is one of the minority national councils in Montenegro. ·A media programme in the Romani language and dedicated to Roma available on public broadcaster and Roma radio.	·Roma are not included in political processes, and do not have political representatives in local or national parliaments: Montenegro to amend the Law on Election of MPs and Councillors to make it possible for Roma to have political representatives in local and national parliaments. ·The National Roma Inclusion Strategy does not recognize the antigypsyism dimension. ·More space in media needed for Roma, particularly related to promotion of good practices and positive examples from the community. Media reports on Roma are often in a negative context, which contributes to persisting stereotypes. ·Affirmative action not adequately and fully applied. ·More actions are needed which involve joint activities of members of Roma community and the majority population.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Guidelines for actions of relevant institutions in cases of detection of child marriages. ·An operational team for fight against domestic violence and violence against women was established in 2018. ·Roma women are recognised as a particularly vulnerable group.	·Roma women are still very susceptible to early marriages and need to be more empowered, both educationally and economically. ·More specific measures need to be focused on empowerment of Roma women, in particular for entrepreneurship opportunities. ·Majority of employed Roma work in public utility companies, and this type of work often happens in harmful environments and involving very difficult physical jobs.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Ministry for Human and Minority Rights (Department for Protection and Improvement of Rights of Roma and Egyptians). ·Commission for the evaluation of implementation of NRIS. ·National Roma Contact Point in the MHMR. ·Relevant ministries and institutions are involved in the implementation of NRIS. ·NRIS in its fourth year of implementation. ·Action Plan for 2019 drafted and approved.
Civil participation and empowerment
·One representative of civil society is member of the Commission for the evaluation of the implementation of the NRIS. ·The coalition of Roma and pro-Roma CSOs “United support to Roma inclusion” is in place. ·CSO representatives are active advocates, operational in drafting recommendations and involved on high-profile national events (National Platform, Roma Seminar, etc.)	·Roma do not play an active role in the decision-making processes concerning the NRIS. ·Only rarely are highly educated, professional Roma involved in empowerment of their communities. ·State institutions are more prone to cooperate with CSO organisations, which are less likely to be critical towards their policies.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Implementation of the EU co-funded project ROMACTED in eight Montenegrin municipalities, which aims at empowerment of local Roma communities. ·11 municipalities in process of drafting and adopting Local Action Plans (LAPs).	·Opening of Roma Centres in municipalities with significant number of Roma employed. ·Integration of systematic and sustainable solutions (such as financing of mediators) in Local Action Plans.
Data collection
·Last official national data related to Roma and households was conducted through the Montenegrin Census in 2011. ·Some survey-based data on Roma in Montenegro was collected through the Regional Roma survey in 2017 (UNDP, World Bank). ·Data collected through different analysis and survey basis on local and national level on project basis.	·Principle of self-declaration is valid when collecting ethnically-oriented data. ·The National Statistical Office (MONSTAT) should develop and approve methodology for Roma data collection in each of the priority areas in order to collect precise and meaningful data, which can be properly processed.
Funding for civil society
·The Ministry for Human and Minority Rights foresees funding for NGO project proposals on a yearly basis. ·Municipalities foresee funding for CSO projects at local level. ·Ministry of Public Administration launched two calls for EU-funded projects for CSOs.	·Capacities of CSOs and grassroots organisations should be further increased in order to empower them and ensure proper application of processes and reporting. ·For calls for proposals issued at state level, CSOs apparently less critical towards national institutions seems to be favoured. ·De-centralised system of IPA funds for CSO through the Directorate for Finance and Contracting of the EU Assistance Funds (CFCU) is still work in progress, with issues e.g. related to the interpretation of EU procedures. There is some feedback that this is demotivating and discouraging NGOs to apply for EU projects.
Example of promising practice
·Through a project, an education mediator in the municipality Bijelo Polje (northern Montenegro) was employed in a school with less than 70 Roma children. Engagement of the mediator showed immediate results in improved educational outcomes of students, more regular school attendance and easier overcoming of language barriers. This practice reflects a real need, the value of education mediators, and moreover the need to lower the existing threshold of 70 children per mediator.
Most important priorities to be addressed
·Employment: High percentage of informal work/standardisation of professions specific to Roma, such as collectors of secondary waste, vocational trainings for Roma and life-long learning possibilities. ·Education: Decreasing the level of dropout and increasing successful completion rates through diminishing the gap between primary school and secondary school students (improved transition between the two educational levels). ·Housing: Social housing for Roma families, legalisation of informal objects and housing solutions for Roma who live on privately owned properties.

