A child rights approach to strengthening the post-2020 EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

A child rights approach to strengthening the post-2020 EU
Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies
Abstract

It is clear that, despite forward movement in Roma integration, European countries’ progress
in meeting the goals and targets set for Roma inclusion has been slow and sporadic, and that
the gap between Roma and non-Roma children remains unacceptably wide in every EU
Member State and candidate country. This paper argues child rights and Roma rights actors
need to work more closely together within an agreed human-rights framework and adopt a
strong anti-discrimination approach that challenges and supports national governments to
meet the same standards of care, education and protection for Roma women and children as
for other citizens. It was prepared hastily after a cursory reading of the issue papers1 prepared
for the workshop on Future Policies for Roma held in Brussels on 01 October 2019 and it
draws on them to explore how the post-2020 NRIS framework can contribute to such an
approach.

Introduction

Child rights actors and activists rightly see 2019 as a year to commemorate children’s rights
and celebrate its many impressive successes. Save the Children is looking back with pride on
100 years of growth, success and achievement since Eglantyne Jebb and her sister Dorothy
Buxton held their inaugural meeting in Albert Hall, London on 19 May 1919 and established
the world’s first ever child rights organisation. UNICEF and other child rights actors are
celebrating thirty years since ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in
November 2019. A lot has happened in those thirty years. The UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child is the most widely ratified international treaty in the world and underpins
national law on children and families in 181 countries. There is now a plethora of local and
international organisations and agencies, working around the world to promote and protect
children’s rights and welfare. Children’s rights to health, education and protection are
universally recognised and all civilised states acknowledge their duty of care and protection
to all children on their national territory.

Yet 100 years since the concept of children’s rights was born and thirty years after
ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, millions of children living in one of
the world’s richest regions continue to be denied full access to their rights on the basis of
their ethnicity, totally and absolutely in breach of Article 2.1 of the Convention, which
stipulates that governments must ‘ensure the rights set forth in this Convention to each
child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s
or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status’.

Roma children in 2019 remain the most vulnerable child population in Europe, much as they
were when the Convention was signed in 1989, and most likely back in 1919 too. There are at

1
  The issue notes were prepared by a consortium composed of Fresno the right link, the Centre for Policy Studies of the Central European
University and the Amalipe Center for Interethnic Dialogue and Tolerance. The authors are José-Manuel Fresno, Deyan Kolev, Jarmila
Lajcakova, Georgeta Munteanu, Mirjam Karoly and Violetta Zentai. Each “issue note” provides a brief outline of how the three issues are
framed in the current debate, what are the main matters of content, and how they could be taken up in a post2020 EU initiative. Each section
closes with questions that should orient the debate.

present an estimated 4-5 million Roma children in Europe2, whose “…social indicators are
worse than those of Sierra Leone or Burundi, two of the poorest countries in the world”3.
The findings of the UNDP Regional Roma Survey 20174 confirm this assessment.

This is totally unacceptable in any modern European state, and yet, for the last decade at
least, European child rights actors and agencies have been relatively quiet about this
noticeable blot on Europe’s human-rights record. Despite the plethora of research and
practice evidence of the dire situation of Roma families in most European countries, there has
been no Day of General Discussion on Roma children by the Committee on the Rights of the
Child (CRC), nor a European Child Rights Forum dedicated to them. Instead child rights
actors and agencies have developed and maintained a project-based social inclusion model
that has failed to mitigate, and sometimes even exacerbated, the gaps between non-Roma and
Roma children.

The EU Framework (EUFW) for National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS)

Since its introduction in 2011, the Framework has acted as the template for development,
support and review of Member States’ and enlargement countries’ national strategies to
realise Roma inclusion. The Framework aims5 to help countries to make positive and
concrete differences in Roma people's lives by bringing about a change in the approach to
inclusion in four key areas – education; employment; health; and housing. The Commission
has put in place an annual NRIS reporting mechanism6 to assess progress, and established
structures to accompany Member States in their efforts, in particular the National Roma
Contact Points’ (NRCP) network.

A mid-term evaluation7 (MTR) of the NRIS Framework, based on a public consultation8 in
2017, found that the Framework has been key to the development of EU and national
instruments and structures aiming to promote Roma inclusion, and the discussion papers
rightly acknowledge the EUFW’s value in maintaining Roma integration on the European
social and political agenda, and in promoting and supporting ambitious integration initiatives
in Member States. However, both the discussion papers and the MTR evaluation openly
acknowledge that the ambition of ending Roma exclusion is still quite far from being

