Politics | European Union » Guide for Local, Municipal and Regional Authorities for the Use of the Structural Funds for Roma Social Inclusion

Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Guide for local, municipal and regional authorities for the use of the Structural Funds for Roma social inclusion by Brian Harvey Social Researcher DRAFT This guide will be jointly published by: EURoma Network – Committee of the Regions – European Commission, DG Regional Policy 10th May 2011 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Table of contents 1 Situation of Roma in the European Union 2 The structural funds 2.1 Process 2.2 Architecture 2.3 Potential 3 Specific potential of structural funds 3.1 Scope 3.2 Practice 4 Role of local, municipal and regional authorities 4.1 Problems, issues and solutions 4.2 Guidelines for programmes and measures 4.3 Guidelines for projects 5 Next round of the structural funds 5.1 The next round 5.2 The next steps Annex: Good practice examples Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 The partnership principle Desirable design features of Roma projects Guidelines

for preparing structural fund projects Guidelines for effective programmes, measures, sub-measures Guidelines for effective projects led by local authorities Next steps for local, municipal and regional authorities Diagrams 1 2 3 Delivering the structural funds Process for the next round Next steps 2 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma 1 Situation of Roma people in European Union The situation of Roma people in the European Union has come to the attention of the European institutions as a significant policy issue only in the past 15 years or so. Here, the backdrop is briefly painted Between 10m and 12m Roma people (and various categories therein) are estimated to live in the European Union and the current Balkan accession countries. In Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary, the Roma population ranges between 5% and 10% of the overall number. Their situation, both from the perspective of social exclusion and human rights, attracted considerable

attention during the accession negotiations for the ten new states of the Union that joined in May 2004, with Bulgaria and Romania subsequently (it is estimated that 70% of Europe’s Roma population live in the new member states). The landmark assessment was Situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union (European Commission, 2004). The most recent assessment, published in the 2011 annual report of the Fundamental Rights Agency (Fundamental rights and challenges), draws attention to the continuing difficult situation of the Roma community, especially its poor housing conditions, low rates of literacy and education, unemployment and underemployment, low pay, segregation, discrimination, poor health, low life expectancy and difficulty accessing public services. Although the primary response for working with the Roma community rests with the member states, the European Union has given the situation of the Roma people ever-greater attention, especially in its institutions - the

Commission, the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Key recent developments were: • The convening by the Commission of the first Roma summit (2008), a second in 2010; • The establishment of the Platform for Roma inclusion for the interaction of the European institutions, NGO community and other experts (2009), which has now met five times; • Council conclusions Ten common basic principles for Roma inclusion (2009); • Council Conclusions on advancing Roma inclusion (2010); • European Parliament resolution on the free movement of Roma people (2010); • Commission Communication The social and economic integration of Roma in Europe (2010); • European Commission report Ethnic minority and Roma women in Europe – A case for gender equality? (2010); • European Parliament resolution for binding minimum standards for the Roma community (2011); and 3 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma •

Commission Communication European coordination of national strategies for Roma (2011). Initiatives have been taken to promote the greater involvement of the Roma community in the structural funds: • Commission publication Community instruments and policies for Roma inclusion (2008); • Roundtable on the use of the structural funds for the Roma community, organized by the Fundamental Rights Agency (2010). • Establishment by the Commission of a task force to test the use by the member states of EU funds to promote Roma integration (September 2010); • European Commission: Roma in Europe: The implementation of the EU instruments and policies for Roma inclusion – progress report 2008-2010 (2010) • European Commission: Improving the tools for social inclusion and nondiscrimination of the Roma community in the European Union (2010), expert group report which will form the basis for Council conclusions due 2011. Ten common basic principles Ten common basic principles for Roma

inclusion (2009) include elements of importance to the structural funds and Roma people: • • • • • • • • • • Constructive, pragmatic and non-discriminatory policies; Explicit but not exclusive targeting; An intercultural approach Aiming for the mainstream Awareness of the gender dimensions Transfer of evidence-based policies Use of Community instruments, like the structural funds Involvement of local and regional authorities Involvement of civil society Active participation of the Roma community It is worth drawing attention to some particular aspects of these initiatives, documents and reports. The last mentioned, the task force report, recommended that much more use by made of existing funds, such as the structural funds, to promote Roma integration. It drew attention to the role of local authorities to date in housing Roma people and successfully resolving issues around settlements. The report formed the view that local and municipal 4 Source:

http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma involvement was an important acknowledgement of responsibility for the Roma community at all levels - Roma issues were a local as well as national concern. It recommended the involvement of local authorities in national policy-making for the Roma community, assistance in programme implementation (e.g training and skills development); and that local, municipal and regional authorities develop networking in general and their relationship with civil society in particular. For more information on the context, see EURoma network: Roma and the structural funds, 2010. http://wwweuromaneteu The report of the Fundamental Rights Agency is available at www.fraeuropaeu For the report of the expert group Improving the tools, go to http://ec.europaeu/social/mainjsp?catId=518&langId=en Other useful information sources: European Roma Information Office: http://erionet.org European Roma Rights Centre: http://www.errcorg/ Open Society

Foundation: http://www.sorosorg/, http://www.sorosorg/initiatives/roma European Roma Grassroots Organization (ERGO): http://www.ergonetworkorg/ergo-network/ Decade of Roma Inclusion: http://www.romadecadeorg/en/indexphp 5 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma 2 The structural funds The structural funds date back to the early days of the European Communities. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was devised to provide investment into the most deprived regions and cities of the European Communities. The European Social Fund (ESF) was originally designed as a training fund to facilitate workers to develop new skills and to become more mobile in the search of work. The ERDF has always been the larger and dominant of the two. Here we review the structural funds process (21), architecture (2.2) and potential (23) 2.1 Process In 1989, the structural funds were consolidated into multi-annual programmes intended to achieve economic and social cohesion

across the European Communities according to a common template which in the course of time became known as ‘cohesion policy’. These were 1989-94 (Delors I, named after the then President, Jacques Delors); 1995-99 (Delors II); 2000-6; and the current round, 2007-2013. The next period will be 2014-2020 (see chapter 5) The process whereby the funds are organized is: - The Commission makes an analysis of the economic and social situation in the European Union, focussed on its progress in reaching cohesion, with outline proposals for the next round (called the cohesion report, of which five have now been made). This analysis is shared and debated across the European institutions (Parliament, Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, Council); - The Commission draws up regulations laying down, in detail, how the structural funds are to operate. The normal pattern is for there to be a general regulation, which is long, supplemented by two short and specific regulations, one

for the ESF and one for the ERDF. These regulations are debated over 18 months by the European institutions and, once approved; they are European law evenly applicable in all member states. The process is led by the Directorate General for Regional Affairs (DG REGIO) in the Commission; - The Commission then draws up guidelines to cover the operation of the funds throughout the Union. For 2007-2013, these were called the Community Strategic Guidelines and for 2014-2020 will be called the Common Strategic Framework. For 2007-2013, the structural funds were closely linked to the Lisbon agenda of ‘jobs and growth’, with funds specifically earmarked for innovation, energy, research and development and the knowledge economy; 6 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma - In each member state there is normally a consultative process as to how the structural funds should be planned and organized, one which should invite in all the interested parties (government

departments, agencies; local, municipal and regional authorities; Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs)). This normally looks at the outcome of the last round, the national economic and social context and the national priorities for the following seven years; - The Commission enters bilateral negotiations with each member state as to how the funds should operate in each member state. Generally, these negotiations are conducted between Commission officials and the Ministry or Department of Finance, which is normally the national managing authority. There is then a formal agreement between the Commission and the member state (this used to be called the Community Support Framework (CSF) and for 2014-2020 will be called the Development and Investment Partnership Contract (DIPC); - The structural funds then go into operation. Member states must report to the Commission every year with an Annual Implementation Report (AIR). Progress is followed by monitoring committees. Traditionally, there

was an evaluation before a programme commenced (ex-ante), at the half-way point (mid-term) and afterwards (ex post). The structural funds are operated according to the principles of co-funding and co-management. They are jointly managed by the Commission and the managing authority (or managing authorities), with funding coming both from the European Union and the national (or regional or local) governments. This negotiation generally takes about three years and the next round (20142020) is currently at the early stage of this process. Several of these processes take place simultaneously and overlap with each other and it requires considerable effort and goodwill to get everything tidily in place for the start of each round. The public and media debate focuses on funding: How much will each member state get? and What are considered poor regions? The European Union‘s 271 regions are divided into those that are considered poorer (called ‘convergence’ regions, which receive the

highest volume of funding, 81% of the structural funds and the highest levels of co-funding, typically 75%) and those that are considered richer (called ‘competitiveness’ regions, which receive lower amounts of money at lower rates of co-funding, typically 50%). For 2007-2013, the convergence regions were generally the new member states of eastern and central Europe (with Cyprus and Malta) and the competitiveness regions were generally the original member states of Western Europe - but therein there is a number of poor regions. In addition, there are regions (16 presently) whose situation is improving as they exit from convergence to competitiveness regions 7 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma and they receive intermediate amounts of assistance. A small proportion of the funds, 2.5% go to promoting cross border cooperation When we use the term ‘the structural funds’, we mean the two structural funds: the European Regional Development Fund

(ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF): - The ERDF is mainly used for ‘hard’ projects and infrastructure, like roads, bridges, railways - but it can, and should, be used for social and community facilities, neighbourhood services and community development. It accounts for 73% of the funds - The ESF originated as a re-training fund. It is seen as the ‘softer’ fund, used for human resources, training and educational activities and social inclusion. In addition, the Cohesion Fund operates in member states whose Gross National Income is less than 90% of the European Union average: this focuses on transport and environmental projects and brings an even higher level of financial assistance, 85%. The overall budget for the structural funds for 20072013 is €347bn, or, in just one year €39bn (2011) It comprises 42% of the total European budget, the largest single element. > For basic information on the structural funds, the best place to start is DG REGIO

http://ec.europaeu/regional policy/index encfm For information on the two different funds: > For the ESF, http://ec.europaeu/esf/homejsp?langId=en > For the ERDF, http://ec.europaeu/regional policy/funds/feder/index enhtm These sites include current policies, background, documents and regulations. > The general entry point for the European institutions is http://europa.euint > The European Anti-Poverty Network follows the structural funds and cohesion policy from a broad social inclusion perspective: www.eapneu 2.2 Architecture Once the Commission sets down the guidelines for the round - and they are agreed by the other institutions - then a process of bilateral negotiation takes place between the Commission and the national managing authority in each member state, generally the Ministry for Finance. On the Commission side, the negotiations are led by DG REGIO, which always has a number of staff assigned to work with each country, called desk officers. DG REGIO is

responsible for the ERDF but is also the overall lead department in the structural funds process. Its officials are normally accompanied by officials 8 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma responsible for the European Social Fund, who come from the directorate responsible, employment and social affairs (called DG EMPL). These bilateral discussions are at the core of the negotiation of the design of the funds in each member state, but it is important to emphasize that the design of the structural funds are expected to be a broad process. Structural fund design is expected to be a partnership between the Commission; member state governments; local, municipal and regional authorities; civil society and nongovernmental organizations, from design right through to evaluation and this is formally expressed in §11 of the regulations (table 1). Local, municipal and regional authorities are clearly identified as ‘partners’ at the start. Most member states

hold various forms of consultations, often a day conference with several hundred people invited, while others use more layered, sophisticated and extensive forms of consultation. This process is designed to lead up to a national plan for the structural funds (in 1994-9, this was called the Community Support Framework; in 2000-6, the National Strategic Reference Framework; or National Development Plan). The best examples are of those member states which, in designing the framework or plan, have: • A clearly timetabled, transparent, staged and scheduled process of consultation that is both broad and deep; A • variety of meeting formats (large, small, town hall, focus groups); • Different consultation methods (public hearings, meetings, blogs, internet, papers); • Working groups on various themes (Roma could be one); • An interest in critical and analytical commentaries and views (e.g working papers); • Techniques and approaches that reach out to excluded groups, including

those with low levels of literacy or civic involvement, like the Roma community; • Draft which go through a number of iterations, inviting comment at stages; • A report back on the consultation process at the end, including those proposals which were accepted or not and how the consultation process influenced the final outcome. Table 1: The partnership principle As expressed in §11 of the regulations, which states that it comprises - Competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities; - Economic and social partners; - Any other appropriate body representing civil society, environmental partners, non governmental organizations and bodies responsible for promoting equality between men and women. 9 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Each member state shall designate the most representative partners at national, regional and local level and in the economic and social or other spheres (hereinafter referred to as partners) in accordance with

national rules and practices, taking account of the need to promote equality between men and women and sustainable development through the integration of environmental protection and improvement requirements. .[and in §5 of the ESF regulation] The partnership shall cover the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of operational programmes. Member states shall involve, where appropriate, each of the appropriate partners and particularly the regions in the different stages of programming stages within the time limit set for each stage. In most countries the plan is divided into a number of thematic areas, each with an operational programme, each either funded by the ERDF or ESF (in some circumstances from a combination of the two). Typically these are called operational programmes (e.g for transport, environment, economic infrastructure, tourism, information society, human resources). The operational programme is a formal document outlining the national context, the

rationale for spending money in that area in the state concerned, major priorities, priority axes, minor themes, how much money is to be spent, the delivery system and financial tables at the end. An operational programmes is normally subdivided into measures (and below that, sub-measures). In the case of transport, for example, there will be different measures for roads, rail and buses (with possibly sub-measures for urban and rural). In the case of human resources, there will be different measures for unemployed people, women, in-work training, minorities and so on. From the point of view of organizations wishing to participate in the structural funds, it is essential to obtain both the national plan and the appropriate operational programme document. This is the simplest system, one that works best in small and unitary states. Many European member states, though, are federal, with regional authorities given a considerable level of authority under national constitutions (e.g Spain,

Italy, and Germany). As a result, in addition to national operational programmes, there are operational programmes for each region, negotiated between the region, the national managing authority and the Commission. Some large countries may, therefore, between national and regional programmes, have a large number of operational programmes. For 2007-2013, there are altogether 117 operational programmes. 10 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma A critical issue for us is Who actually delivers the structural funds? Remarkably, the structural fund regulations have little to say about who should deliver the structural funds, apart from the fact that it is responsibility of the member state and its managing authorities, which are defined as: a national, regional or local public authority or a public or private body designed by the member state (§59). In practice, structural funds are delivered by: - Central government departments, ministries and agencies; -

Local, municipal and regional authorities; and - Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). In some states, the funds are unofficially bespoken to various agencies long before they actually start, while in others there are competitions open to a broad range of prospective project promoters - and many possibilities in between. In general, most structural funds are delivered by the first category: central government, departments, ministries and agencies. One of the guiding principles of the structural funds is additionality, which is that the projects and activities funded must be genuinely additional to what member states would have undertaken in the normal course of events (regulations, §15). Member states may not simply use structural funds to make up for reductions in government spending and must demonstrate this to the Commission. Governments often find government agencies a convenient, self-contained way for using and distributing structural funds (here, national agencies for Roma are

possible candidates). Operational programme documents are frequently not transparent and either do not list the delivery body or do so very obliquely, making the assumption that it will be a government department of agency. As a result, the proportion of structural funds that is open to ‘outsiders’, like local, municipal authorities, or NGOs, can be quite small - which is an argument for such issues being discussed and clarified in the consultation process. The use of structural funds by local authorities varies considerably, being extensive in some countries and little used in others. Similarly, access by NGOs varies from the non-existent to, for example Britain, where they play a significant part in the delivery of the European Social Fund. The use of the funds by the local, municipal and regional authorities is most publicized in cross-border programmes which encourage local authorities to cooperate either side of national borders. Sometimes, local authorities are named as

delivery agents in specific measures within individual operational programmes (notably in urban development). Governments have frequently been criticized for keeping structural funds too tightly within government agencies, but point out that they are responsible for financial control and must use trusted and reliable systems to prevent mis-spending. 11 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma In 1989, the Commission designed a specific instrument to ensure that the structural funds got to the most hard-to-reach groups using easy-to-operate administrative systems, the global grant. Under the global grant, operational programmes or individual measures could be delivered by an intermediate agency with staff and a board drawn from experts in the area concerned. Although global grants are associated with social inclusion programmes for NGOs, their use is actually much broader. Global grants with intermediary bodies are permitted under the regulations, but they

are at the discretion of member states. §§42-3 The member state or the managing authority may entrust the management and operation of a part of an operational programme to one or more intermediate bodies, designated by the member states or the managing authority, including local authorities, regional development bodies or non-governmental organizations. The intermediate body can be a local, municipal or regional authority; or a trust or foundation; or it can be a body created specially for the purpose of delivering the structural funds. It operates at arm’s length and has a degree of independence. Funding is passed directly to it for management, allocation and distribution, by-passing the national managing authority and it is free to design their own rules for operation and administration, with flexible, easy-to-use application systems, 100% up front funding and simpler systems of reporting, though the intermediary body itself is still subject to the same financial controls as the

main structural funds. Global grants Global grants have been used most in Britain and Spain. In Britain, Greater London Enterprise used them to distribute small grants to grass-roots organizations under the Fast Forward! programme. There were ten global grants in Spain for research and technological development (420 projects) and measures for small and medium size enterprises, intermediary bodies being the Institute for Credit and the Institute for the Diversification of Energy and more recently, the operational programme against discrimination was delivered through a global grant managed by the Luis Vives Foundation. In Italy, there have been 18 global grants (7 multi-regional, 11 regional), for social enterprises, transport, business development and crisis areas. There have been three global grants in Lorraine, France for such measures for sustainable energy and and they have been used in Greece for the development of utilities. In the Czech Republic, the NROS Foundation managed a

global grant for social inclusion projects. In Ireland, a special agency was created for the purpose of operating global grants called Area 12 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Development Management (ADM), which included people skilled in community development and which managed the operational programme for urban, local and regional development. Global grants were subsequently used extensively in the Peace II programme in both parts of Ireland, with consortia of foundations acting as intermediary bodies. There is an extensive and successful experience of the use of global grants to deliver projects, measures and programmes and could be ideal for local, municipal and regional authorities, possibly in a consortium, to work with the Roma community. The big advantages of a global grant is that it: • Operates at arm’s length from government departments, with a level of independence; • Brings in expertise, staff from the beneficiary community,

building up its trust and confidence; • Delivers funds and projects using simpler systems of administration. The structural funds are followed by committees in each member state. These monitoring committees normally comprise a national monitoring committee; one for each operational programme; and sometimes some horizontal monitoring committees following particular themes (e.g equal opportunities) They generally meet once or twice a year and take reports on the progress of each operational programme or measure. They are large bodies, typically 30 to 50 people, involving the Commission, managing authority and agencies involved in individual programmes. They are expected to follow the partnership principle and involve those named as partners in §11. > Further information on the structural funds is normally available from the managing authority in each member state, the senior, national managing body normally being the Ministry or Department of Finance. Some have structural fund