NORTH MACEDONIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Minister without Portfolio.
Strategic document	Strategy for the Roma 2014 - 2020 .
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	197,000 (9.56% of 2,060,563).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self–identification included in the population census; UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster household Surveys 18 ( Roma settlements MICS4 2011, MICS6 201 8-19); two Regional Roma Surveys (2011, 2017 19 ) implemented by the UNDP and World Bank; Roma Inclusion Index 2015; Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy in Serbia (2017, 2018). The EU Delegation conducted a Thematic Evaluation of EU Support to Roma Communities and Roma Social Mapping and data collected by the State Employment Service Agency.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The most salient results were achieved in the field of education. Among the measures implemented, it is worth mentioning: the inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education; the building of kindergarten infrastructure, notably in Shuto Orizari; the provision of assistance to children in primary education; the raising of parents’ awareness on the importance of education; the offer of scholarships and tutoring for high school students; the academic support to university students. Most of the activities are implemented in cooperation with donors, notably the Roma Education Fund. Satisfactory results were achieved in the field of health. The health insurance coverage in North Macedonia for both Roma and non-Roma is close to 100% and Roma report that only 16% of their total health needs are unmet.
The main challenges
The main challenge remains the lack of actions to tackle Roma discrimination. No advance was reported in 2017, in spite of the horizontal nature of this priority in both the Strategy for Roma Integration and its Action Plans. Further challenges include: Data collection (the lack of ethnically and gender disaggregated data for monitoring, impact assessment and evaluation), budget allocation versus budget commitment and spending, and employment and labour market access, specifically the persistent high unemployment rate of Roma. Specific measures facilitating access to microcredits, developing financial literacy and entrepreneurial skills may offer an opportunity to self-employment and establishment of micro and small enterprises.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, four thematic areas were reported as relevant for the implementation of the Roma Strategy: 1) education, 2) employment, 3) health care and 4) housing. A total of 11 objectives and 92 measures were reported on. Hereof, 19 were implemented, 14 were partially implemented and 59 were not implemented. The objectives were a mixture of mainstreamed and targeted measures.
EDUCATION
Inequalities in education between Roma and non-Roma emerge early in life with a national enrolment in pre-primary education (ages 3-5) generally low in Western Balkans. The lack of available childcare options continues to be a barrier to pre-school enrolment. However, in North Macedonia, the gap between Roma and their non-Roma neighbours in terms of overall rate of school enrolment is the lowest in the region. The Roma Action Plan on education records as strategic goal the improvement of educational structures of Roma communities, notably for the benefit of women and girls. This strategic goal includes specific objectives aimed at enhancing access and successful completion of education for Roma, especially girls, in all levels of education. The fifth and sixth specific objectives are related to the number of Roma adults and children who completed primary and secondary education, especially Roma girls and young women. These six specific objectives are structured in 32 measures, out of which eight have been implemented, six partially implemented and 18 not implemented.
The most important success
Important steps have been achieved on inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education. The primary and secondary education is free of charge and fees are paid only for pre-school education. Free of charge transportation to school has also had a positive impact in reducing the number of dropouts.
The most important challenge
Roma returnees returning from the EU Member States because of the declaration of the Western Balkans as ‘safe countries of origin’ are at risk of staying out of the education system. A recent study published by the World Bank, commissioned by the European Commission 20 , identifies North Macedonia among the receiving countries of returnees from EU Member States, including Roma.
EMPLOYMENT
North Macedonia stands out as the only country in the Western Balkans in which access to economic opportunities rose. The unemployment rate, registered in 2017 by the Regional Roma Survey, indicated that the unemployment rate at national level is 24%, with 49% among Roma and 19% among non-Roma. Among the unemployed Roma, 58% of women are unemployed, while in the case of non-Roma women, this rate stands at 26%. The strategic objective of the Roma Action Plan on employment for North Macedonia is to increase opportunities for employment of Roma in dignified workplaces. To achieve this strategic goal the following two specific objectives have been identified: 1) enhance access of Roma to Government employment programmes by 2020, especially for Roma women; and 2) higher income and sustainable employment for Roma by 2020, with a focus on women. These specific objectives are structured into 21 measures, out of which three have been implemented, five partially implemented and 13 not implemented.
The most important success
The implementation of Active Labour Market Policies (ALMP) targeting explicitly the Roma population by introducing a specific programme which addresses several segments among the Roma population who are mostly engaged in informal economic activities or who are interested in developing a small business. The implementation of the Youth Guarantee Scheme, deployed in three municipalities, was extended in 2019 to all municipalities where Roma are explicitly targeted.
The most important challenge
Besides the involvement of 23 Roma (seven young, four women) in the national self-employment programme, there are no significant results on unemployment reduction among Roma. The unemployment rate of Roma women remains a challenge in North Macedonia together with transition from education to employment, and the high rate of informal work among Roma.
HEALTHCARE
In North Macedonia, the Action Plan on Health arising from the National Roma Strategy has contributed to improved access to health and health coverage. The 2017 Roma survey records that health system affordability and proximity to health centres in North Macedonia represents about 20% and 10% of reasons for Roma population’s unmet needs in the healthcare system, with waiting lists counting for about 40%. The strategic objective of the Roma Action Plan for North Macedonia in the area health is to increase life expectancy of Roma by 2020. This strategic objective is structured into two specific objectives: 1) enhance Roma’s access to integrated, quality, preventive and curative health systems; 2) reduce risks and preventable diseases related to child mortality of Roma children. These specific objectives concur in the achievement of the concrete goal of reducing the violation of health and social rights against Roma when using health services. A total number of 25 measures have been identified, out of which six have been implemented, one partially implemented and 18 not implemented.
The most important success
Access to healthcare is facilitated by the existence of several mainstream programmes for public health, for health protection of mothers and children, for the health protection of the infant and immunization. Some of these programmes are explicitly targeting Roma.
The most important challenge
Challenges remain with regard to the low awareness of the different existing programmes and plans among Roma, the allocation of budget and the local level implementation of plans and programmes. The integration of Roma mediators in the national health system is still not addressed.
HOUSING
Houses of substandard quality with limited access to services, notably electricity, and illegal dwellings represent an obstacle to decent housing conditions for Roma in North Macedonia, similarly to all the Western Balkans partners. The strategic objective of the Roma Action Plan in the field of housing is to reduce the gap in the quality of housing between Roma and non-Roma communities. To achieve this strategic objective, a specific objective is identified in order to provide social housing for Roma families from socially vulnerable categories, together with concrete objectives aimed at enhancing living condition for Roma families through the development and implementation of integrated urban regeneration programmes and the elimination of harmful living conditions. Out of the 14 measures, two were implemented, two partially implemented and 10 not implemented.
The most important success
A project for Housing for Socially Vulnerable Groups (F/P 1674) is being implemented by North Macedonia and the Council of Europe Development Bank. The project envisages the construction of social houses in 28 municipalities, with Roma being explicitly targeted as a social group within the categories of beneficiaries. The legalization of illegal dwellings has benefitted many Roma. This legalisation process will be further supported with IPA funds specifically targeting Roma population.
The most important challenge
It is worth noting the difficulties faced by Roma (mainly economic, but also related to awareness of the conditions of eligibility) in fulfilling the requirements of the legislation allowing for the legalization of illegal dwellings. The role of the municipalities in improving Roma settlements, in supporting the legalisation of the Roma dwellings and in managing the consequences of evictions. Access to electricity still represents a challenge, and 2017 data denote a worsening in comparison to 2011.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP The Minister without Portfolio is responsible for the implementation of the Strategy for Roma Integration 2014-2020 and for the coordination of the implementation of the Action Plans. He is also the National Roma Contact Point and he shares and coordinates this activity with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The Minister is supported by a cabinet of five staff members and by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, where a specific Roma unit is established. Cross-sectorial coordination There are currently nine active Roma political parties, out of which three are participating in the ruling coalition government. Two Roma MPs sit in the parliament and one Mayor sits in the Suto Orizary town hall. The Government has a Roma minister without portfolio with political and coordination responsibility on the Roma strategy. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy is responsible for the implementation of the Roma Strategy and different sectoral ministries for the implementation of the Action Plans. A National Coordination Body for the Roma Inclusion Strategy (comprised by relevant ministries, NGOs and Roma activists) monitors the implementation of the Roma Inclusion Strategy 2014-2020. Examples of participation include co-chairing the bi-annual Roma Seminars, representation in EU fora and policy workshops, participation in the meetings of the National Coordination Body for the Roma Inclusion Strategy, national Roma platform meetings etc. The key dialogue platforms among relevant stakeholders are the two-yearly Roma Seminars and the annual National Roma Platforms. Relevant stakeholders •NRCP and Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (leading institutions); •The National Coordination Body, supported by the RCC Roma Integration 2020 action; •Government; •Parliament, particularly members of Roma ethnicity; •Ministry of labour and social policy; •Minister without portfolio responsible for the implementation of the Strategy for improvement of the situation of Roma; •National employment agency; •Ministry of education, Directorate for development and advancement of the education on the languages of the communities; •Ministry of transport and connections; •Ministry of health; •Ministry of culture, Directorate for affirmation and advancement of the culture of communities; •Ministry of local self-government; •Ministry of internal affairs; •Ministry of external affairs; •Ministry of finance; •Ministry of information society and administration; •Ministry of justice; •State statistical office; •Agency for realisation of the rights of communities; •Commission for protection from discrimination; •Secretariat for European affairs; •Secretariat for implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement; •Association of the Local Self-Government Units (ZELS); •Roma Information Centres; •Roma and pro-Roma NGOs; •Inter-governmental organisations and multilateral and bilateral donors/implementers, such as the Council of Europe, OSCE, UNDP, UNOPS, GIZ, UNICEF, etc. Dialogue/cooperation has been established between the Ombudsman/equality body and the NRCP: ad-hoc contacts. There is no baseline or indicators against which progress in the implementation of the Roma Strategy can be measured. The Strategy for Roma Integration in North Macedonia covers the period 2014-2020. The National Action Plans for Roma Integration in the fields of Education, Employment, Housing and Gender cover the period 2016-2020. The Action Plan in the field of Health covers the period 2015-2020. For further information: • Strategy for the Roma 2014 - 2020 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia • https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/participants/4/north-macedonia • http://www.mtsp.gov.mk/dokumenti.nspx • https://vlada.mk/minister/MuzaferBajram • https://www.mbr-ds.gov.mk/ •https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive

NORTH MACEDONIA
Assessment based on civil society country reports 21
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the enlargement approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Compared to the other areas, the biggest progress lies in education. ·The Ministry of Education offers free education to all pupils at primary and secondary education, which is also a compulsory level of education. There is an increasing trend of Roma enrolment in these levels of education. The Ministry has hired Roma educational mediators on a yearly service contract financed by the state budget. ·There is progress in decreasing the number of Roma students in special schools. The state is committed to including children with mild disabilities in the regular schools and to strengthening the monitoring system together with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Ministry of Health and the Bureau of the Education Development. ·Where available, free of charge transportation of the pupils in compulsory levels of education is provided. ·Scholarship schemes for Roma high school and university students have become state level policies (c.f. the Law on the Student Standard), thereby fostering their enrolment and graduation rates. ·There is a quota system in place for enrolment of students belonging to minorities in state universities, ensuring the appropriate representation of minority groups.	·Roma children are benefitting from free fees in kindergarten in some municipalities. However, only 4% of Roma children aged 3 to 5 attend pre-school. Their limited participation is also caused by the low institutional capacity of pre-school institutions. ·Further measures are needed to tackle dropouts in primary and secondary schools. ·Institutionalization of Roma school mediators in the compulsory education system is needed to tackle dropout and help their transition to the labour market. ·Roma returnees have difficulties to re-enrol their children in the compulsory education system. Measures to ensure their enrolment and continuation of their education are needed, including recognition of diplomas. ·Additional measures to support Roma street children to return to school and family life are needed. ·Segregated schooling of Roma children is still an issue together with the unjustified enrolment or Roma pupils in special schools.
Employment
·The Active Labour Market Policies (ALMP), promoted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, explicitly target the Roma population. ·The Youth Guarantee Scheme, deployed in three municipalities, is extended from 2019 to all municipalities and the Roma are explicitly targeted. ·The new Law on Social Protection (to be enacted by June 2019) is expected to provide higher social security coverage to families and to activate the labour market, including for Roma. ·The employment of Roma in national and subnational public administrations is guaranteed with the Ohrid Framework Agreement.	·The participation of Roma in ALMP is very low. Only 3% of Roma are benefitting from these policies, and the majority of them are included in the Public Work Programme and Trainings. To increase the participation of Roma, additional courses for all the measures should be introduced (i.e. preparatory trainings). ·Roma NEET should be targeted by the Youth Guarantee scheme. ·The country Strategy on returnees should be further operationalized, notably in support of Roma returnees’ integration in the labour market. ·The Roma information centres should be institutionalized within the Centres for Social Work, ensuring equitable representation in the public administration. ·The low level of education for most disadvantaged Roma remains a major obstacle to employment.
Healthcare
·Several mainstream programmes facilitate the access of Roma to health care. These include: the programme for public health, for health protection of mothers and children, for the health protection of the infant and immunization. Roma are specifically targeted in some of these programmes. ·All citizens of the country are entitled to free health insurance. Moreover, children whose parents are beneficiaries of the social welfare system automatically participate in the health care system. ·As part of the targeted measures, Roma health mediators are temporarily hired for raising awareness and facilitating communication with healthcare institutions. ·Funds for Roma health mediators have been allocated.	·Insufficient implementation and monitoring of the health programmes. There is also insufficient allocation of budget funds and a need to increase the political will to prioritize the poor health status of Roma. ·Institutionalization of Roma health mediators’ trainings in the formal education system. ·Roma individuals without documentation do not have access to healthcare. Access to primary healthcare should be ensured. ·More awareness raising about the right to health insurance is needed among Roma. ·Discrimination against Roma in the health institutions. ·High Roma infant mortality.
Housing
·The Project for Housing for Socially Vulnerable Groups (F/P 1674) is implemented in partnership by the Republic of North Macedonia and Council of Europe Development Bank. The project envisions the construction of social houses in 28 municipalities, where Roma are targeted as a social group within the beneficiary categories. ·The mainstream policy for legalization of the illegal dwellings had a significant effect on Roma, as a high number of Roma succeeded to legalize their dwellings or are in the procedure of legalization. ·The targeted infrastructural projects within the Ministry of Transport and Communication in the Roma communities have positive effects and should continue further with a higher budget. ·Positive efforts to provide alternative housing for evicted Roma and homeless people are noticed in the municipality of Skopje.	·Many Roma, due to urbanization issues and low socio-economic status, could not apply for legalization by the deadline established by the law. An extension of the deadline may help to complete the legalisation of illegal dwellings. Local self-government faced major problems in the legalization process: state institutions should set-up one-stop-shops/helpdesks to advice on the implementation of the legislation. ·At the local level, modification of the general urbanistic plans and adoption of the detailed urbanistic plans, which include the Roma neighbourhoods, is needed. This would provide Roma with additional options for legalised housing and improvement of the infrastructure. ·There is no government programme for provision of alternative housing for homeless Roma in the case of forced evictions. ·There are Roma neighbourhoods in some municipalities, which lack basic infrastructure and access to water, electricity, asphalt road, sewage system.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the enlargement approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The new Law on anti-discrimination approved in March 2019 is expected to have a positive effect on addressing discrimination, including against Roma. It introduces sexual orientation and gender identity as grounds for discrimination, and a new form of discrimination (segregation) is added. In addition, foundations or other civil society organizations, as well as informal groups can file a lawsuit for protection against discrimination of public interest.	·The Commission for the protection against discrimination must ensure Roma representation. ·School segregation remains pervasive and is aggravated by residential segregation. Support to maintaining segregation is sometimes presented as part of Roma inclusion measures.
Fighting antigypsyism
·In its report for 2016, the Commission for protection against discrimination acknowledged the existence of direct discrimination on the basis of skin colour in the area of access to goods and services. ·Dedicated days for Roma supported by the Government: 8 April (Roma Day), 2 August (Roma Genocide Remembrance Day), 5 November (Roma Language Day).	·There is a need for training of the judiciary on the practical implementation of the new anti-discrimination law and on the identification of discrimination. ·Lack of understanding and recognition of antigypsyism by the institutions in general and the national authorities in particular. ·Data concerning monitored cases of antigypsyism are not publicly available. ·Cultural awareness of the genocide of Roma is almost non-existent in the national collective consciousness.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Identification and creation of a database of Roma without ID. ·Civil society is involved in proposing measures to empower vulnerable Roma. ·The ROMACTED programme is focusing on the local level and improving dialogue between the community and local stakeholders also covering most vulnerable Roma.	·More needs to be done to address the issue of Roma without ID, to trigger participation of Romani women in the labour market, and to promote entrepreneurship among young Roma. ·There are no measures to address (explicitly) Roma LGBTI issues. ·A National Action plan for Romani women exists, but it lacks budget and is not implemented.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the enlargement approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·The Minister without portfolio is in charge of the implementation of the National Strategy for Roma. This responsibility is shared with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy where a specific Roma unit with 5 employees is established. The involvement of various stakeholders in the process, including the civil society is ensured through the National Coordinative Body for Implementation and Monitoring of the Strategy for Roma Integration 2014-20102. The national coordination body is responsible for monitoring and directing the implementation of the strategy and action documents.	·There is a need for better coordination between the line ministries of the four priority areas. The creation of an Advisory Body of Line Ministers could ensure a higher commitment for implementing of the National Roma Strategy and Action Plan. ·The government is lagging behind regarding the implementation of the Roma Strategy.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Two seats within the National Coordinative Body are reserved for the representatives of civil society organisations. ·Regional and national projects supported by the European Commission, DG NEAR, such as "Joint initiative to empower Roma civil society in Western Balkans and Turkey" (JIERCSWBT) is enabling the creation of a healthy Roma civil society that is acting as a watch-dog, promoting transparency and accountability and holding institutions accountable towards the Roma community.	·There is a need for higher representation of Roma CSOs in the National Coordinative Body. ·There is a lack of political influence of Roma leaders, as well as the capacity to engage in the promotion of Roma interests at the national level. ·Projects of Roma civil society organizations are ongoing in order to deal with issues that the state fails to cover. These projects are mainly driven by donor funds, while the allocation of the state budget remains insufficient and unchanged.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·There is a targeted approach for addressing the Roma inclusion at the local level through the Local Action Plans adopted by some municipalities.	·There continues to be a lack of capacity in the local administration and some resistance from local authorities to implement integrated measures. Local Action Plans should include targets and funds. ·The planned budget within the financial framework of the National Action Plans for Roma is significantly different from the planned funds within the state budget. The new National Action Plans should build on the current plans and improve substantially their quality, objectives, assessment framework and budget.
Data collection
·The process of gathering data on Roma inclusion is undertaken by various administrative bodies, including Ministries and the State statistical office. ·A project for social mapping of the Roma community is funded by IPA pre-accession funds. This mapping should serve as a baseline of the situation of the community housing, infrastructure, education, employment and health.	·There is no systematic monitoring nor evaluation of the measures undertaken within the national strategy of Roma. ·A survey to assess the progress in the Roma communities should be conducted every two years. ·The state should start collecting segregated data on ethnic communities.
Funding for civil society
·Funding for CSOs is available.	·It is important to ensure that the planned interventions under the 2014-2020 programming period effectively reach the most vulnerable, especially Roma. ·Roma CSOs should be involved in a consultative process for designing result-oriented projects based on the priorities of the Roma communities.
Example of promising practice
·Positive progress in transforming projects for Roma into sustainable policies is noted in the area of education (pre-school, secondary and tertiary education). ·The new law on anti-discrimination will strengthen the legal protection of Roma, especially in the area of segregation in schools. ·After several years of project implementation, the Institute of Public Health issued a report on the work of health mediators for 2016. According to their records, 11 Roma health mediators were active in 8 municipalities. According to the report of the Institute, out of 1,727 realized services, 806 are for health care, 497 for administrative assistance for personal documentation, and 424 for exercising the right to financial social assistance. In general, the analysis shows that Roma health mediators successfully carry out their work tasks, which is also shown by the increased number of services provided compared to 2013.
Most important priorities to be addressed
1.The majority of Roma undeclared workers are engaged in waste collection, open market or street trade, seasonal agricultural work, and cleaning services (particularly relevant for Roma women). The policy of transforming the informal work should consider different approaches for the different types of economic activities, because of the characteristics and context in each economic area. Necessary amendments to the laws shall be proposed and formulated (such as, for example, extension of the scope of the Law on Debt Write-off, if necessary). The formulated policy shall include the required funding for implementation and a concrete proposal for funding from the state (and local) budget and donors. 2.According to the 2017 regional Roma survey, around 70% of the dwellings where Roma live are illegally built. At the same time, 87% of the Roma face material deprivation. Combined with the marginalization that entails lack of opportunities, facing prejudice, lack of knowledge and capacities, as well as the costs related to housing, it is necessary to provide support to Roma to ensure secure and adequate housing. 3.Keeping the commitments and intensifying the measures and activities of the state institutions for the inclusion of Roma in society. 4.Reviewing the need for the Programme for Assistance and Support to returnees in the Republic of North Macedonia in accordance with the readmission agreements. 5.Intensifying the efforts to register persons in public records and to provide personal documents to all persons in the country. 6.Strengthening the capacities and resources of Roma Information Centres and Roma Health Mediators to provide information and effective paralegal assistance to Roma returnees (and Roma in general).