2
  According to State of the World’s children 2014 in numbers. EVERY CHILD COUNTS Revealing Disparities, Advancing Children’s Rights
UNICEF (2014) New York available at https://www.unicef.org/sowc2014/numbers/ this is more than twice the child-population of Belgium.
The numbers are calculated on the basis of 40% of Estimates and official numbers of Roma in Europe updated July 2012.xls.(01) Council of
Europe available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM accessed 20 September 2018. The estimate of
a 40%

achieved. The majority of respondents in the evaluation indicated that there had been no
major improvement for Roma families in employment, healthcare, housing or discrimination
since 2011, although almost half felt that there had been some improvement with regard to
education.
Despite its explicit recognition that 35.7% of the Roma population in Europe at that time
were under 15 years of age, compared to only 15.7% of the EU population overall9, the
original Framework document is relatively weak in terms of child focus and since 2011 the
Commission has stressed in all of its reviews10 the need for increased attention to Roma
women and children in country. Unfortunately, as late as April 2018 it was still being noted
that ‘too many Roma children still live in unacceptable conditions and face extreme social
exclusion. Despite significant investment, especially in education, the pace of change is slow
and the gap between Roma and non-Roma children remains significant”11. The MTR
evaluation12 recognised the limitations of this approach and noted the need for comprehensive
strategies post-2020 that tackle children’s needs simultaneously in education, health and
housing policies as well as in child protection. The European Commission is moving towards
such a position and the rest of this paper raises issues to be considered as part of that move
(in no particular order). It is based on an outsider’s perceptions and is offered as a
contribution towards debate and discussion among the main stakeholders rather than as
suggestions or recommendation.

     1. Language and terminology

Discourse around EUFW often brackets Roma women and children with what are termed
diverse groups within the Roma population (usually mobile and migrant Roma) to make the
point that policy, programming and/or resourcing has failed to allow sufficiently for diversity
within the Roma population. However, it may not be helpful to lump these groups together,
as they require very different policy and programming responses. Although they are
undoubtedly exacerbated by the discrimination they face as Roma, the additional difficulties
endured by migrant and mobile Roma relate in large part to their legal status and economic
situation, and require technical, policy and programme responses.

Women and children on the other hand are not a minority group within the Roma population,
but rather constitute the majority of the general Roma population, and the added layers of
discrimination that they endure are of a different order and severity to the difficulties faced
by migrant and mobile Roma. Addressing them requires a high level of attitudinal change
(within the general Roma population as well as among non-Roma) as well as technical,
policy and programme interventions. Although this is clearly not intended, presenting them as
one of five or six ‘diverse’ groups within the Roma population may obscure the need for
stronger mainstreaming of gender and child focus in all EUFW and NRIS processes.

     2. Thematic expansion

The proposed integration of child protection into the NRIS framework will be particularly
welcomed by child rights actors and Roma activists alike. European Roma Rights Centre

9
   See An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 op cit p2 available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0173&from=EN
10
      These     include     initial  assessment    of    the   NRIS     in    2012      available    at    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0226&from=EN and annual reviews thereafter
11
   Michael O’Flaherty, Director of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) quoted in http://fra.europa.eu/en/video/2018/video-
blog-michael-oflaherty-roma April 2018
12
   Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 op cit

(ERRC)13 and others noted as far back as 2011 that children from Roma communities across
Europe face ongoing and entrenched marginalisation when in contact with the public care
system, and the evidence available14 at that time suggested that Roma and Traveller children
were significantly over-represented within European public care systems i.e. that significantly
more Roma than non-Roma children were in State care, rather than living with their family,
relatives and community. The discussion paper rightly notes that the need for child protection
initiatives is particularly urgent in the areas of violence against children, children without
parental care, and children in conflict with the law, but Roma children are also acknowledged
to be particularly vulnerable in relation to trafficking, child labour and early marriage. A full
assessment of child protection systems across Europe is required.

However, it is vital to note that social welfare and assistance is another key area that needs to
be addressed within EUFW and NRIS. Given the poverty and deprivation endured by so
many Roma families, it is imperative that blockages in access to financial assistance are
tackled urgently. This is crucial in terms of addressing family poverty in Roma communities.

     3. Raising targets, standards and expectations

By accepting a slower pace of progress towards national standards for Roma than for other
children, child rights actors have unintentionally facilitated a two-tier perception of children’s
(and women’s) rights that allows Roma children’s entitlements under international law to be
downgraded, and enforcement of governments’ legal obligations to them as children to be
undercut. The NRIS bar may have originally been set low in order to motivate governments
to achieve concrete reductions of the significant gaps between Roma and non-Roma families
in education, health, and housing, but if so, it does not seem to have worked very well.
Instead, lowering expectations may have simply reduced pressure to perform in many
countries, reinforced public perceptions of Roma as ‘different’, and unintentionally
discouraged integration into wider child protection and welfare strategies with tighter, more
demanding M&E frameworks. Furthermore, the evaluation found that allowing governments
wide latitude to adapt NRIS objectives and targets to specific national contexts did not, as
hoped, strengthen the impact and relevance of their actions but rather contributed to
fragmented implementation and reduced effectiveness.

