Roma Children Access to Local Government Services in Albania

Roma Children access to local

government services in Albania

APRIL 2017

Roma Children access to local government services in Albania

PREPARED BY:

ALTIN HAZIZAJ

APRIL 2017

Reproduction of parts of this document is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided that the source is clearly acknowledged.

This document has been commissioned by CRCA on behalf of UNICEF, CRCA, YWCA and OCR; however, it reflects only the views of the author. The organisations and donors cannot be held in any way responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the Initiative “Every Roma Child in Kindergarten” is available on the Internet (http://www.crca.al/every-roma-child-kindergarten).

Authors: Altin Hazizaj

Statistician: Pranvera Elezi

Reference: Hazizaj A., Access to Local Social Services of Roma Children in Albania, UNICEF / CRCA Albania/ YWCA / Observatory, Tirana 2017.

This study is part of the “Every Roma child in kindergarten project”, supported technically and financially by UNICEF and with the financial support of the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC):

Photo (cover): © CRCA Albania Tirana / Albania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

Major findings of the assessment 8 List of recommendations 9

CONTENTS 8 List of Acronyms 8 List of Tables and Graphs 9

Chapter 1: MUNICIPALITIES AND LOCAL SERVICES FOR ROMA CHILDREN 11

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY 15 Assessment objectives Typology Instrument and data collection Sample Ethical aspects Limitations

Chapter 3: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 19 Municipalities providing services for Roma children Access of Roma children and families in municipal services across Albania Attitudes towards Roma in municipalities in Albania

Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34 Findings and conclusions of the assessment Recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY: 39

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CRCA Albania would like to acknowledge the support of UNICEF, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) for funding the initiative “Every Roma Child in Kindergarten”, a national initiative that aims to enrol Roma children in early childhood education and consequently basic education.

We would like to acknowledge the efforts that the author, interviewers and all the participants of the study had to undertake to make this study possible. Special thanks go to Altin Hazizaj, that authored this survey report and Ms. Pranvera Elezi, our independent statistician, which provides us with a good knowledge on the issues and concerns that we need to take into consideration when working for Roma children at the level of Municipalities.

We would like also to acknowledge the contribution of the senior and experts staff of every Municipality across Albania to provide information based on our questionnaire in relation to the access of Roma children and their families to municipal services.

We would like to thank you the staff and experts of CRCA, OCR and YWCA teams respectively for making it possible the data collection.

We hope that this modest report serves also to the Government of Albania, Municipalities and CSO’s to get a better understanding of the barriers Roma children and their families face when they access public services at municipality level.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Being a Roma child in Albania it’s not easy. Despite many improvements in terms of legislation and policies at local and national level, poverty, social exclusion and discrimination are a daily feature of many Roma children’s lives. On one side a Roma child needs to survive in what is described extremely poor living conditions. The majority of Roma families and children live in huts without access to electricity, water, toilette and warm environment at home. Contrary to public perceptions, most of the Roma families do not leave a mobile life. For centuries, they have established themselves in the largest urban areas of Albania living mainly in the peripheries of cities and towns and working in family informal businesses such as recycling, artisanal work and resale of old clothes. In recent years thanks to the support of many Roma intellectuals, activists and NGOs, a higher number of Roma youth is graduating from Universities, establishing a new wave of Roma movement aiming for equality in the public sphere and elimination of discrimination.

Yet, the scale of poverty of Roma children and their families is an evidence of years of social exclusion and lack of programmes to support the most vulnerable groups in society with affordable housing, food, health and social services support. The economic development of Albania has yet to reach Roma families that more often than not find themselves with very little means to enjoy their rights.