SERBIA
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	The Special advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure.
Strategic document	Serbia has a “Strategy for Social Inclusion of the Roma in the Republic of Serbia 2016-2025” and adopted an Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy for the period 2017 to 2018. The Action Plan for the period 2019-2020 is expected to be adopted in the second half of 2019.
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	600,000 (8.23% of 7,292,574).
Available options for data collection	Questions on ethnic self–identification included in the population census; three Regional Roma Surveys (2004, 2011 and 2017 22 ) implemented by the UNDP and World Bank; UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster household Surveys 23 ( Roma settlements MICS4 2010, MICS5 2014, MICS6 201 9 (pending)); Roma Inclusion Index 2015; Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Roma Integration Policy in Serbia (2017, 2018); government database for monitoring the measures for Roma inclusion ( http://inkluzijaroma.stat.gov.rs/ ) collecting process data from municipalities on a voluntary basis. Qualitative information on Roma integration in Serbia exists from various governmental, international and non-governmental organisation such as: Child Marriages Among Roma in Serbia by UNICEF, The Wall of Anti-Gypsyism by Civil Rights Defenders, Characteristics of Roma Entrepreneurship in Serbia by a team of researchers.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
Serbia showed a small improvement in the overall Roma coverage in the five priority areas, however there was no change in inequality (gap between Roma and non-Roma neighbours). The increase in coverage was mainly driven by improvements in housing and education. The Government's work on improving the housing situation of Roma through significant national and IPA funding is worth praise and should continue.
The main challenges
For the implementation of the Roma integration policies, the total expenditure for 2017, including public and donor funding, only represents around 30% of the total budget planned. Furthermore, the general amount was less that the budget spent in 2016. The institutional structure dealing with Roma integration remains ineffective and complicated, without a clear distribution of tasks.
Thematic Areas
In 2017, four thematic areas were reported on: 1) education, 2) employment, 3) healthcare and 4) housing. The 25 identified operational objectives were implemented through 45 measures. 10 were completely implemented or are ongoing measures, three were implemented partially, and 32 measures (about 70% of all measures) were not implemented. The objectives were implemented through a mixture of mainstream and targeted measures.
EDUCATION
The 2017 measures covered: 1) early childhood education, 2) good quality primary and secondary education with effective prevention of drop outs, 3) prevention and intervention in case of discrimination, 4) fostering Roma language and culture, 5) support higher education, 6) provide high quality adult education. The six identified operational objectives were implemented through nine different measures; hereof three are mainstream and six Roma targeted. Five of the measures were fully or continuously implemented, three were partially implemented, and one not implemented.
The most important success
The proportion of Roma children of compulsory school age who were enrolled in school rose to 84%, but it has yet to catch up with the near-universal enrolment among non-Roma neighbours. The figure for completion of compulsory education also shows signs of progress with the corresponding gap vis-à-vis neighbouring non-Roma decreasing. Despite significant improvements, over one-third of marginalised Roma aged 18-21 lack basic education. This is tackled through adult education mainstream policy, where Roma participate with around 60% of the beneficiaries. It is also encouraging that the rate of Roma in tertiary education doubled by 2017 compared to 2011 (although still very low, at 1%, compared to non-Roma neighbours with 16%).
The most important challenge
Serbia needs to mobilize the necessary resources to close the gap between Roma and non-Roma with special attention to completion of compulsory education. Pre-primary school enrolment for Roma at 9% was low in 2017. Cost and fear of discrimination continue to be important barriers. Furthermore, the admission criterion requiring at least one parent to be employed, which is rare among Roma, is an extra barrier. Funds allocated for pre-school education are mainly spent for teacher training (97%) and not on efforts to include Roma children. The most significant measure in primary education (for which almost all the planned funds are spent) is engagement of pedagogical assistants. However, there is still a need to regulate their position and to engage more assistants to fully meet the needs of Roma students. Since the affirmative measure for university enrolment contributed to a significant raise in the rate of Roma at university, it should be maintained by reversing the recent decision of the National Coordination Body to abolish it. Possible abuse of the measure should be properly investigated.
EMPLOYMENT
Seven operational objectives, all Roma targeted, were reported on for 2017. They were related to: 1) increase share of Roma in formal employment, 2) reduce discrimination, 3) increase competitiveness, 4) stimulate employment and empowerment of Roma, 5) integrate Roma employment policy into local economic development plans, 6) increase the number of employed in public authorities and 7) legalise the work of non-formal employed Roma, specially in the waste management sector. Of the 11 planned measures, four were implemented while seven were not.
The most important success
We can identify two trends. On one side, unemployment decreased to 36%, but mostly due to reduction in labour force participation. On the other side, the informality was reduced, even if the reduction was larger for the non-Roma.
The most important challenge
Labour force participation decreased significantly without a clear objective factor that could explain this evolution. 64% of Roma are engaged in undeclared work, compared to only 14% of non-Roma neighbours. However, this area of concern did not manage to get sufficient attention of the authorities, who in 2017 implemented none of the foreseen targeted measures regarding formalisation of undeclared work. Roma are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to non-Roma. The government has only implemented mainstream active employment measures, where Roma are involved as one of the “hard-to-employ” groups and where participation of Roma is low. On one side, the incentives for self-employment have criteria excluding most of the Roma from being eligible (loan guarantors, ownership of land/object). On the other, subsidies for employment of “hard-to-employ” are usually not being used by private employers, as they would rather employ persons from other “hard-to-employ” groups.
HEALTHCARE
Five operational objectives were identified and implemented through nine different measures: two are mainstream and seven Roma targeted. The objectives aim to: 1) develop supporting environment, 2) development and health of Roma children, 3) support persons with chronic non-communicable disease and reproductive health, 4) access to quality health without discrimination and 5) preventive health care. Of the nine planned mainstream measures with Roma targeted elements, one was implemented while eight were not.
The most important success
According to the newest Law on Health Insurance, Roma are entitled to health care even if they are without a permanent residence. The health insurance coverage among Roma is 92% (almost reaching the rate of non-Roma of 97%). Furthermore, the use of the preventive care health services (58% of population aged 16+) is the highest in the region.
The most important challenge
The self-perceived health is the worst in the region and has deteriorated since 2011. Slightly more than one-fourth of Roma aged 16 and over report having not accessed health services when needed; this percentage remains much higher than that among neighbouring non-Roma. The Action Plan on health is relying on the work of the Roma health mediators that are not yet institutionalised. The implemented activities are solely related to informing the Roma community about rights in health, health prevention and care, health services and similar. Other planned activities (such as regular examinations and special meals for Roma infants, screenings for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer, regular examinations and special meals for pregnant Roma women, etc.) are not implemented. Mainstream health services remain limited for the Roma.
HOUSING
Serbia stands out as the country that increased the most on catching up on coverage and decreasing inequality compared with the level of the region. Seven operational objectives were identified and implemented through 16 different measures: three were mainstream and four Roma targeted. The seven identified objectives focussed on: 1) provide preconditions for improving housing conditions, 2) create spatial planning and 3) normative preconditions, 4) improve infrastructure in Roma settlements, 5) improve housing standards, 6) implement programmes of social housing, 7) implement international standards in the case of forced displacements. Of the 16 planned mainstream measures with Roma targeted elements, none were implemented.
The most important success
There was a relevant increase, in the period 2011-2017, in access of marginalised Roma to electricity and piped water and the gaps vis-à-vis neighbouring non-Roma are narrowing. The gap in access to sewerage with respect to non-Roma neighbours is significantly narrowing, but coverage among the Roma is still low.
The most important challenge
Even though overcrowding among marginalised Roma has been falling since 2011, the gap with respect to non-Roma neighbours is still the second largest in the Western Balkans. The non-collection of waste is also an issue affecting a larger share of the Roma population living in marginalised communities. Information on illegal dwellings and segregated settlements is not readily available. The existing legislation on legalisation should be reviewed in-depth; this might require support to ensure its success (legal, financial, technical assistance). There is still approximately 600 informal settlements is Serbia.
Governance and cooperation
Human resources for the NRCP The government report for 2017 does not provide information on the technical/secretarial staff working for/with the National Roma Contact Point. The Special advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure is a member of the Coordination Body for Monitoring the Implementation of the Strategy and Head of the Council for the improvement of the position of the Roma and the implementation of the Decade of Roma Inclusion. For certain aspects of the Roma integration policy, the Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure – the highest official responsible for the Roma integration portfolio – is also delegating to a State Secretary from the Ministry in charge of international cooperation. Cross-sectorial coordination The Roma Strategy is proposed and adopted by the government as a policy document of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The Coordination Body for Monitoring the Implementation of the Strategy consists in principle of the highest level of decision makers (Ministers and other high-level officials). This is quite high-level compared to other similar bodies in the region. However, since its establishment, it has only met two times with short meetings not covering all Roma integration areas, and most participants were representatives from its “technical body”. The Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit (SIPRU) is charged with the administrative, expert, technical and secretariat tasks for the Coordination Body and coordinates the planning of the next Roma Action Plan. The inter-sectoral task force includes members of the Ministries of Education, Health, Labour and Employment and Veteran and Social Affairs, the Public Employment Service, the Institute for Social Protection, Youth and Sport, Ministries of the Interior, European Integration, Finance, Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Public Administration and Local Self-Government, and Team for Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction. It also includes a representative from the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities, National Council of the Roma National Minority and the Standing Conference of Roma Citizens’ Associations. The EU Delegation, Roma Integration action team and other representatives of international organisations are involved as observers. The Office for Human and Minority Rights (OHMR) is responsible for collecting information and preparing reports on the implementation of the Roma Strategy. There is also a Council for the Improvement of the Position of Roma. It is not functional, but still exists. The NRCP: •is being consulted and participates in the development of policies. •is not participating in decision making processes regarding the funding of relevant policies. •is participating in decision making processes regarding the implementation of relevant policies. Examples of participation include co-chairing the bi-annual Roma Seminars, representation in EU fora and policy workshops, participation in the meetings of the Coordination Body for Monitoring the Implementation of the Roma Strategy, national Roma platform meetings etc. The key dialogue platforms among relevant stakeholders include the two-yearly Roma Seminars and the annual National Roma Platforms. Stakeholders involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the Roma Strategy: •National authorities (line-ministries, agencies, municipal offices, public health institutes, schools etc.), •Some regional and local authorities also provide data annually, •The National Council of the Roma National Minority, •The Standing Conference of Roma Citizens’ Associations, •The Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities, •Roma and pro-Roma NGOs, •Inter-governmental organisations and multilateral and bilateral donors/implementers, such as the Council of Europe, OSCE, UNDP, UNOPS, GIZ, UNICEF, etc., •Serbian Roma civil society provides shadow-reports. Dialogue/cooperation has been established between the Ombudsman/equality body and the NRCP: ad-hoc contacts. There is a baseline 24 against which progress in the implementation of the Serbian Roma Strategy is assessed, and the accompanying Action Plans may contain references to baseline information, albeit often without source references. Policy measures may contain baseline information also often without source references. There were some measurable targets in the expired Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma in the Republic of Serbia for 2017-2018. More information is available at: •Strategy of Social Inclusion of Roma for the Period from 2016 to 2025 – Serbia: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs/5/strategy-of-social-inclusion-of-roma-for-the-period-from-2016-to-2025--serbia-rn • Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma in the Republic of Serbia for 2017-2018: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=2 •Serbian coordination body: https://www.mgsi.gov.rs/en/coordination-body-monitoring-implementation-strategy-social-inclusion-roma-men-and-women •National Platform: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=1