Aligning NRIS and SDG goals and targets might allow the Commission to set ambitious and
consistent goals for Roma women and children across all European countries that aim to
eliminate, and not just cut, existing gaps between Roma and non-Roma families within a
timescale (1/2 NRIS rounds) and framework already agreed by national governments. This
could not only raise standards in individual NRIS thematic areas – health; education;
housing; employment; discrimination – but would also allow NRIS to expand its influence in
other areas of interest relevant to Roma. It might also give Roma civil society leverage with a
wider range of stakeholders and so provides a stronger incentive for Government to meet
NRIS targets. Alignment with the SDGs might also offer a wider set of opportunities to
improve the situation of Roma families and communities by realising women and children’s
rights. It is also likely to expedite full integration of Roma inclusion into national
development plans; open access to a greater range of development funds and resources;
strengthen accountability and transparency by widening the scope of monitoring tools

13
   European Roma Rights Centre, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Helskpmk"Eqookvvgg."Okncp"̅kogemc" Foundation and Observazione
Life Sentence. Romani Children in Institutional Care (2011) available at: http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/life-sentence20-june-2011.pdf
14
   Brown, P. Dwyer, PJ. Martin, P. Scullion, L. Roma MATRIX Interim Research Report. (2014) University of Salford, UK

available to civil society and expanding the bandwidth of monitors, supporters and invested
stakeholders.

However, the discussion paper presents a fair and balanced discussion of the benefits and
risks of aligning NRIS targets with national SDG targets and this is obviously something that
has yet to be worked out between stakeholders. But from a child rights perspective, there is
no practical, ethical or moral justification to allow, and even enable, national governments in
Europe to do anything other than completely close – not reduce, close completely – the gaps
between Roma and non Roma children in health, education and protection as soon as
possible.
    4. Build a constituency of support

Adopting a rights-based approach necessarily involves building a constituency of support for
positive change, but unfortunately other actors have taken advantage of the NRIS framework
to step back from their responsibilities to Roma children. The discussion papers rightly note
that cooperation with international bodies has not been sufficiently strong and as we indicated
in our opening paragraphs we believe that a strong, coordinated programme of advocacy and
affirmative action between the child rights and Roma rights sectors is required to make any
significant improvement in Roma children’s lives. It would be unfair to say that Roma
children have been ignored completely by the child rights movement. UNICEF in particular
has maintained a strong Roma ECCD platform across Eastern Europe and most other child
related INGOs have supported a Roma project over the past five years. There have also been
fruitful research and advocacy initiatives shared between UNICEF, REF, ERRC and other
actors on both sides of the divide.

But these have followed a project model and achieved limited impact. Overall there has been
no coordinated programme of research, advocacy or action commensurate with the scale of
the problem to be addressed. Both sides have tended to work on disparate, discrete projects
within their respective silos thus weakening their impact, effectiveness and cost-efficiency.
For instance, the two major sources of quality data about Roma families – the FRA surveys
and UNICEF’s MICS data – do not appear to be coordinated in terms of coverage, timing or
use and this must surely reduce their advocacy value. Even worse, neither of them appears to
be linked to a common advocacy or programme development strategy.

The current model of cooperation, (or even communication) between the two sectors is
outdated and ineffective, and the major actors on both sides need to come together urgently to
agree a common strategy to push for full inclusion of Roma children and families in
European society by 2030. This has also got to include a real audit of the barriers to Roma
inclusion within child rights agencies and a genuine open reappraisal of the working
relationship between the two sectors. Child rights in Europe will never be achieved without
Roma rights; Roma rights will not be achieved without children’s rights.

   5. Social inclusion, anti-discrimination and anti-gypsyism

The discussion papers present a balanced picture of the complicated linkages between these
three models, but they are not presented as three essential strands of the same approach, and
instead ‘anti-discrimination’ comes across as an option to be placed in either a social
inclusion or an anti-gypsyism model. These three models together with gender equality and
child focus constitute the weave of Roma integration work and cannot be separated out.
While most social inclusion projects succeeded at the local level over the past five years, they

mostly failed in terms of mainstreaming in national and local systems precisely because they
did not sufficiently address institutional blockages, probably because their anti-
discrimination/social inclusion balance was skewed. But the value of these projects to local
Roma families and communities has been adequately demonstrated and, rather than abandon
the model entirely, the discussion should be around how to institutionalise their learning, and
fully and completely integrate their successful models. This will necessitate a conscious and
open programme, shared by both sectors, to address institutional discrimination against Roma
and challenge professional and organisational attitudes, practice and behaviour.

This should not exclude the need for a specific anti-gypsyism element within all NRIS. The
need – and it relates to Roma men, women and children – is clear. However, it requires a
particular set of responses that are not necessarily the best option to address institutional
discrimination within services, where training, technical support and community advocacy
may be more effective than legal advocacy.

Kevin Byrne and Judit Szira