For the last 10 years, the Government of Albania has put the Roma issue at the centre of its public policy. The social inclusion policy, many social care laws or poverty programmes have included Roma families as one of the main beneficiaries. Yet, as this survey will show, the implementation of such frameworks has not elevated Roma people out of poverty, as the national policy was not translated in a budgeted national programme to increase the opportunities for employment and further education of Roma people. Social exclusion, segregation and societal discrimination of Roma was of such a scale that the national policies were unable to bring a change for years to the daily lives of children and their families. Lack of local government policies and especially dedicated budgets, poverty of other larger groups of society, made it almost impossible to achieve any degree of success in many Municipalities. The new territorial and administrative reform of 2015 and the elections that followed, with a mounting pressure of national and international communities, have finally started to influence the outcomes of the government policies.

Many surveys and studies have shown the transformative impact that education is having on Roma children’s lives and their families. Recent data from civil society organisations and authorities is telling us that an ever-larger number of Roma children is attending kindergartens and basic education in Albania, despite discrimination that some of the Roma children face from white parents. Yet, once Roma children, especially girls, reach the age of puberty, cultural factors and their physical security, influences the parent’s decision to drop children out of school. Lack of enforcement of laws it means that there is no follow up from the authorities to make mandatory education (up to 15-16 years old) obligatory for all the families, despite of their practices or traditions.

The study took place within the framework of the Programme “Every Roma Child in Kindergarten1”, a joint action of UNICEF Albania in cooperation with CRCA Albania, YWCA and OCR, funded respectively by Swiss Cooperation and Austrian Office for Cooperation and Development.

We used quantitative methods to gather data on areas of early childhood education and development in areas where Roma children and families live or reside across Albania.

The aim of this research-survey was to measure the perceptions, attitudes and level of services provided by local government units for Roma children and their families in Albania. We looked

1 The action is translated in Romani Language as “Sarkon Romale Maksemenge to Kopshti”.

to identify how (if any) personal and institutional factors of public institutions play a role in the provision of local services to Roma children. Finally, by recognizing the barriers that may affect the services provision by public officials we aimed to capture a picture of the situation and the level of delivery of local services to Roma people.

The study at its last chapter shares a list of findings and recommendations for policy and advocacy work, which are very important to policymakers at local and national level in Albania.

A lot remains to be done to achieve a real and meaningful equality and access to public services for every Roma child and family in Albania. It is an action that must encompass the government, society and Roma people together in order to achieve such a goal.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Roma people for the last decade have been at the centre of public policy at national and international level. The Parliament and the Government have invested to the reduction of poverty and social exclusion of Roma people from the social and economic life of the country. Yet very few Roma children finish their mandatory education, while many families continue to live in poverty and not being able to benefit from the development of the country compared to the rest of the population.

- Roma complain or visit the premises of the municipalities to fulfil their most basic survival rights such as food, shelter or aid. The assessment found that at least 93% of Roma families visit municipalities to ask or complain about economic aid (cash handouts), 75% of Roma families ask for shelter, while 60% for food vouchers and 43% ask for employment.

- Further to this at least 40% of Roma families visit the municipalities on daily bases while another 38% of them weekly. Such high turnout of visits come from all the age groups of Roma communities, including children and young people, which shows that the communities where such families are a conglomerate of daily problems to secure the survival of their children and families. Yet it seems that the institutions and their structures seem not to be able to provide a sustainable solution to Roma families issues.

- The assessment shows that despite the fact that more than 50% of the complains from Roma people is made directly to the Mayors and another 49% of them to the Social Services departments, yet municipal programmes to alleviate poverty, provide shelter, protection, education and preparation and access to employment, have not achieved the expected results.

- At least 70% of the municipalities have a section or department dealing with Roma issues. 23% of municipalities have included Roma issues in their Social Plans, while another 40% were preparing them at the time of the interview. At least 35% of officials stated that they have a budget to implement their Social Plans;

- 40% of the public officials don’t know if they have budget for early childhood development and education. While, only 45% of the officials declare that they have a referral and/or support mechanism in place for Roma children and their families;

RECOMMENDATIONS - The cash handouts are providing a minimal support for the poorest families, yet they don’t support their education, personal strengthening or shelter. As such cash handouts programme in our opinion shall be closely combined with child allowance for food and education, mothers and fathers’ provisions of vocational training for employment and a range of good services of care such as free of charge creches and kindergartens. Such systematic approaches shall be measuring their success based on the outcomes of alleviating people out of poverty, and integrating them into education and employment.