SERBIA
Assessment based on civil society country reports 25
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Adoption of a Rulebook on Detecting Discrimination in Education focused on the prevention of discrimination and segregation of national minorities in the educational system and setting the framework for creating measures of desegregation in both classes and schools. ·Scholarship support through the Ministry of Education. ·Additional pedagogical support. ·Provided funds for community services aimed at social inclusion of Roma children through the provision of support to Roma children in learning, inclusion in extra-curricular activities and the development of additional skills necessary for the labour market.	·A limited number of Roma language teachers have been trained. ·The Rulebook on Detecting Discrimination with criteria for recognizing forms of discrimination by an employee, a child, a student or a third person in the institution of education was adopted in 2016, however the protocol on its implementation for teachers, parents and children is still pending. ·Serious delays have been recorded in the implementation of the scholarship programme.
Employment
·Implementation of employment measures through the national employment agency. ·Develop and institutionalize affirmative actions as well as financial and non-financial incentives such as small grants and public private partnerships, in order to support employment of Roma and facilitate the launching of sustainable Roma business activities.	·The existence of the active measures for employment and self-employment do not contribute to reducing the unemployment of Roma. ·The state is providing general subventions for self-employment. However, targeted support for Roma population is not developed and is needed.
Healthcare
·Ministry supports and funds employment of 57 Roma health mediators in 50 municipalities within the programme "Roma Health Mediators in the Republic of Serbia". ·Health mediators introduced in the nomenclature of occupations as health care assistants, systematized and included in the national qualification framework.	·Mediators are included in the system, but their employment status is not resolved.
Housing
·Legislation on forced evictions, in line with relevant international standards adopted.	·The legislation was adopted, but manuals, guidelines or a report on its implementation regarding specifically Roma housing issues was not developed or produced. ·The geographic information system has been established, but no substantial actions towards legalisation of settlements are yet to come. Local self-government faced major problems in the legalization process because the legislation did not provide all the answers to the challenges (e.g. the locations where these settlements are built have no regulated, legal property status).
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The developed and adopted Rulebook on Detecting Discrimination in Education focused on the prevention of discrimination and segregation of national minorities in the educational system and set the framework for creating measures of desegregation in both classes and schools.
Fighting antigypsyism
	·The government does not use the term ‘antigypsyism’, so it does not recognize explicitly the phenomenon, even if it is happening.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Relevant authorities and CSOs active in the promotion of human and minority rights regularly inform the Roma about their civil status rights and provide free legal aid to members of the Roma community in these proceedings. ·Law on Free Legal Aid adopted. Entry into force expected for October 2019. ·Increased number of persons who successfully resolved civil status rights with regard to: right to birth registration, right to citizenship, permanence residence registration, identification document thus resolving potential obstacle for birth registration.	·It is evident that the number of legally invisible persons decreased significantly, but, on the other hand, it is a fact that a fairly large number of people still live in Serbia without possessing any identity document and who therefore are denied almost all rights. ·Specifically, provisions of the bylaws are still in force that stipulate that data on parents in the birth registration are recorded from their birth certificates and identity cards, or "personal documents which are considered as proof of that data”. This means that if a mother does not have the abovementioned documents, it will not be possible to determine the personal name of the child and the child will actually remain unregistered. ·New Law on Free Legal Aid, apparently, will not be adopted before 2020. It is especially important that the new Law takes into consideration, as also stipulated, the role of CSOs in this process.
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·Adoption of a new Strategy for social inclusion of Roma in the Republic of Serbia 2016-2025 accompanied by Action Plan.	·The Strategy does not include financial resources for its implementation. ·Coordination and monitoring mechanisms and systems envisaged by the Strategy are not set yet. ·The Action Plan for the period 2018-2020 is not adopted nor has it been publicly discussed. Priorities and dynamics of planned activities are unknown to the Roma civil society. ·Coordination body has been formed, but there were no meetings or activities. Coordination body and its Expert group are broadly conceived and it is unclear how it will function and be operational. The Expert group is comprised of government employees and representatives of the Roma national council and activists.
Civil participation and empowerment
·Regular coordination meetings on projects focused on improvement of the situation of Roma are held quarterly and organised by the Office for Human and Minority Rights.	·Projects of Roma civil society organizations are ongoing in order to deal with issues that the state fails to cover.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Development and further strengthening of the network of Roma coordinators in local self-governments (LSGs), including an increase of their number, according to the local needs, in order to closely cooperate with other relevant state mechanisms to improve the position of the Roma.	·There are some efforts of the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities in regard of standardised Terms of Reference for Roma coordinators in local self-governments, but the monitoring and improvement is very limited. Experience with Mobile Units for Roma inclusion IPA 2012 project shows that local governments often entrust this work to non-Roma employees.
Data collection
·Data collection from local level using local Roma mechanisms and other sources such as CSOs	·Database has been formed, but limited numbers of Local Self-Governments are participating, and limited data are collected and available. This is in direct relation to the unregulated situation of Local Roma Coordinators, Pedagogical Assistants and Roma Health Mediators. State still does not acknowledge the situation and unfavourable position of only Roma inclusion workers in local communities. ·Collection and processing analytical data in a coordinated manner, covering the five priority areas, through a "one-stop-shop" body, in order to: consolidate data, facilitate targeted surveys on the position of the Roma, provide all stakeholders, primarily ministries and governmental agencies, with consistent data, in conformity with the law governing personal data protection.
Funding for civil society
	·Regarding the funds that are assigned for the Roma, the source of funding comes mainly from external donors: the European Union, BMZ, SDC, SIDA. ·There are no major projects financed by the government.
Example of promising practice
·Formulation of systemic support measures at school level and local government level on the basis of findings and recommendations of the analysis, subsequent piloting and mainstreaming systemic measures in order to support the education of Roma children at the local level and at the school level. Measures piloted in 10 primary and secondary schools. ·Information System for substandard (Roma) settlements established and provides information on the number of substandard settlements in the Republic of Serbia.
Most important priorities to be addressed
1.The institutional structure for managing the implementation of the Strategy has to be less complex in order to work efficiently without over-lapping. 2.The meetings of the Roma Inclusion Coordination Body shall happen regularly, as stipulated by the Strategy. 3.Monitoring and reporting shall reflect the objectives and measures set in the Strategy, especially taking care of reporting on the impact of measures for the beneficiaries. 4.The Government shall make and present its plan for allocation of budget funds for implementation of the measures, both from the state budget and donor sources. 5.The existing system of data collection from local level (using local Roma mechanisms and other sources such as CSOs) shall be maintained and further improved as well as expanded to the whole territory of Serbia where Roma live. 6.Local Roma mechanisms (Roma coordinators, health mediators, pedagogical assistants) have to be strengthened and their employment status has to be solved. 7.Implementation of programmes and projects related to Roma inclusion shall move from donor-funded project based approach toward institutional strategic solutions. 8.Greater participation of Roma and pro-Roma civil society shall be ensured at all levels of policy development and implementation.