‘sections’ or ‘information units’. In addition, some member states have an ‘ESF unit’, typically located in the Ministry of Labour or Social Affairs. > At European level, both DG REGIO and DG EMPL have desk officers assigned to following developments in each country, normally clustered in groups of three or four member states at a time, their role being to check on the implementation of guidelines and regulations, to be aware of problem issues and ensuring roll out of the funds progresses in an orderly manner, often done through bilateral meetings with member state managing authorities. They can be identified through the staff directories of the two DGs concerned. 13 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma 2.3 Potential Sections 2.1 and 22 introduced the structural funds, how they are organized and their architecture. In a moment, chapter 3 will examine their specific potential for the Roma community and chapter 4 for the local, municipal and

regional authorities. It is worth saying a few words about why they are important. The structural funds hold out considerable general potential for addressing the serious economic and social issues affecting Europe. Their declared aim is, after all, to strengthen economic and social cohesion (§3 of the regulation). Principal of these are that the structural funds: - Provide substantial resources of the scale necessary to make an impact on key economic and social issues, €347bn over the present programming period; - Last a long time - seven years - sufficient to make an impact. They are relatively protected from changes in government and the generally shorter electoral cycle of only five years; - Introduce policy issues and priorities from Europe that may be new, different from or more socially progressive than those available from national governments. Examples of issues driven from Brussels into the national agenda include equal opportunities, public transport and environmental

protection; - Embody the partnership principle, which means a multi-sided approach to problems and issues that is not always available nationally, involving more actors and participants, from the start of the process to the end, involving a broader range and likely to lead to better results; - Provide a disciplined, structured, highly organized framework in which to tackle key economic and social problems of the day, encouraging high standards of measurement, the use of indicators and evaluation to test results; - Operate within a Europe-wide framework, making it it is possible to share outcomes and results across the member states, learning from and spreading good practice. 14 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma The following diagram illustrates how structural fund are delivered (diagram 1). Structural funds - key messages: • The structural funds are a substantial resource available for promoting economic and social cohesion across the European

Union. They have the advantages of multi-annual planning (a seven year programming period) and a structured and disciplined framework to govern operations. They are of sufficient scale and duration to make an impact; • Local and regional authorities are designated partners in structural fund operations and they may be designated as managing authorities for operational programmes; • The regulations say remarkably little about who should deliver the structural funds, so it is up to local, municipal and regional authorities to make the case to their national governments and managing authority; They may, under the regulations, be designated managing authorities to carry • out structural fund operations and manage operational programmes; • Systems are in place designed to facilitate delivery of the funds by local, municipal and regional authorities, as well as NGOs: global grants. They are an under-used form of delivery. 15 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing

in Roma 3 Specific role of structural funds with Roma people Structural funds have been used to work with Roma people since their reform in 1989, but examples from this early period are isolated. Their first significant use came during the pre-accession period for the countries of eastern and central Europe, for two reasons. First, Roma populations in these countries were considerably larger than in Western Europe and second, the situation of Roma people was a rising political concern. There was extensive use of the PHARE pre-accession programme for Roma projects, most prominently in the areas of health services, education facilities, sanitary services and training. Although many projects were small, they provided a significant improvement at local level. Here we look at the scope of the structural funds (31) and practice (32) before listing the key messages. 3.1 Scope The scope of the structural funds to work with Roma people is principally evident through the regulations. The

regulations, which are European law, are expected to be applied consistently across all the member states. The regulations do not name the Roma community as a target group, but they do provide considerable scope for practical assistance to disadvantaged groups. §2, which outlines the task of the ESF, declares that the fund shall improve employment and job opportunities; encourage a high level of employment and more and better jobs; and promote social inclusion, including the access of disadvantaged people to employment. It should increase the participation of economically inactive people in the labour market, combat social exclusion and promote equality between men and women and nondiscrimination. §3 of the ESF regulation is extensive and makes provision for a series of measures in the areas of learning, training, qualifications, entrepreneurship, improved access to the labour market, cooperatives, childcare, job search, personal support, and improved participation in education. One

of the most important statements of scope of the ESF is this: (c) Reinforcing the social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their sustainable integration in employment and combating all forms of discrimination in the labour market, in particular by promoting: (i) pathways to integration and reentry into employment for disadvantaged people, such as people experiencing social exclusion, early school leavers, minorities, people with disabilities and people providing care for dependent persons, through employability 16 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma measures, including in the field of the social economy, community and care services that improve employment opportunities; (ii) acceptance of diversity in the workplace and the combating of discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market, including through awareness-raising, the involvement of local communities and enterprises and the promotion of local employment initiatives.

This permissive text provides a broad scope of measures to assist Roma people at local level, ideal for local, municipal or regional authorities. Not only that, but the regulation makes provision (§3.2b) for actions that will build the capacity of project promoters to work with their prospective partners to strengthen: Institutional capacity and efficiency of public administration and public services at national region and local level and where relevant of the social partners and non-governmental organizations with a view to reform.in particular by mechanisms to improve good policy and programme design.and capacity-building in the delivery of policies and programmes in relevant fields. In other words, the ESF is expected to build the capacity of project promoters and their partners to feed the lessons arising into public policy and administration. The ERDF regulation includes, in convergence areas, the following priorities: §4.3 Local development initiatives and aid for structures

providing neighbourhood services to create new jobs §4.11 Heath and social infrastructure which contribute to regional and local development and increase the quality of life. as well as investment in education, vocational training, the information society, entrepreneurship, the environment, tourism and culture. In urban areas, the ERDF regulation permits investment in actions to tackle: §8 High concentration of economic, environmental and social problems affecting urban areas [including strategies such as] community development and the provision of services to the population. In 2010, the ERDF regulation was amended to include, in programmes for marginalized communities: Renovation of common parts in existing multi-family housing and Renovation and change of use of existing buildings owned by public authorities or non-profit operators for use as housing designated for lowincome households or people with special needs. 17 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in

Roma The instructions to desk officers give us a more detailed, practical idea of the type of projects that should be supported. > The regulations are as follows. The general regulation is Council regulation EC 1083/2006, Official Journal of the European Union, 31.72006, L 210/25 The regulation for the European Social Fund is EC 1081/2006, Official Journal of the European Union, 31.72006, L 210/12 The regulation for the European Regional Development Fund is EC 1080/2006, Official Journal of the European Union, 31.72006, L 210/1 The amendment may be found in OJ 2010 L 132, 12, 19 May 2010 Instructions to desk officers: indicative programmes and projects For the 2007-2013 programming period, the European Commission issued 19 instructions to its desk officers about Roma projects and programmes (Aide memoire for desk officers - structural funds programming, 2007-2013) outlining the types of projects that could be supported under the structural funds. They listed: • Education -

schools infrastructure, pre-school facilities and materials, training of teachers and assistants, after-school clubs, support for parents, quality education, desegregation, normalization and mainstreaming, cultural sensitivity, diversity awareness; • Employment - training, skills development, self-employment, cooperatives, microcredit, social services for dependent elderly and children to facilitate women in the labour market; • Housing and habitat - integrated social housing, de-ghettoization, legalization of settlements, provision of utilities (water, heating, electric, waste disposal); • Health services and facilities; • Women - promoting a culture of equality, participation in education (including access to third level), entrepreneurship, sensitization of men to issues of discrimination against women. Although the regulations give the national authorities considerable scope to support projects with the Roma community that does not necessarily mean that such actions or

projects actually happen. Clearly, the size of the Roma population varies from one member state to another, being high in some states and quite small in others; similarly, its importance as a visible public issue also varies from one state to another and over time. A key issue is to look at the national documents governing the structural funds, like the overarching 18 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma document (currently the National Strategic Reference Framework) and the subsequent operational programmes. Here is important to examine: The priority given to social inclusion generally; What priority is given specifically to the Roma issue; The volume and quality of such analysis; The operational programmes which identify and give scope to measures for Roma people; • The nature of the measures proposed, the funding allocated, its purpose, the intended outcomes, the likely impact, delivery systems, institutional arrangements, links to national policy;