- We recommend that the Parliament and the Government amend the Law on Local Government to make it mandatory for them to plan at least 20-30% of their budget to be spent for social services delivery. Not having a legal obligation in place, it allows for municipalities a wide space to spend the citizens taxes into projects that do not necessarily help the ones most in need such as Roma for example. Further to this a set % of the new Social Fund that will be established as a legal requirement from the new Law on Social Care shall be also made available to support the strengthening of services for the most vulnerable groups in society;

- The Ministry of Education and Sports in cooperation with the Municipalities shall seek to establish a national programme for the provision of a free meal in public kindergartens and schools for children whose parents receive cash handouts, as a tool to support their education, development and welfare;

- Municipalities shall draft and approve in their City Councils the list of basic services that they are required by the law to provide for every citizen in their territory.

- It is up to the Municipalities to exercise their right to provide their services for the children most in need for free. Children who have access to good early childhood services become future taxpayers and their development is a development for the society.

- Finally, Mayors and city council members shall provide a fair share of taxes for their citizens. According to many studies, local government units budget is spent for large projects (roads and infrastructure), while social services delivery is limited only to provision of salaries for the staff. This mindset and attitude of leadership towards investments in social care and development needs to be improved based on the relationship that the lack of investments of social capital has in the development of cities and regions.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CRCA Children’s Human Rights Centre of Albania

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CPU Child Protection Unit CPU

DAR Regional Education Directorate

ECD Early Childhood development

ECE Early Childhood education

ECDE Early Childhood development and education

INSTAT National Institute of Statistics

LGU Local Government Unit

MES Ministry of Education and Sports

MSWY Ministry of Social Welfare and Youth

OBS Observatory for Children’s Rights

OSFA Open Society Foundation in Albania

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

VKM Decision of the Council of the Ministers

YWCA Young Women Christian Organisation

TABLES

Table 1: Number of the respondents (in %) Table 2: Number of the municipalities taking part in the survey Table 3: Municipalities that responded to our survey (according to No. of respondents and gender) Table 4: Department in municipality responsible for Roma issues (n) Table 5: Referral and support mechanisms for Roma children in municipalities

GRAPHICS

Graph 1: Number of Roma children living in Albania per age (Roma Census 2014) Graph 2: Pyramid of Roma children population (2011 versus 2014 in No.) Graph 3: % of the respondents based on their position (Municipalities) Graph 4: Sample geographical distribution (in No.) Graph 5: Gender of the respondents (in %) Graph 6: Position of the respondents at the Municipalities (n/%) Graph 7: Department in municipalities responsible for Roma issues (n/%) Graph 8: Inclusion of Roma issues in the planning and service delivery process (in %) Graph 9: Level of drafting and approval of Social Action Plans (in %) Graph 10: Specific budget for action plan implementation (in %) Graph 11: Municipalities budget for ECD services Graph 12: Municipalities referral or supporting mechanisms for Roma children and families Graph 13: Early childhood education as a priority area for municipalities Graph 14: Number of staff working in the ECD section Graph 15: Municipality quotas for vulnerable children Graph 16: Frequency of visits of Roma at Municipalities Graph 17: Reasons of Roma citizens visiting municipalities Graph 18: Age-groups of Roma requiring local government services Graph 19: Level of service delivery for Roma children at municipalities Graph 20: Right to complain on denial of access to service Graph 21: Which is the office to deal with complaints in the municipality Graph 22: On which issues Roma people complained most during last year Graph 23: Degree of compatibility of attitudes of the public officials towards Roma families

CHAPTER 1:

Municipalities as providers of local services for Roma children

The Republic of Albania is a unitary country, divided into 12 regions (Qark), with limited role, and 61 urban and rural municipalities. Following its application for EU membership, Albania launched a new initiative to further the decentralization and reform the country’s territorial organization in 2011. In 2014, the Law No. 115/2014 “On Administrative-Territorial Division of the Local Government Units in the Republic of Albania” reduced the number of local governments’ unites from 373 to 61. The communes and municipalities to be eliminated after this division function as constituent administrative units of the new municipalities2.