TURKEY (Dom, Lom and Abdal are included under the umbrella term Roma)
Summary based on NRCP report - 2017 Roma integration measures
General information
Institution acting as NRCP	Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services.
Strategic document	The National Strategy Paper on Roma Citizens 2016-2021. The first phase Action Plan (2016-2018) has expired. The second phase Action Plan (2019-2021) is pending adoption.
Roma population (Council of Europe average estimation, updated in July 2012)	2,750,000 (3.78% of 72,752,325).
Available options for data collection	Annual Reports on the implementation of Roma Integration Public Policy (2017, 2018); SIROMA (EU funded project) final report.
Summary of the reporting year
The main achievements
The social service coordination units (local mobile teams) set up within the EU funded SIROMA project and operating in 2017. The extra-curricular training programme developed in 2017 that supports pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education and targets school non-attendance and school dropout.
The main challenges
The Action Plan (2016-2018) did not include data on the desired results of measures, number of beneficiaries, indicators measuring success of activities, nor the amount and sources of funding. The Government is preparing the second phase Action Plan (2019-2021) whose adoption is delayed effectively leaving the country without an action plan for implementing the Roma Strategy. The annual implementation reports (2017, 2018) do not include data on Roma beneficiaries or expenditure allocated specifically for Roma, but rather for the entire mainstream measure.
Thematic Areas
In the 2017 monitoring report, four thematic areas were identified and reported on. In total, eight objectives were planned to be implemented through 13 mainstream measures. Hereof, four were partly implemented and four were not implemented. There is no information about the other measures.
EDUCATION
The strategic objective is to ensure Roma children access to quality education and equal opportunities, enabling young Roma to successfully complete minimum compulsory education. Three strategic goals are planned relating to: 1) preventing dropout and absenteeism, 2) increasing Roma families' knowledge about socio-economic benefits of education, and 3) strengthening the social bond between Roma parents, schools, teachers and peers. An additional two measures, not stipulated in the Action Plan, were reported on that relate to awareness raising about the socio-economic benefits of education.
The most important success
The extra-curricular modular training programme was developed in 2017. Implementation of the programme should result in lower dropout rates, better performance in education and increased engagement in extra-curricular activities leading to empowerment. Roma children are provided with free of charge transportation, textbooks and conditional cash transfers.
The most important challenge
There is no information on the number of Roma benefiting from education support in Turkey, nor their needs in education. The impact assessment information is not provided, thus there is no data on enrolment and completion ratios and education profiles of Roma. Segregation in education is referred to in the Strategy, but no comprehensive analysis of the possible causes has been made.
EMPLOYMENT
The strategic objective is to facilitate Roma to enter the labour market and to increase their employment in qualified and secured jobs. The strategic objective is further divided into four strategic goals: 1) enabling Roma to reach the professional quality demanded by the labour market; 2) developing collaboration among employers, NGOs and related sectors in support of obtaining professional qualifications and employment opportunities, 3) encouraging entrepreneurship including through micro-crediting and finally 4) preventing child labour. Four measures were planned, out of which three can be regarded as partially implemented since there is no information on Roma beneficiaries and actual results of the implemented measures. There is no information about the other measure, which must be considered not implemented.
The most important success
Awareness raising activities about employment opportunities and minimum working conditions were implemented in areas densely populated by Roma. Vocational trainings were implemented in the same areas.
The most important challenge
There is no government related information on the number of Roma benefiting from employment support in Turkey, nor their needs. Additional measures should be planned and implemented, including more direct support to become employed and/or formalise undeclared work.
HEALTHCARE
The strategic objective in health is to ensure that Roma people more efficiently benefit from health services. The three strategic goals are to 1) increase awareness of Roma of the existing health services; raise awareness on how to access maternal and infant health services, 2) fight infectious, contagious, chronic diseases, and what are the hazardous effects of smoking and drug addiction; and 3) increase Roma health literacy. Only two measures were planned in the Action Plan, one relating to determining the health needs of Roma and providing them with minimum health services in situ (vaccination, delivering vitamins, etc.) and increasing health literacy. Awareness raising activities were implemented in relation to the two measures, but there is no information about direct provision of health services to Roma.
The most important success
Implementation of awareness raising activities to increase health literacy.
The most important challenge
There is no information on the number of Roma who benefited from implemented healthcare measures in Turkey or who benefitted from mainstream healthcare services. The activities to assess healthcare needs of Roma or directly engage to improve their health were not implemented.
HOUSING
The strategic objective is to promote adequate housing opportunities in disadvantaged areas with an access to public transportation, healthy and liveable milieu, and functioning infrastructure through taking the beneficiaries' demands and social lives into consideration. The three strategic goals are 1) improving conditions of housing settlements; 2) delivering social housing to those who live in unhealthy environments and inadequate or temporary housing; and 3) developing legislation to deliver side services for the effective application of social housing and urbanisation projects. Two measures were planned, but none was implemented.
The most important challenge
The activities to improve living conditions of Roma through legalisation or to provide them with housing through tailor-made programmes were not implemented. Legalisation activities are not planned.
Governance and cooperation
The Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Services is responsible for the implementation of the Strategy Document, and the coordination of social inclusion policies for Roma people. The NRCP is an expert at the Department of Social Policy and he is supported by an Assistant Expert from the Department of Social Inclusion. The communication with the EU is governed through the Directorate of the EU Affairs within the same Ministry. The government established the Monitoring and Evaluation Board that monitors the implementation of the Roma Integration Strategy and Action Plan. There is no information on the work of the Monitoring and Evaluation Board. For more information • https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive •National Platform: https://www.rcc.int/romaintegration2020/docs_archive?search_type=1