• The quality of systems of indicators, evaluation, monitoring and passing on of learning; • The role, implicit or explicit, for local, municipal or regional authorities. • • • • For 2007-2013, the level of priority given to measures for the Roma community varied - being prominent in the operational programmes of some member states, but not mentioned in others. This determines whether the broad scope sketched here is reached - or not. 3.2 Practice This is the theory, but what about the practice? According to the Commission, activities for Roma are funded under 59 priority axes in 38 operational programmes (out of 117), which have a total budget of €17.5bn (€42bn ERDF, €13.3bn ESF) Roma are targeted as possible participants under initiatives that represent 27% of the total ESF budget. These figures represent the total programming open to Roma, along with other groups, but do not give us an accurate figure for the actual level of access, use or take-up of the funds

(sometimes called absorption). We know that the structural funds have funded a range of projects for the Roma community going back to the 1990s (and some before that). They have had mixed outcomes and it is important to listen to the commentaries thereon of the Roma community and their representative organizations. On the positive side, there is a history of encouraging examples of projects with the Roma community, be they run by government agencies, NGOs or local, municipal or regional authorities. In practice, projects for the Roma community are generally funded under: - Infrastructure operational programmes (ERDF); - Human resources operational programmes (ESF); and, in exceptional cases 19 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma - Dedicated programmes either for the Roma community or groups at exceptional risk in which the Roma community is prominent (e.g operational programme against discrimination). Within the infrastructure programmes, there may be

measures for community infrastructure which enable the construction, renovation or repair of facilities of which Roma people would be prominent users (e.g socio-medical centres, health centres, housing projects, waste facilities). Within the human resources operational programmes, there may be measures for community development, training for those furthest from the labour market, equal opportunities and the prevention of discrimination, skills development in the Roma economy. Although many of the projects are quite small, they provide a mixture of ‘hard’ (e.g building community centres) and ‘soft’ projects (eg training) Projects supported cross the following range: • Construction of community facilities, principally health centres, waste facilities, employment centres, schools, water supplies, gas connections, resource centres, socio-medical facilities, cultural centres, housing programmes (new housing, renovation); • Pre-training in the area of basic social skills,

literacy, numeracy, especially for those who had not had previous educational opportunities; • Education: second chance education, school assistants, improvement of teaching, career guidance, internships; • Collective and individualized labour market training, developing skills and matching them to labour market needs; • Roma economy: training in traditional and new skills e.g waste disposal, metal work, development of cooperatives; • Mediators and advocates to assist Roma people in their dealing with the authorities, building the capacity and leadership of Roma NGOs; • Projects against discrimination, promoting diversity (e.g set-aside of work or training places for Roma participants). Although most projects have been concentrated on the new member states of eastern and central Europe, there have been important individual examples from the older states as well. Some projects have encountered difficulties, which are important to flag before new projects involving the Roma

community, principal of which are: • Many projects are quite small or run over too short a time period, to the point that they lack sustainability, could not make a long-term impact or leave a legacy; • Many prefer ‘soft’ issues and do not confront deeper problems affecting the Roma community, such as discrimination, rights, access to the political 20 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma • • • • system, or the root causes of disadvantage. Some are mono-dimensional, only addressing one aspect of social exclusion and many lack gender sensitivity; A frequent comment from the Roma community itself is that many projects are ‘top down’ and do not sufficiently consult or involve them in a meaningful way, or help them develop their capacity or leadership. Projects are often prepared too speedily with insufficient research or consultation by their proposers, especially when under pressure of deadlines; Many projects are over-ambitious,

isolated interventions, achieving only shortterm gains, unconnected to broader policies, initiatives or national political institutions; Indicators are weak and focussed on immediate outcomes only (not outcomes some years later, called ‘progression’); With some exceptions, there is a lack of systems for evaluation, self-criticism, reflection or the dissemination of outcomes. The important thing is to turn around this learning positively so as to achieve good project design for Roma projects (table 2) Table 2: Desirable design features of Roma projects • Follow a bottom-up approach, one of empowering the local Roma community, making them stakeholders in the project and building their leadership; • Multidimensional in nature, attacking several dimensions of poverty together and be gender-sensitive; • Organized as a partnership, involving other state agencies and authorities as well as the Roma community and its representative organizations; • Sufficient in size, scale, mass

and duration (5 to 7 years) to make a lasting impact; • Link to national strategies for Roma people and the institutions and agencies that put these strategies into effect, bringing the project’s issues into the heart of the political-administrative system; • Tackle ‘hard’ issues as well as ‘soft’ issues, address root causes and inequalities, as well as take a rights-based approach and a long-term perspective; • Ideally make use of both ESF and ERDF funds; • Have a policy focus and aim to make an impact outside the immediate area, contributing to long-term institutional and policy change; • Have indicators that measure long-term outcomes and progression; • Build in systems for the evaluation of impact and systems for the dissemination of results; • Aim to leave a legacy behind. 21 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma A universal feature of structural fund projects - Roma or otherwise - is that they have particular administrative

features. Many operators of EU projects find that while they welcome the scale and duration of funding, they find the administrative side of projects to be onerous. Many social projects have spoken of the problems of co-funding, cash-flow, delays in payment, highly technical requirements for proposals, complex computerized application systems, the level of detail required in sending reports (especially on the numbers participating and their characteristics), confusing eligibility requirements, the need for appraisals, with multiple points of documentation required for accounts and subsequent auditing. These requirements have their roots in the late 1990s, when the Commission attempted to remedy a number of irregularities in spending. In reality, the financial regulation governing the structural funds (regulation, §58) is generally considered to be reasonable, for it lays down, quite simply that member states shall provide systems for compliance, correctness, accounting, monitoring and

reporting. What can happen is that member states sometimes lay down requirements that go far beyond the regulation. In some cases, stringent controls designed to large projects are sometimes applied, unnecessarily, to much smaller ones. There are several ways of anticipating and addressing these issues (table 3): Table 3: Guidelines for preparing structural fund projects • Begin preparation of a project a long time in advance, far ahead of the point at which a call for proposals is invited, possibly as much as two years; • Allocate a substantial amount of time for the preparation of a project, possibly by a dedicated staff person. In some programmes, 21 days of time is recommended; • Identify the technical requirements for documentation at the beginning. A proposal can be invalidated because of a small error in, or failure to understand, these requirements; • Get in the necessary training (> Chapter 4); • Find out, at the beginning, the reporting, co-funding, banking,

auditing, monitoring and other requirements, so that staff time can be assigned accordingly from the start. Projects with as few as three staff find that one of them must be a full-time administrator and the project should be constructed accordingly; • Build up a financial reserve so as to tide a project over any problems of cash flow or delayed payments; • Engage with the national managing authority (or managing authorities) as to what are the administrative requirements at the earliest possible stage, for example during the national consultations on the next round of the structural funds 22 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Those national managing bodies which are more successful in tackling administrative issues are those which: - Issue a guidance manual on structural fund operations in good time; - Agree, at an early stage, a memorandum of understanding between local, municipal and regional authorities on the one hand and the national managing

authority on the other as to how structural funds are to operate, seeking maximum clarity before the start of operations; - Provide quality training for officials in the management of structural fund operations; - Set down the opportunity to raise problem issues at numerous points and stages, be that directly (e.g hotline), the monitoring committee or the appropriate officials in the Commission. In at least one case, one regional administration established a 50-day task force to resolve repeated problems with administration (Northern Ireland). Such systems should be proposed during the national consultation process. > More information on Roma projects is available from: European Commission: Improving the tools for social inclusion and nondiscrimination of the Roma community in the European Union - summary and selected projects - summary and selected projects (Social Europe, Brussels, author, 2010). This has 20 project examples European Commission: European Social Fund in action