The objectives of the Territorial reform were (1) administrative and financial consolidation of the municipalities and institutional and (2) infrastructure support to the 12 regions and 61 new municipalities. Local governments’ autonomy has been consecrated by the decentralization laws. According to this principle and legislation, their competences and resources are clearly defined in coherence with a prevailing subsidiarity principle. Local governments have few social sector responsibilities. They share responsibilities with the central government on matters such as social services, health care and education. Their own competences are: infrastructure, water supply and sewerage, cleaning and waste removal3.

The Census 2011 of the National Institute of Statistics in Albania puts the number of resident Roma population living in the country at 8,301 or 0.3% of the population living in Albania4. However, almost 391,000 people (14%) of population in Albania preferred not to answer to the question on their ethnicity and/or cultural affiliation. In the same year UNICEF funded the process of mapping of Roma Children in Albania, the first kind of study looking in depth into issues concerning Roma children wellbeing and their families5. The study reported that 14,564 Roma were living in Albania at the time, including 6,304 children up to 18 years old. In 2013, OSFA funded Roma Population and Housing Census, to collect extensive information on Roma population living in Albania. Data from the Census was made public by mid-2014 and among other issues it reported that 18,276 Roma people were living in Albania, including 6,779 children below 17 years old. The diagram below shows the distribution of children per age.

2 OECD country profile: Albania. File can be found in the link: http://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-Albania.pdf 3 idem 4 Population and housing Census 2011, Albanian National Institute of Statistics, Tirana 2012. 5 Gedeshi I., Jorgoni E., “Mapping Roma Children in Albania”, UNICEF and CESS, Tirana 2011.

Comparing the Roma Mapping with the Census 2014, we observed an expected progression of the number of Roma children living in Albania. From 2011 to 2014 the Roma children population increased by 475 or 7.5% more children in 3 years6.

Graphic 1: Number of Roma children living in Albania per age (Roma Census 2014)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Child's age

When it comes to gender disaggregated data on children gets blurry. The 2011 Census reported few age-based data’s among Roma children. Meanwhile Roma Mapping reported that children in overall represented 43.3% of the Roma population, but few references were placed on the gender.

Roma Census 2014 reported that children represent 37% of the Roma population, while when it came to gender 50.4% of Roma population were males and 49.6 were female. Based on the data of 2011 and 2014 we build a pyramid of Roma children population comparing data from 2011 and 2014 (see below) that show how the Roma children population has progressed during the last 3 years.

6 Roma Census 2014, Study of Albanian Communities, Open Society Foundation in Albania (Soros), Tirana 2014.

Graph 2: Pyramid of Roma children population (2011 versus 2014)

17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 210 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 2011, Girls 2011, Boys 2014 Girls 2014 Boys

Roma people live mainly in homogenous settlements across 12 regions of Albania and 61 new municipalities. The majority of the families are living beside or in the largest urban centres across western and central parts of Albania, with Korca being the second city in Albania with the largest number of Roma families after Tirana7, while Elbasan and Fier regions are 3rd and 4th in raking per number of Roma families. Roma inhabit urban areas at a higher rate compared to non-Roma populations. At least 68% of Roma people live in urban areas compared to 53.5 of the general population.