TURKEY (Dom, Lom and Abdal are included under the umbrella term Roma)
Assessment based on civil society country reports
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AREAS
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Education
·Equal opportunity for education is under constitutional guarantee. ·The National Strategy on Roma Citizens published in 2016 recognizes that Roma children do not have equal access to education.	·Implementation models which would ensure equal access to education for Roma children are not developed at national or local level. ·Children face lack of nutrition due to poverty, which negatively affects school attendance and educational performance. We would recommend provision of basic nutrition for free at schools. ·The rate of literacy for adults is still very low. ·In several districts, there are Roma-only segregated schools. These schools usually have very poor physical conditions. The quality of teaching in these schools is lower, with very high teacher turnover rates. Children may remain illiterate even when they go to school. We recommend allocation of additional resources to schools in disadvantaged districts and an incentive mechanism for teachers to serve in these schools. ·School dropout is very common among Roma children. This also triggers early marriages. Second chance education opportunities should be provided for children and adults who dropped out from school at an early age. ·Several Roma children are encouraged to get disability reports and are then directed to special education and rehabilitation centres to benefit from the government subsidy provided per child attending these centres. Some of these Roma children do not attend school at all. We recommend that a better monitoring and inspection mechanism is enforced for provision of these disability reports and enrolment into special education and rehabilitation centres. ·Conditional cash transfer amounts are so low that it is not sufficient to keep children in the education system. ·Opportunities for sports, social and cultural activities should be enhanced in schools to attract Roma children. ·Roma children have extremely low access to pre-primary education because the families cannot afford the registration fees. Pre-primary education should be free for low-income families.
Employment
·National Strategy on Roma Citizens published in 2016 recognizes that Roma does not have equal access to labour market. ·Temporary (6 to 9 months) employment opportunities have been provided to Roma in community service programs run by İŞKUR (Turkish Employment Agency), though the scope was limited.	·Roma people mostly participate in precarious and temporary employment and are not covered by the social security system. ·Vocational training courses rarely lead to employment. Only the training courses which respond to the jobs on demand in the labour market should be opened. Regional and local conditions and differences should be taken into account while designing programs. ·Cooperatives to be established by employees currently in precarious jobs should be encouraged. ·Literacy training for adults should be conducted in a way that is easily accessible by Roma citizens. ·Employment of well-educated Roma youth in public services should be encouraged.
Healthcare
·Health services are accessible to all Roma citizens.	·In several cities, newly established city hospitals are located outside the city centres. Some Roma families cannot afford the transportation costs of reaching these hospitals. ·Recently increased medical consultation and medicine fees (patient's contribution) negatively affect access to health services. ·Early marriages lead to reproductive health problems. ·Use of drugs among Roma youngsters and fatalities related to drugs has become widespread. We recommend development of comprehensive national and local policies to fight against drug abuse, which are incorporated into the National Roma Strategy as well.
Housing
·The National Strategy on Roma Citizens published in 2016 recognizes that Roma citizens face "physically insufficient" housing conditions.	·Almost all Roma populated neighbourhoods across Turkey face the risk of urban transformation in the short to medium term. These projects lead to forced evictions and displacement of Roma families. ·Urban transformation projects should be planned together with the community, and the needs of the community should be taken into account as a priority. ·Houses in which Roma live are sometimes as small as 15 square meters, they usually are overcrowded and do not have adequate space for children to study. ·There are lack of infrastructure and environmental issues in Roma populated neighbourhoods that threaten public health.
HORIZONTAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Anti-discrimination
·The National Strategy on Roma Citizens published in 2016 recognizes the need for fighting discrimination against Roma. Awareness raising and training activities to fight the prejudices against Roma was foreseen.	·Hate speech towards Roma is not recognized as a crime in the legislation, and this should be addressed by a legislative amendment.
Fighting antigypsyism
·Establishment of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey is a positive development.	·Grassroot NGOs established by Roma communities do not have the capacity to monitor and record discriminatory practices, nor to make use of existing administrative and legal mechanisms to fight discrimination and antigypsyism.
Addressing specific needs of most vulnerable groups among Roma
·Children, elderly and persons with disabilities are recognized as disadvantaged groups in the National Roma Strategy.	·The presence of Roma with refugee background should be recognized in national policy documents and their needs also addressed. ·Extremely vulnerable situation of Roma groups (Dom, Abdal etc.) in Central, Eastern and South-eastern Anatolia should be taken into account while developing local and regional policies. ·The National Roma Action Plan should be gender mainstreamed. Specific needs of Roma women should be taken into account (such as provision of literacy courses and vocational trainings, affordable childcare services, reproductive health services, prevention of early marriages, self-empowerment).
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
Strengths/Key elements of the partner approach	Weaknesses/Gaps/Recommendations
Stakeholder involvement at the central level
·A number of Roma NGO representatives are members of the National Roma Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation Board, which convenes once a year.	·Participation of Roma NGOs in decision-making mechanisms at national level is very limited.
Civil participation and empowerment
·There are two members of the National Parliament with Roma origin (out of 600 members).	·Roma citizens and NGOs do not have enough information or awareness about their fundamental rights. ·Programmes to support civic participation of Roma citizens should be implemented.
Mainstreaming of Roma inclusion at the local level
·Turkish Union of Municipalities and the Council of Europe implements the ROMACTED programme, aiming to promote Roma inclusion at local level.	·The National Roma Strategy is not known at the local level. National policies need to be localized and promoted at the local level. ·We recommend that municipalities and governorates should establish Roma contact points, which facilitate Roma citizens' access to services and their enjoyment of basic rights. ·Community centres should be established near Roma populated districts.
Data collection
·The National Strategy on Roma Citizens published in 2016 recognizes the need for data collection and evidence based policymaking.	·Lack of data about Roma people at local and national levels makes the design of social policies and monitoring of the implementation of measures very difficult. ·Poverty mapping exercises are needed to determine the most vulnerable districts and to monitor and respond with appropriate policy measures.
Funding for civil society
·EU, national and regional development agency funds have been made available for Roma NGOs in recent years.	·Small scale and flexible funding opportunities should be created for NGOs willing to work for Roma inclusion. ·Vulnerable Roma groups (such as refugees, women, children, elderly and disabled) should be prioritized for funding. ·Coaching and counselling mechanisms should be made available for Roma NGOs to properly benefit from funding possibilities.
Example of promising practice
·Establishment of the community centres near Roma districts in the Istanbul-Sisli and Samsun-Canik municipalities have been good examples.
Most important priorities to be addressed
1.Comprehensive national and local policies to fight against drug abuse should be developed and implemented, which are incorporated into the National Roma Strategy. 2.Roma children face lack of nutrition due to poverty, which negatively affects school attendance and educational performance. We would recommend provision of free basic nutrition at schools. 3.National Roma Strategy is not known at the local level. National policies need to be localized and promoted at the local level. 4.Community centres should be established near Roma populated districts. 5.The National Roma Action Plan should be gender mainstreamed. Specific needs of Roma women should be taken into account (such as provision of literacy courses and vocational trainings, affordable childcare services, reproductive health services, prevention of early marriages, self-empowerment). 6.Vocational training courses rarely lead to employment of Roma citizens. Only the training courses, which respond to the jobs on demand in the labour market, should be opened. Regional and local conditions and differences should be taken into account while designing programs. 7.Urban transformation projects should be planned together with the community, and the needs of the community should be taken into account as a priority. 8.Hate speech towards Roma is not recognized as a crime in the legislation and this should be addressed by a legislative amendment. 9.Poverty mapping is needed to determine the most vulnerable districts and to monitor and respond with appropriate policy measures. 10.Coaching and counselling mechanisms should be made available for Roma NGOs to properly benefit from funding.