2000-6 - success stories (Brussels, author, 2005). This is a handy guide to overt seventy ESF-funded projects, including the ACCEDER programme in Spain. European Commission magazines e.g Social agenda (DG EMPL) and Inforegio Panorama (DG REGIO). DG EMPL’s Social Agenda §24 is entitled Promoting Roma inclusion - the way forward, July 2010, while Panorama §35, autumn 2010, has a number of articles about the Roma community. European Commission peer review of social programmes, notably the Greece peer review, May 2009 and which covers the participation of Roma projects in the structural funds, especially the paper Guy, Will: Integrated programme for the social inclusion of Roma people - synthesis report. Brussels, European Commission, 2009 For further information, http://www.peer-review-social-inclusioneu/ European Commission: EU projects in favour of the Roma community (2010). These are in the area of education, rather than the structural funds, but are still instructive:

http://ec.europaeu/dgs/education culture/publ/pdf/roma/roma enpdf 23 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Open Society Institute: Making the most of EU funds - a compendium of good practice of EU-funded projects for Roma. http://www.romadecadeorg/making the most of eu funds 2008 Dagmar Horvathova (ed): Successful projects oriented toward the solution of the Roma issue. Bratislava, Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, 2006. > The general Commission website for social policy is http://ec.europaeu/social There is a special Roma website, http://ec.europaeu/social/mainjsp?catId=518&langId=en Role of the structural funds - key messages The key messages from this chapter are: • Both the ESF and ERDF give broad scope for projects with the Roma community. • There have been projects with the Roma community for many years. • They combine a mixture of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ projects, using the ERDF and ESF respectively. • They have

had mixed outcomes, which must be taken into account in new project design. The lesson arising is that one should not undertake such projects for their own sake, but they should build on and incorporate prior experience. • We know what constitutes good design in Roma projects and the key elements are put forward here. • Guidelines for developing Roma structural funds projects emphasize the importance of preparing far in advance, giving attention to issues of administration; • There are ways of preventing and addressing administrative issues before and when they arise. 24 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma 4 Role of local, regional and municipal authorities First, we look at the potential role for local, municipal and region authorities in structural fund operations and some of the issues arising (4.1) Second, we look at how good programmes (4.2) and projects (43) may be designed 4.1 The role - problems, issues and solutions There are several

reasons why local, municipal and regional authorities should participate in projects for Roma people: • Many of the most important decisions affecting Roma people are taken at the local level, especially in day-to-day, practical services such as health, education, housing and welfare; • They are important providers - if not the key provider - of services of crucial importance for the Roma community: social services, housing, health services, education, utilities (e.g water, waste disposal); • They are the arbitrators of many competing claims for attention at local level, including disputes where the Roma community is involved. They are normally the authority responsible for physical and spatial planning where settlement issues can be most difficult; • Positively, they are a formally neutral body to bring together the broad range of stakeholders necessary for the successful execution of locally-based projects and services for Roma people. There have been a number of difficulties

impeding the involvement of local authorities in projects with the Roma community. • Some national governments have been slow to involve local, municipal or regional authorities in the structural funds at all, despite the principle of partnership; • The involvement of local, municipal or regional authorities with Roma communities has sometimes been politically contentious, with some voters and public representatives hostile to the Roma community; • The technical capacity of local, municipal and regional authorities to work with the Roma community may be low; • The operation of the structural funds can be difficult, due to requirements for co-funding, reporting, cash-flow and monitoring (>chapter 3). 25 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma There are several ways to overcome these problems. 4.11 A vision for work with the Roma community In the first instance, local authorities must decide what vision they have for their work with the Roma

community in their area, building on what we know from chapter 3. Good practice examples suggest that projects that are part of the structural funds work best when they fit into an existing programme of work with the Roma community (e.g health, education, training, community development); build on prior experience of projects with the Roma community; and when they already have partners in both national government and in the local Roma NGO community. They should have a plan as to how they foresee the evolution of this work over the next five to seven years. There is a danger if, instead, local authorities apply for structural funds only or largely because the money is there (sometimes called the ‘follow-the-money approach’), which rarely leads to happy results. 4.12 Map out a role in the structural funds Second, local, municipal and regional authorities, individually and collectively, should map out a role for themselves in the design and delivery of the structural funds. Obviously

their ability to do so will depend on the circumstances, structure, resources and role of local, municipal and regional government in each member state, but will ultimately involve approaching the national managing authority to look for a specific role in the design and subsequent delivery of structural fund programmes and to be designated as a delivery agent, either as a managing authority or as part of a consortium operating a global grant. The present moment is a perfect time to do so, granted that the next round is about to go into design (> chapter 5). 4.13 Open the door in the national consultative process The quality of the design of the structural funds and its operational programmes and measures depends on the quality of consultation at the start. Traditionally, most member states have followed a limited process of consultation, typically involving a large day-long national conference listening to presentations. Others, though are more imaginative and involve a broad range

of actors (including local, municipal and regional authorities); multiple levels of consultation (national, regional, local); multiple methods of consultation (e.g internet, blog, focus groups, town hall meetings, newspapers); an evolution of thinking (key documents going through numerous stages); and a report back on the consultation process (including why proposals were accepted or not) (> 26 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Chapter 2). Local, municipal or regional authorities interested to participate in structural fund programme for the Roma community may therefore find themselves in the first instance having to argue for an improved consultation process and for their own place within that process. Once participating in the consultation process, whatever it is, they must argue that they should be designated delivery agents for structural fund programmes and projects. It is very much up to them to ask for that participation, to ‘open the

door’ and make the case at national level as to what they can do. > An example of the importance of design came from the 2007-2013 structural funds in Bulgaria. The Roma community was hardly mentioned in the original operational programme document, creating the real danger that, as a result, there would be almost no funding for Roma projects. As a result of action by Roma NGOs at this early stage, the draft was amended: there was an entire new chapter, The Roma minority and the Roma community was named as a target group for intervention. It was estimated that 90% of the commentary was taken on board and as a result, the level of funding improved significantly. 4.14 Build technical capacity The issues of technical capacity are an important one, for two reasons. First, local and municipal authorities have traditionally had a functional role in the provision of services (provision, rather than process). For projects to work successfully with the Roma community, a community

development approach is important, one which emphasizes consultation, the bottom-up approach, empowering the Roma community and accountability (process, rather than provision). Although some local authorities have been successful in developing such skills, some may require additional technical capacity in the community development approach. Second, local authorities may need assistance in developing the complex administrative skills necessary to handle the funds (> Chapter 3.2) Conversely, local, municipal and regional authorities that embark on structural fund projects without sufficient technical competence may encounter difficulty. This issue should be resolved at the very start As noted earlier, the structural funds make provision for technical assistance to enable managing bodies to carry out their work more effectively and this would enable local, municipal or regional authorities to buy in the necessary skills and training. The general regulation (§46) specifies that

technical assistance may be available for the preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities of operational programmes together with activities to reinforce the administrative capacity for implementing the funds 27 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma (emphasis added). In the convergence areas, the European Social Fund regulation states that there is financial support for: Capacity-building in the delivery of policies and programmes in the relevant fields, especially through continuous managerial and staff training and specific support to key services and socio-economic actors. For 2007-2013, member states may spend up to 4% of each operational programme on technical assistance for the convergence and competitiveness objectives; and up to 6% for the cooperation objective. The Community Strategic Guidelines lay emphasis on the importance of good governance, state that member states should ensure that the need to

increase efficiency and transparency and that they should consider actions to enhance capacity building, in such areas as social audit procedures, open government principles and support to key services and socio-economic actors. One problem is that national governments have tended to monopolize technical assistance for themselves, but the regulations clearly encourage a much wider use of such assistance. Here, local, municipal and regional authorities must make the case to the managing authority for the type and scale of technical assistance that will enable them to deliver Roma projects effectively. In some countries (eg Hungary), a technical assistance facility has been available to help project promoters write, design, develop and plan prospective projects. Building technical capacity to handle structural funds The Resource Centre in Malta decided, in order to upskill the ability of NGOs and local authorities to handle the structural funds, to run a 10-day training course for 25

participants. Among the subjects covered in the course were: Developing a project idea Identifying partners Developing a budget, including issues of eligible and non-eligible costs Writing the application Financial management, procurement and contracting regulations Co-funding and finding co-funding solutions Draw-down of funds and cash flow Managing a project and project cycle management Financial management and control, record-keeping, auditing, retention of documents, reporting of irregularities • Monitoring and evaluation • • • • • • • • • 28 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma 4.2 Guidelines for programmes and measures Assuming local, municipal ad regional authorities have established for themselves a role in delivering structural fund programmes for Roma people, an important feature of the literature on the Roma community and the structural funds is the finding that it is not sufficient just to provide funding for the Roma

community, but they must be good programmes and projects. Examination of previous programmes identified many weaknesses, principally the failure to build sufficient systems for consultation, learning, needs identification, measurement, project selection, delivery systems, indicators, monitoring or evaluation. Previous good practice enables us to extract the elements that contribute to a positive programme design (table 4): Table 4 : Guidelines for effective Roma programmes, measures and submeasures Programmes, measures and sub-measures should: • Involve the Roma community and its representative NGO organizations in the design process and subsequently in delivery, monitoring, evaluation and commentary; • Transfer the learning of previous programmes involving the Roma community; • Provide, in the operational programme document, a clear understanding of the situation facing the Roma community and identifying its needs (e.g for infrastructure, labour market support, education,

economic assistance); • Identify clearly how the Roma community will be assisted, with indicative figures for numbers helped, the financial level of the investment and a robust distinction between those helped directly and indirectly; • Set down a clear and transparent system for the selection of projects, with a substantial part being an open call for proposals; • Build in systems for technical assistance for those promoting projects (local, municipal or regional authorities or NGOs); Include a system of global grants that could specifically deliver projects to the • Roma community through local, municipal or regional authorities, NGOs and other interested parties; • Have clear indicators, soft and hard, that measure the progress of the Roma community in becoming more socially included; • Set up a system of monitoring that tests for quality of outcomes as well as throughput of numbers, with publication of its deliberations; • Build in evaluation systems (ex ante,