Although it is assumed that by living in urban areas people have higher chances to access public services, employment, goods and services, data shows that most of the Roma people do not benefit equally as the non-Roma people. At least 69% of Roma families live on 15,000 Lek monthly income (approx. 4.5 USD a day), while 23% of them live on 166 lek a day (approx. 1.5 USD a day). Roma Census 2014 also found that 80% of Roma families don’t have access to warm water, while 16% of them don’t have access at all in water and 11% don’t have access to electricity8. When it comes to employment 74% of Roma people declare themselves as unemployed compared to 15% that is the national unemployment rate in Albania.

The new mandate of the Municipalities, based on the new territorial reform of 2015, gave them also a large role on financing and maintaining new and existing social and education services in their territories. Yet, few municipalities were equipped with departments and staff to deal with this larger mandate.

Local services are funded mainly by the Budget of the Municipality, approved by the City Council and the grants they receive from central government. Local governments revenues are divided between grants (conditional and unconditional national transfers) for the most part, and own revenues (by the collection of license fees and local taxes). The concept of unconditional transfer for local governments was adopted in the State Budget Law of 2001, and developed further with the - fiscal reform package adopted by Parliament in December 2002 that increased the

7 Roma Census 2014, Study of Albanian Communities, Open Society Foundation in Albania (Soros), Tirana 2014. 8 idem

autonomy of municipalities and communes to generate revenues from local taxes and fees and determine their rates. Albania has the smallest local government sector in terms of public revenues of the NALAs region9.

The LGU-s have the following duties: (a) construction and reconstruction of the buildings of the public educational institutions; (b) to guarantee the integrity of the educational institutions, within their jurisdiction; (c) protection and maintenance of public educational institutions; (d) to guarantee hygienic and sanitary conditions and heating in the public educational institutions. The LGU, in cooperation with the local educational institutions is responsible for the registration of the pupils in the full time obligatory educational system. The LGU, in cooperation with the local educational institutions and the Teacher’s Councils supports the category of pupils in difficulties10.

There is a large discrepancy between available kindergartens in urban areas (316) compared to rural ones (1457) that serve respectively to 51% and 48.9% of children with a ratio of 123.4 children per kindergarten in urban areas and only 25.6% children in rural ones. Most Roma families live in urban areas, thus the access of Roma children into kindergartens becomes further difficult because of the lack of available places in kindergartens in urban areas11.

Almost 60% of Roma children population between 3-6 years of age is attending kindergartens. From 2011 to 2014 the numbers of Roma children attending kindergartens increased by 2/3 or otherwise 282 more children are attending kindergartens across Albania. Data from the Roma households in 2011 showed that there were 38312 Roma children attending kindergarten, while in 2014 there were 665 children.

Law” No.69/2012 dated 21.06.2012, on “Pre-university educational system in the Republic of Albania” regulates the basic principles for the structure, the activity and the governing of the pre-university educational system in Albania. Local government units (LGU) are responsible for improving the quality of educational service for the pupils in the educational institution, according to the legislation.

The Law13 requires from every Municipality in Albania (article 36) among other duties to prepare “evaluate the needs based on the vulnerability map; draft local social plans; plan the budget accordingly; and, plan the basket of basic services in the territory”.

9OECD country profile: Albania. File can be found in the link: http://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-Albania.pdf 10 Legal Framework for Public Services Sectors at local government units in Albania. Information provided at the official page of the Territorial Reform in Albania, at the following link: http://www.reformaterritoriale.al/en/home/amalgamation-guidelines 11 Hazizaj A., Elezi P., Ballo M., Access of Roma Children to Early Childhood Services in Albania, CRCA, Tirana 2015. 12 Gedeshi I., Jorgoni E., “Mapping Roma Children in Albania”, page 39, UNICEF and CESS, Tirana 2011. 13 Law No. 121/2016 “For Social Care in the Republic of Albania”

CHAPTER 2:

Methodology of the survey

The aim of this research survey was to measure the level of access of Roma children and their parents in local social services and the openness of the municipalities to provide services to their Roma constituents without exclusion or discrimination.