(1)

The statements in the country reports and civil society summaries developed under the Roma Civil Monitor Project represent the findings of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission.

(2)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans . Please note that all graphics included in this section are taken from this report.

(3)

In addition to the four key priorities identified in the 2011 EU Framework, the 2013-2014 Enlargement Strategy, in section II “Key challenges”, identified a fifth key priority for the enlargement region: civil documentation and registration.

(4)

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

(5)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans

(6)

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/659991480409319302/pdf/110582-REVISED-PUBLIC-report-eng-complete.pdf

(7)

Roma Active Albania, USHTEN, Institute of Romani Culture in Albania (IRCA), Romano Sezi, A place for All, Voice of Roma in Albania, United Roma of Berat, Roma Gate for Integration, Romano Kham, NACRIA, OSF Albania; Roma and Egyptian Youth Movement; Treja Center; Center for Social Action.

(8)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans

(9)

http://mics.unicef.org/surveys

(10)

The Citizens’ Association for the Promotion of Roma Education “Otaharin”, “Bolja budućnost” Tuzla, “Nova Generacija” Banja Luka, “Romkinja” Bijeljina, “ Zemlja djece in BiH” Tuzla, “Romani Ćej” Prnjavor, “Centre for Mothers – Nada”Kakanj, “Sensus” Mostar, “Život Roma” Sarajevo, “Budi mi prijatelj” Visoko, Kali Sara – Roma information centre (KS RIC).

(11)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans

(12)

Kosovo was only included in the 2017 survey wherefore no comparison between 2011 and 2017 data is possible.

(13)

http://mics.unicef.org/surveys

(14)

Voice Of Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians (VoRAE), Coalition of Roma CSOs - RomPz, Nevo Koncepti, Romani Baxt, Durmish Asllano, Romani Iniciativa HAK, RomaPress, Kosovo Education Center-KEC; Youth Unity Bright Future – BRAN; PRAM.

(15)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans

(16)

http://mics.unicef.org/surveys

(17)

NGO Young Roma Montenego – CSO Roma Coalition.

(18)

http://mics.unicef.org/surveys

(19)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans

(20)

World Bank Group with Funding from the European Commission, 2019: ‘Supporting the Effective Reintegration of Roma returnees in the Western Balkans’.

(21)

Regional Roma Educational Youth Association – RROMA, Coalition of Roma NGOs "Khetane" lead by RROMA (JIERCSWBT): 24 Vakti, Drom, Sumnal, Institute for Research and Policy Analysis – Romalitico, Romano Avazi, ZMOCP.

(22)

https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/breaking-cycle-of-roma-exclusion-in-western-balkans

(23)

http://mics.unicef.org/surveys

(24)

Baseline Study for drafting the Strategy for Social Inclusion of Roma in the Republic of Serbia 2025

(25)

Forum Roma of Serbia, Coalition of Roma NGO's lead by FRS (JIERCSWBT): URBO, CIR Valjevo, OKZ Romanipen Kragujevac, Ruke Prijateljstva Kraljevo, Roma Culture Centre Pozarevac, the Standing Conference of the Roma Associations of the Citizens, the League of Roma - Serbia.

Top