mid-term, ex-post, thematic) that measure the precise impact on the Roma community and the effectiveness of the intervention; with systems for the dissemination of the results. 29 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma This knowledge is supplemented by the instructions issued by the Commission itself to its desk officers. Instructions to desk officers For the 2007-2013 programming period, the European Commission issued 19 instructions to its desk officers about Roma projects and programmes (Aide memoire for desk officers - structural funds programming, 2007-2013). This specified that: • The Roma community and its representative organizations, must, under the partnership have the fullest opportunity to participate in the design of programmes and measures. • The partnership principle must include the authorities not just at national but regional and local level. Workshops could be held to promote cooperative working methods. • Mayors were an important

part of the process because of their sensitivity to Roma issues, their role in mediation and could be critical to the success of programmes and projects. Technical assistance could be used ‘as a way to inspire and stimulate mayors and local government to develop and implement projects’. • The structural funds suggest that projects should be long-term. Short-term interventions are desirable only in the context of longer-term plans. • NGO organizations participating with other partners must be assured of cash flow that enable them to run their activities without interruption. • Following Roma programmes and projects must be a priority in the monitoring committees, accompanied by good-quality datasets and indicators. 4.3 Guidelines for projects Chapter 3 identified features that made for well-designed Roma projects. Such projects, when led by local, municipal or regional authorities, may have some unique features granted the particular role of these authorities. Local or

municipal authorities are distinctive because: • In many countries, they have specific responsibilities for the provision of particular services, such as health, social, housing, vocational and educational services; waste, the environment and sewerage; social inclusion and community development. They may also have a role in physical or spatial planning. 30 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma • They may have a particular role in resolving or arbitrating conflict between Roma people and the rest of the community, especially in planning or development issues; • Related to this, they may have responsibilities to integrate the Roma community into the life of the community, develop their participation and set down new channels of accountability of the local or municipal authorities to the Roma community. There are already good examples of local, municipal and regional authorities working with the Roma community (see annex). The projects are a mixture of

‘soft’ (labour market interventions) and ‘hard’ (community centres). Although many are on a small scale, they show what can be done. One area which has been little developed, though, is setting in train projects that will have a longterm, positive effect on the role of the Roma community and the rest of the local community. Here some other European programmes outside the structural funds provide some examples. The CARDS programme, for example, has funded local authorities to develop new systems for civic participation for the Roma community, such as consultative councils to resolve problem issues through consensus building; the training of public servants in diversity; greater representation of minorities in local authority staff; assisting the Roma community work with the local authority in the new technologies; and tolerance and civic education programmes. These elements could usefully be built into structural fund projects. Table 5, below, suggests specific guidelines

relevant to Roma projects led by local, municipal or regional authorities, while not repeating the general guidelines for Roma projects in chapter 3. Table 5: Guidelines for Roma projects led by local, municipal and regional authorities They should: • Build on the core competences of the local, municipal or regional authorities, such as housing, education, social services, health, social inclusion or community development; • Involve and empower the local Roma community, making them stakeholders in the project, developing their leadership and building their local capacity; • Be organized as a partnership, involving other state agencies and authorities as well as the Roma community and its representative organizations; • Link to the various institutions, branches and sections of the local, municipal or regional authority, finding new routes for the Roma community to work with officials and elected representatives; • Leave behind a legacy that reflects an improved relationship

between the Roma community and the rest of the local community. This could be, for 31 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma example, new institutions, protocols, systems of dialogue, mechanisms of arbitration or new services; • Devise systems for sharing, in a spirit of critical reflection, the outcomes with other local, municipal or regional authorities. Experience of previous structural fund operations shows that good projects for the Roma community do not just happen - they must be made to happen. Successful projects have taken place because individual managers, leaders and authorities have taken the initiative to devise, propose and carry out programmes and projects. The role of individual motivation; a vision of fairness for the Roma community; a concept of what dynamic local administration can achieve; and a determination to deal with many obstacles have all proved to be important. Promoting cooperation in Roma projects by local, municipal and

regional authorities The main body bringing the regions of Europe together is the Committee of the Regions, which is a formal institution of the European Union with 344 members and an important consultative role. In 2011, it presented its proposals for the future of cohesion policy. > http://cor.europaeu The present stage of the involvement of European regional and local associations dates dates to the 1980s, with the formation of the Assembly of European Regions (AER) (1985), now with 270 member regions; and the formation of the European Association of Metropolitan Cities (populations over 250,000), Eurocities for short, with 140 members. They have an important role in bringing together regional and metropolitan authorities and promoting their involvement in the work of the Union, including cohesion, regional and social policy. Roma-Net is a new (2010) association of nine European cities involved in Roma projects: Budapest, Hungary; Almería and Torrent, Spain; Bologna and Udine,

Italy; Glasgow, Scotland; Heraklion, Greece; Karvina, Czech Republic; Kosice, Slovakia, with associate partner, Bobigny, France. Its aim is to share experiences between local, municipal and regional authorities working with Roma people and a first newsletter has already been issued. > Association of European Regions: www.aereu > Eurocities: www.eurocitieseu > Roma-Net: www.urbacteu/roma-net 32 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Roma programmes, projects led by local, municipal and regional authorities – messages • There are many good reasons for local, municipal and regional authorities to participate in and lead structural fund projects. They are important providers of services, they arbitrate many competing issues at local level, they should be neutral between the Roma community and the rest of the community; and they take important decisions that affect the Roma community; • Hitherto, their participation in structural fund projects

has been limited: they have been overlooked by national governments, such projects may be contentious, their technical capacity may be low and the structural funds may be difficult to operate. • These difficulties can be overcome if local, municipal and regional authorities take the initiative to participate in the design process; address issues of structural fund management and administration; and apply for and obtain technical assistance; Local, municipal or regional authorities should not apply to lead Roma projects • simply because money is there. Such projects will work best when they already have experience of working with the Roma community, when they already have Roma partners and when the project fits into the existing programme of work of the authority; • We know the elements that make for well-designed Roma programmes, measures and sub-measures; • We know, from earlier experience, the elements that make for well-designed projects led by local, municipal and regional

authorities. 33 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma 5 Next round of the structural funds At present, the next programming period, 2014-2020, is in preparation and here the guide outlines both the next round (5.1) and the possible participation of local, municipal and regional authorities (5.2) 5.1 The next round It is expected that the regulations for the next round of the structural funds will be published before the end of June 2011, to be followed by the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) to govern the over-riding priorities of the round (2012), then followed by the negotiation between the Commission and each member state of a Development and Investment Partnership Contract and then new operational programmes (2013). These developments take place in parallel at both national and European level. The terminology of this process is outlined in diagram 2. Timetable for the next round of structural funds 2011 June 2011-2013 2012 2012-2013 2014 2015

Publication of regulations Publication of financial perspective 2014-2020 Regulations debated, approved by European institutions Publication of Common Strategic Framework Negotiation of Development and Investment Partnership Contract Negotiation of operational programmes, measures Consultation process in each member state Start of new round 34 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Three principal documents set the background for the new round: the Barca report (2009), the EU2020 strategy and the 5th cohesion report (2010). The Barca report, which was a contextual paper for DG REGIO, was important in drawing attention to the need, in the next round, to emphasize social inclusion. 1 The EU2020 strategy, whose objectives will guide those of the structural funds, set five key objectives of the Union: • A 16% reduction in poverty, from 120m down to 100m people below the poverty line; • In education, to reduce the level of early school leaving from 15% to