Beyond this, the survey wanted to consider how the newly organised 61 municipalities were planning their services, based on a bigger territory and population, for all social groups of their inhabitants and if the Roma people were part of setting up new priorities for the few years to come. The law on LGU mandates municipalities with the obligation to prepare and approve local social plans, which then shall be implemented in yearly bases. Such plans make the basis for providing services for the most people in need living in the territory of a municipality, while the budget is funded from mainly two sources: central government (through grants) and local government one (based on the collection and administration of local taxes).

ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

• Measuring the perceptions and level of services provided by local government offices for Roma children and their families in Albania;

• Observation of personal and institutional factors and the role they play in the provision of local services to Roma children;

• Recognizing the barriers that may affect the services provision by public officials;

• Capture the situation and the level of delivery of local services to Roma people, by means of self-evaluation;

This chapter provides a detailed view on the methods used in this study in view of the objectives and purpose of the research, describing the population of the study, data analysis methods, ethical considerations and limitations etc.

TYPOLOGY

In order to reach the purpose and objectives of this research and to address the questions of the study, a quantitative methodological approach was selected, where the sample was determined

taking into consideration the number of public sector employees in every municipality where 2014 Roma Census shows that Roma people are living. We looked as well as into studying the sectors that the local government has a duty to offer services for their residents. The collected and analysed data, including the sample, are not representative, regardless of the tendencies, differences or commonalities that the sample may show, by comparison from the municipality to the municipality.

INSTRUMENT AND DATA COLLECTION

Review of documents and reports

In the first phase of the study, a series of documents and reports on the situation, rights and discrimination of Roma people were reviewed. During this phase, the study also focused on reviewing policy documents and the legal framework for Roma children in Albania. Part of this analysis are also the indicators and findings from the analysis, evaluation reports and national and international studies in this field. The quantitative data for this study were collected in the middle of 2016 and data was during 2017.

Quantitative method

The study was conducted in an environment where previously few surveys or studies were conducted in this research field. The researchers prepared the instrument (questionnaire) throughout 2016 and tested it in advance in two focus groups with selected representatives from all municipalities part of the study.

The research tool contained 35 multiple choice questions, which can be divided into 4 areas: (a) general aspects of the interviewee (city, age, gender), (b) self-evaluation of the level of services provided to Roma children, (c) personal attitudes and perceptions towards Roma children and families (Level of acceptance or rejection), and finally (d) the need for training or recognition of the law on protection from discrimination.

Researchers decided that the survey tool (questionnaire) would be self-fulfilled by local government employees at two levels: (a) senior level, corresponding to positions such as vice- Mayor or head of social services department; (b) middle level, corresponding mainly with the position of child protection officer or a similar position at the municipality. The aim of this sample distribution was to capture as much as possible the opinions of various levels of power and roles within one municipality, by hoping to avoid any influence or interference from external interviewers, because it was also a sensitive topic where officials could feel pressured Performed better if they were interviewed by an unknown person.

SAMPLE OF THE SURVEY

The population of this survey (sample) were only representative of different hierarchical levels or occupations and positions in municipalities across Albania. The municipalities were selected due to presence of the of the Roma children and their families in the territory.

In total, 60 questionnaires were distributed in 30 municipalities, 2 questionnaires per municipality. In total, 40 questionnaires were filled, answered and sent back to our interviewers,

corresponding with answers from 27 municipalities. At several municipalities, the instrument of the survey was filled only by one person, depending on the roles and permissions required by the middle-level managers to answer to our request for interview.

The survey in each Municipality was carried by our trained interviewers, from the three organisations part of the initiative. In total, more than 12 interviewers were used to meet with the local authorities, share with them the information on the survey’s aim and objectives etc.