10% and to raise participation in secondary level from 31% to 40%; • In the field of the environment, to reduce the emission of gases by 20%, to reduce consumption of energy by 20% and to increase efficiency by 20% (called the 20-20-20 formula); • To increase investment in research and development in each state to 3%; and • To raise participation in employment from 69% to 75%. Of these, the first two and the last one are of great relevance to the Roma community. In 2010, the Commission sent each member state an indicative target as to how many people it should reduce below the poverty line (for example 2.5m people in the case of Britain) 1 Barca, Fabrizio: An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy. Brussels, DG REGIO, 2009 35 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma The 5th cohesion report, Investing in Europe’s future, set down a number of important markers for the next round of the structural funds. 2 First, dealing with the key question of the

financial distribution, it proposed that funding be streamed into: • Convergence regions as before, with a Gross Domestic Product of less than 75% of the European average, which would receive the highest level of financial assistance; • Competitiveness regions, as before, to receive the lowest levels of assistance; • Intermediate regions, between 75% and 90% of GDP, receiving an intermediate level of assistance; Cross-border regions; • • A new objective of territorial cohesion, to include (1) cities and the urban agenda and (2) regions, being defined as smaller towns, rivers, sea basins, outermost areas, islands, mountains and areas of low population density. Second, looking at the themes, Investing in Europe’s future stressed the need for local development, especially in the areas of active inclusion, fostering social innovation, the regeneration of deprived areas and in rural and maritime areas. In particular, it proposed that there be ring-fencing for specific target

groups and experimental approaches, for example in local development, through the use of global grants. On the issue of partnership, it stated that: Representation of local and regional stakeholders, social partners and civil society in both the policy dialogue and implementation of social policy should be strengthened. Local development approaches should be reinforced for example by supporting active inclusion, fostering social innovation or designing schemes for the regeneration of deprived areas. Territorial cohesion means addressing regions with high concentrations of socially marginalized communities. Institutional reform is critical, complemented by support to develop administrative and institutional capacity and effective governance, available to every member state and region. These are encouraging statements, suggesting a much greater involvement of local, regional and municipal authorities; a continued development of partnership; more focussed work for social inclusion;

addressing groups in concentrated poverty, like the Roma community; and the availability of technical assistance. Investing in Europe’s future was followed by a Communication on a European Platform against poverty which emphasized the more effective use of the ERDF and ESF through: • Simplified systems for using the funds; • Easier access for groups in high poverty and multiple disadvantage; 2 Also published as Commission document COM 2010/642. 36 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma • Global grants; • A concentration of vulnerable groups, including the Roma community; • A new fund for social experimentation part-drawn from the ESF. The next step in the process will be the regulations. These are critical, for they will outline: • • • • The scope of the next round of the structural funds; The next iteration of the partnership principle; The delivery mechanisms, such as global grants; Improved access systems (for example, recognizing

volunteer contributions) > The EURoma network has already outlined its own views in EURoma position paper as concerns future regulations on the structural funds. This argues that the regulations should explicitly promote the access of local, municipal and regional authorities to the structural funds for Roma projects. > http://www.euromaneteu 5.2 Charting the participation authorities: the next steps of local, municipal and regional Granted this favourable environment, now is very much the time for local, municipal and regional authorities to begin the process of ensuring their role in developing Roma projects in the next round of the structural funds in each member state. The first step, as already discussed in chapters 3 and 4, is to prepare a number of possible projects in consultation with the Roma community and its representative organizations; and then to prepare an outline of projects that would constitute a strand or programme. The next step is for local,

municipal and regional authorities, acting as a group of interested organizations, to take the initiative and make the case to the regional authority (in the case of federal or highly regional states) or the national managing authority (or Ministry for Finance) for there to be a distinct strand or strands of local, municipal and regional authority projects in the next round and for the opportunity to contribute to the national debate on the shape and design of the next round. It would be important that the appropriate desk offices of the two relevant sections of the Commission be kept up to date with these developments and asked for their support. The next step is then to ensure that there is an adequate technical support to enable local, municipal and regional authorities to develop their proposals and 37 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma second, that there be enlightened systems of delivery, one in which global grants are suggested. It is also

essential that there be clarity on both funding systems and the selection of projects. Funding systems vary from one state to another, with national co-funding likely to come either from central government or from local or regional government’s own resources and this must be clarified. When it comes to the selection of projects, it is important that this system be set down in advance. Normally there should be an open competition, in which case a timetable should be agreed, along with selection criteria. Decisions must also be made as to whether there will be one or several calls for proposals over 2014-2020. By 2014, once the operational programmes are published, the outcomes of the interventions of the local, municipal and regional authorities will be apparent and hopefully a stream of such projects may get under way. The key steps are summarized in table 6: Table 6: Next steps for local, municipal and regional authorities, 20112013 • Identify, based on planned work over the next

5-7 years, possible projects through working with the Roma community (and its representative organizations) that would suit ESF, ERDF; • Working with other authorities, turn this into a programme, strand or set of measures. Request technical assistance to do so • Outline working methods, management, budget (incl. co-funding), systems for indicators, monitoring, evaluation, dissemination; • Express interest to national managing authority in developing such a programme and projects in next round; • Inform, update European Commission DG REGIO and DG EMPL of interest • Proposals to managing authority for a programme of projects run by local, municipal and regional authorities in the ESF, ERDF, delivered either as managing authorities or through system of global grants, with clarity on system of project selection. 38 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma These steps are summarized in diagram 3: Key messages of this guide • The situation of the

Roma community in Europe is one which is attracting growing interest and support. • There is considerable scope both within the ESF and ERDF for projects that will assist the Roma community. • So far, there has been a limited contribution by local, municipal and regional authorities to programmes and projects with the Roma community, but there is scope for a considerable expansion of this contribution in the next round of the structural funds. The outline details of Investing in Europe’s future open fresh possibilities. • Now is the time for local, municipal and regional authorities to prepare projects for the next round. • Now is the time for local, municipal and regional authorities to approach their national management authorities for (1) participation in the design of the next round (2) a distinct programme or strand of projects delivered by local, municipal and regional authorities and (3) ensure that there are enlightened delivery methods to make this possible, such as

global grants. 39 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Annex: Good practice examples of Roma projects led or promoted by local, municipal or regional authorities City of Jyväskylä Romani Services and Social Interpreter Model. The City of Jyväskylä in Finland, where there are about 500 Roma people, developed an EQUAL development partnership called Roma in employment. This was a unit in the city’s Social Welfare Service which employed two women and one man with Roma backgrounds as employment instructors. Their responsibilities were: • • • • General support for the employment needs of the Roma community; Assisting young Roma still in school and promoting home-school liaison; Outreach activities designed to win the confidence of the Roma community; The prevention of substance abuse. The instructors were available to accompany the customers on visits to and interviews with the Employment and Economic Development Office, the Labour Service

Centre and other state offices, in effect acting as mediators for them (the Finnish term is ‘service interpretation’). Integrated education project in Hodmezovarasely, South Great plain, Hungary. The local authority of Hodmezovarasely obtained funding for integrated education, drawing on the European Social Fund (€170,000 from the Human Resources Development Operational Programme and €370,000 from the Social Renewal Occupational Programme) and the European Regional Development Fund (€800,000 from the South Great Plain Regional Operational Programme and €260,000 from the Social Infrastructure Operational Programme) to develop an integrated education school and kindergarten programme for not only Roma but other children. Social integration programme in Nyiregyhaza in North Great Plain, Hungary. This is a similar project to replace segregated education with integrated education in Huszar-telep which is a concentration of Roma people in Nyiregyhaza. This used €157m from the

European Regional Development Fund (90% for infrastructure, 10% for community development). It was a multidimensional development that combined housing improvements, kindergarten, roads, playgrounds and community development in a plan for desegregation and integrated urban development. 40 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma County Louth Vocational Education Committee Traveller Integration Project, Ireland. In Ireland, the equivalent of the Roma community is the Traveller community. Vocational Education Committees (VECs) are local educational authorities responsible for education and training, with a particular focus on disadvantaged groups. The Irish government is currently (2011-2012) closing the training centres for Travellers, so the Co Louth VEC took the initiative of consulting with Travellers in this small county in the north east so as to identify the barriers to Traveller education and see how Travellers could best join mainstream education

programmes. This project was funded by the European Social Fund which supports the work of the Equality Mainstreaming Unit in the Equality Authority. The outcome of the consultation process was a report which recommended the way forward for Traveller education, one which would include: • • • • • • A literacy and numeracy programme; Training allowances; Educational materials in accessible English for learners with difficulties; Childcare provision for those attending; The provision of classes off-site; The training of education staff in intercultural education and Traveller culture. The report recommended the employment of an integration officer, the ringfencing of money for Traveller education, systems of monitoring and evaluation to check on progress; and the action plan to be overseen by a Traveller Integration Working Group. Pathways for Sinti and Roma, Emilia Romagna, Italy. In Italy, the National Operational Programme for Security for Development, operating in the

convergence regions, has allocated €1.9m to the Roma community, of which half is the ERDF. Under the Emilia Romagna Regional Operational Programme, objective 2, measure for social inclusion, the European Social Fund funds the provincial authority to work with four training providers in a €18,800 project for 44 unemployed Roma aged 18 to 40 through: • Customized dialogue-based interviews, aptitude tests, skills analysis and coaching; • Job centre guidance to develop action plan, CV, job-seeking skills; • Laboratory guidance for interpersonal skills, work safety. The project is based on the successful experience of two previous rounds of EQUAL projects. The initial interviews are conducted in Roma camps with the help of outreach workers. 41 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Hrabusice primary school, Slovakia. Hrabusice primary school received ERDF funding for a SK 9.1m project whose aims were to: • Improve access to and develop the education

programme for the Roma community, improving contact with the non-Roma community; • Renovate the primary school and bring it up to modern standards of heating, insulation, with repairs to the window and facade; • Promote Roma involvement in the life of the community and municipality. Oslany primary school, Slovakia. This was a SK11m project by the Olany municipality using the ERDF for the improvement of Oslany primary school an its utilization as a regional education and sports centre for Roma and other marginalized groups. ERDF funding was applied to: • Improvement of the both the school and after-school buildings, especially in the areas of heating, hygiene, windows, panelling, facade, lockers, toilets; • Extracurricular activities for Roma children; • Disability access; • Reduction of special education classes in favour of mainstreaming; • Development of the school and after-school for sports, folk and social events. Development of mental health and psychiatric services

for Roma and other groups in Zilina, Slovakia. This is a SK12m project including ERDF funding to improve the quality of mental health care for Roma and unemployed people. Promoted by the Zilina region, it attempted to tackle the double problem of why mental illness caused people to lose their jobs and in turn make their reemployment difficult, a problem especially acute in this target group. At the same time, the project aimed to humanize and democratize psychiatric and mental health care by improving the quality and of waiting rooms, work areas and leisure facilities as well as providing more therapeutic activities. The funding was used for: • Reconstruction and modernization of an old hospital, with bright modern facilities; • Heating, windows, flooring, facade, lifts, fire alarms, communications systems, wiring, washing and toilet facilities. Municipal cultural centre, Galanta, Slovakia. This is a SK21m ERDF-funded reconstruction of the municipal cultural centre and which

organizes cultural and social events for the Roma community, including the popular Romafest. The centre is used for art, theatre, lectures, debates, exhibitions, youth club and concerts. The ERDF funding was used for general improvement of the building and specifically for its heating system, facade, insulation and windows. 42 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Employment through the treatment of communal waste, Raslavice, Slovakia. This is a small, SK391,000 ERDF-funded project promoted by Raslavice municipality to reduce unemployment in the Roma community through employment them in waste treatment services. They were employed to: • Separate and dispose of waste appropriately; • Develop a composting facility; • Use composted waste for parks and green spaces; There were numerous benefits to this project: a reduction in waste, greater environmental awareness in the town, a reduction in illegal dumping, fewer health threats (less flies and rodents)

and an improved perception of the Roma community by the settled community. Second-chance education in Markusovce, Slovakia. This was an ESF funded project valued at SK1.8m to provide second-chance education for 60 people in the 15 to 18 age group, mainly members of the Roma community, who had not obtained educational certification. The aim was to ensure that the students achieved a primary educational certificate and then go on to a re-qualification course or further vocational training. Rather than follow the normal primary course, they followed a basic skills course and a special curriculum adapted and approved by the Ministry of Education which led to a standard primary certificate. One of the intended outcomes was an improved valuing of education in the families concerned, setting a model for children to follow. Field social work in Letanovce, Slovakia. Letanovce municipality in Slovakia received support under the European Social Fund for a project in the rural areas of eastern

Slovakia to work with excluded groups, mainly the Roma community. This takes the form of funding for four new social work and community workers experienced staff and assistants drawn from the Roma community - for: • Classic social work support, interventions and counselling to help families at risk or in crisis situations; • Promotion of leisure time activities for young people; • Development of a clothing bank and food bank; • Assisting people to deal with the authorities; • Promotion of school attendance, preventative medical examinations, vaccination; • Improved cooperation and relationships with the police of Spisska Nova Ves; • Assistance with work placements and development of CVs by those looking for work. 43 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma Overall work with the Roma community in Slovakia is funded first, under the Operational Programme for Employment and Social Inclusion, priority axis 2, Social inclusion. Its primary focus has

been on expanding the number of social workers, which has risen from 160 field social workers (and 292 assistants) in 2004 to 344 in 2009 (with 389 assistants), the number of beneficiaries rising from 125 to 226, ESF funding totalling €11.8m Second, there is a horizontal priority for marginalized Roma communities working across the operational programmes for Education (€7.8m) and Employment and Social Inclusion (€42.7m) and these have supported 380 Roma projects Property rights programme in Tirgu Mures, Romania. The county council of Tirgu Mures, Romania, has promoted two projects valued at €92.2m under the PHARE programme (pre-strutural fund accession programme): Roma have the right to integrate too and Property deeds and civil status documents. Three staff were hired and the purpose of these projects was to: • Set up a database for identity documents, property rights and status of members of the Roma community; • Resolve issues of birth certificates, identity cards and

property deeds; • Give advice to the Roma community on these issues (2,723 people advised). Social economy enterprise in Valcea, Romania. This project is promoted by the commune authority of Francesti in the county of Valcea under the Operational Programme for Human Resource Development, priority axis 6, Promoting social inclusion, intervention 6.1 Development of the social economy Francesti has 5,800 people, of whom 2,400 are Roma, of whom 98% are unemployed, their only incomes being casual or seasonal agricultural work. 90% of social welfare claimants in the area are Roma people. Its specific objectives were to: • Create 23 jobs in a social economy enterprise within 24 months; • Develop a daycare facility for 30 children, the children of the beneficiaries; • An increase, within the Roma community, of the need for professional training for income generating activities. After 18 months, 30 people were in training, the daycare centre had been built (but not yet opened) and the

decision had been taken to specialize in PVC carpentry. There have been serious delays of many months due to problems of co-funding and payment of EU funds (including the payment of training allowances) so that at time of writing the project was in danger of closure. Roma community centre in Baia Mare, Romania. This is a project promoted by the Public Social Assistance Service of Baia Mare municipality under the Local Operational Programme, priority 3 Better of social infrastructure, intervention 44 Source: http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma area 3 Rehabilitation and modernization of social service infrastructure. The area has a high youth population and low incomes. Converting a ruined building, the aim was the rehabilitation, modernization and fitting of a residential, multi-functional, energy efficient social centre for the Roma community and others. The aim of the centre is to offer: • Social services; • Human resources services for occupational

training, educational courses, adult education, including both professional skills and personal development; Access to and services for people with disabilities; • • Counselling; • Courses in personal hygiene; • Computer and internet access; • Kindergarten; • Multi-purpose event hall; • Programme for environmental awareness and neighbourhood development. In addition, the project involved the cleaning of the area and the provision of green space around it. The beneficiaries are expected to be the Roma community, people with disabilities, unemployed people, victims of domestic violence, low incomes families and individuals as well as homeless people. At time of writing, the project was starting. Project for shanty town eradication, Aviles, Asturias, Spain. This is a wellknown project which was originally funded under national funds but which later attracted ESF support from the ACCEDER programme in Spain (2000-6). The original programme dates to 1989 when the municipal

authority decided to eliminate the Roma shantytown camps, but through a constructive process of integration. The local authority provided mainstream accommodation, vocational training, desegregated education and access to health centres. The project was led by the municipal authority but carried out through cooperation with NGOs, the regional government and the national government and ensured the cooperation of the political parties in the town. Romani Bridge project, Crensovci, Slovenia. This is a €109,080 PHAREsupported project led by the municipality of Crensovci, Slovenia for the integration of Roma people in the labour market and the promotion of Roma education. At the core of the project was the idea of promoting Roma culture and making it a positive asset for tourism, training, skills-based industry and income-generation all at the same time. The project also involved a Roma association and development centre. The principal project activities were: 45 Source:

http://www.doksinet Structural Funds: Investing in Roma • Opening of a Roma museum; • Production of Roma handcrafts and souvenirs for tourists; • Training of young Roma in handcraft development through camps and creative workshops; • Workshop of plants to develop Roma medicines, the medicines to be sold later by Roma women at markets; • Cultural activities e.g literary evenings, sculpture The principal project outcomes were a health centre; a partnership of local authorities and Roma groups; and tourism promotional brochures. Medical and social centre, Movri, Greece. This is a two-year €457,000 project developed by the municipality of Movri for a health and social service centre for 160 Roma families (about 900 people) in Achaia, western Greece. This project began with a detailed census of the target group and its needs and is based on the idea that the best way to do this is through a comprehensive, user-friendly, all-in centre able to provide a mixture of health,

social, administrative and legal services. Women and children and normally the main users and these centres have been successful across Greece. Staff provided include doctor, nurse, physiotherapist, gym instructor, sociologist, psychologist, speech therapist and mediator. The principal services provided are: • Health information, education and promotion; • The provision of some direct health services (e.g general examination, vaccination, prescriptions, psychological support); • Referral to other health, social, educational and housing services, including registering of Roma children for school; • Intervention to resolve administrative and legal issues with public services (e.g identity cards); • Cultural and creative activities. The project was developed in cooperation with Roma NGOs, children’s NGOs, schools, police, judges, education and training centres and regional health centres. The centre’s initial achievements were resolving administrative issues (identity

papers); the successful registration of children for school; vaccination (90% rate); and the uptake of health education. Elsewhere in Greece, structural funds have been allocated to the municipalities of Ano Liosia, Keratsini, Gastounis and Xanthis for similar centres. Limassol, Cyprus. In Limassol, the capital, structural funds are used at municipal level in those areas where Roma people live for the improvement of roads, water, street lighting, pedestrian crossing, tree planting, bicycle lanes, playgrounds, the prevention of early school leaving, Greek language training (Roma people generally speak Turkish). 46