Table 1: No of respondents % Senior 14 35% Middle level (Child Protection Unit CPU) 26 65% Gjithsej 40 100%

Graph 3: % of the respondents based on their position (Municipalities) 50 150% 40 30 100% 20 50% 10 0 0% Senior level Middle level (CPU) Total

No of respondents %

From the table, we can see that 35% of the respondents were senior officials of the Municipalities across Albania, while 65% were officials mainly from Child Protection Units (CPU’s). The sample is quite balanced and in our opinion it provides an opportunity to capture the overall factors that influence service provisions and the attitudes among senior and middle level officials when they deal with Roma children and their families.

ETHICAL ASPECTS

In the pursuit and respect of the ethical principles upon which this study was established, in none of the cases the researchers did exert any pressure during the study. The subjects were asked if they were interested in participating in the study and were informed about their contribution from such participation.

In some cases, the selected subjects decided not to take part in the study. The interviewing teams made it clear that their participation was not mandatory and it was their right to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, or the right not to answer questions that could to be sensitive to them. Entities were informed in advance of their selection, study purpose, and duration of completion of the questionnaire and were asked to give their consent for inclusion or not in the study.

The researchers were very careful in respecting ethical considerations, such as:

. Confidentiality - Data obtained for this study not used for any other purpose other than the one disclosed.

. Anonymity - all conversations and questionnaires were developed respecting the right to maintain anonymity. Due to the sensitivity of the case, the subjects were assured that information provided by them would be treated in the most confidential way possible.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study does not generalise its findings beyond the target. The selected sample is not representative and thus does not represent the overall attitudes and level of services that thousands of municipality workers provide for the citizens in their territory.

All opinions shared by the respondents of the survey are preserved in their original form and cannot be generalized beyond the comparative level between the municipalities.

The study was built entirely within its scope and on data that were not intended to describe real experiences or the victimization of any Roma child or family. It doesn’t describe either the situation of Roma minority in 27 municipalities that answered to our interviewers.

Data analysis is based solely on what employees have stated in the survey instrument. They were analysed by a senior statistician with a great degree of experience on Roma population issues, employment, education etc.

CHAPTER 3

Results of the Survey

3.1 MUNICIPALITIES PROVIDING SERVICES FOR ROMA CHILDREN

In total 27 municipalities, out of 30 that were approached, answered to the survey. In total 40 public officials answered our questionnaire, coming from different levels of duties and responsibilities at municipalities in north, central and south of the country.

Table 2: Municipalities taking part in the survey (n) Total 27 North 5 Central 11 South 11

The geographical distribution of respondents follows mainly the same path as where the Roma population lives in Albania, with north having the least number of Roma children and families (18%) and an equal share between central and south of Albania (41% respectively).

Graph 4: Sample geographical distribution (%)

North Central South 18%

41%

GENDER AND THE WORK POSITION OF THE RESPONDENTS

As we can see from the Graph 5 the majority of the respondents in the survey are women (70%) and only 30% of them are man. As data and researches have shown in many studies social services are mainly run by women in Albania, a number that is reflected also in the large number of girls that study for social sciences at Universities, so there is no surprise to this disproportional representation of women in the sample study.

Graph 5: Gender of the respondents (in %)

30% Men Women 70%

The level and the position that public officials hold at the municipalities are an important aspect in order to understand the factors that influence service provisions. They have different roles and responsibilities and consequently their work plays an immense role to guarantee that every Roma child receives without prejudice or discrimination the legally required services. In our survey, more than 60% of the respondents were from middle level management (mainly staff working for CPU’s), while 35% were senior level mangers such as vice-mayors or head of social services departments.

Graph 6: Position of the respondents at the Municipalities (n/%) 30 70% 25 60% 20 50% 40% 15 30% 10 20% 5 10% 0 0% Senior level Middle level (CPU)

No of respondents %

MUNICIPALITIES THAT RESPONDED TO OUR SURVEY

Table 3: Municipalities that responded to our survey (according to number of respondents and gender)

Municipality Number of respondents Men Women

Total 40 12 28 BERAT 1 1 0 BILISHT 2 0 2 CERRIK 2 1 1 DELVINE 1 1 0 DIBER 2 2 0 DURRES 1 1 0 ELBASAN 2 1 1 FIER 1 1 0 FINIQ 2 1 1 FUSHE KRUJE 1 1 0 GJIROKASTER 2 0 2 KAMEZ 1 1 0 KAVAJE 1 1 0 KORÇE 2 2 0 KRUJE 1 1 0 KUKES 2 1 1 KURBIN 1 1 0 LEZHE 1 1 0 PEQIN 2 0 2 POGRADEC 2 1 1 RROGOZHINE 2 2 0 SARANDE 1 1 0 SHKODER 2 2 0 SUKTH 1 1 0 TIRANE 2 1 1 URE VAJGURORE 1 1 0 VLORE 1 1 0

As we have mentioned above in total 27 municipalities out of 30 approached by the survey teams answered to our survey or otherwise a 90% response rate. Among the main refusal factors that several municipalities had were (a) lack of a Child Protection Unit in place or staff and (b) lack of time, as the municipalities at the time of the survey were dealing with the implementation of the new powers deriving from the territorial and administrative reform.

The same argument was valid also when considering the number of respondents within one municipality, as in some there was only one and in some as required by the survey, there were two respondents. One should not neglect also the fact that some public officials did not want to provide information in order to avoid looking “not good” in the public eye since the survey would be able to look into how municipalities provide service delivery for Roma children. For survey purposes, we can say that 13 out 27 Municipalities had 2 respondents (48%), while 52% had only one respondent.

IS THERE ANY DEPARTMENT IN YOUR MUNICIPALITY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ROMA ISSUES?

In the second part of the questionnaire, municipalities were asked to identify if in their organogram, they had any sector or department dealing with Roma issues.

Table 4: Department dealing with Roma Issues in Municipalities

No % Yes 28 70% No 12 30% Total 40 100%

Graph 7: Is there any department in your municipality that is responsible for Roma issues? 30 80% 70% 25 60% 20 50% 15 40% 30% 10 20% 5 10% 0 0% Yes No

No %

As we can see from Table 4 and the corresponding graph, 70% of the municipalities have a department dealing with Roma issues, while a considerable 30% don’t have one. The concept of “department” in the survey and in this study, was used in a wider term, meaning a sector or office within the municipality dealing among other issues also with Roma.

As we will see later, this aspect is important because it relates to how the new municipalities in Albania plan and deliver their services for their constituents, including Roma children and their families and above that, how does the lack of having such a department can influence the situation of Roma in each municipal territory. The Law14 requires from every Municipality in Albania (article 36) among other duties to prepare “evaluate the needs based on the vulnerability map; draft local social plans; plan the budget accordingly; and, plan the basket of basic services in the territory”.

14 Law No. 121/2016 “For Social Care in the Republic of Albania”

WERE ROMA ISSUES INCLUDED IN THE DATA COLLECTION, CONSULTATIONS AND PREPARATIONS OF SOCIAL PLANS?

Graphic 8: Inclusion of Roma issues in the planning and service delivery process (in %) 40 80% 30 60% 20 40% 10 20% 0 0% Yes No Don’t know

No %

As mentioned above the Law on Social Care requires from each municipality to establish a process of consultation, planning, drafting and approving social plans and respective budget. As such the survey considered how many municipalities had already carried out this process and if the Roma children issues and needs were included. As we can observe, 70% of officials in municipalities have already encompassed the issue in their plans, while 13% of them have not. It should be noted that the survey took place very soon after the establishment of the new municipalities, thus some of social plans had not started to be drafted yet. A 13% of the officials don’t know if the Roma children issues were part of such planning process. This is quite significant since it tells us that there is a lack of information flow when it comes to the planning of local policies and actions between various levels of management inside a municipality.

DOES YOUR MUNICIPALITY HAVE A LOCAL ACTION PLAN IN SUPPORT OF ROMA PEOPLE?

20 50%

40% 15 30% 10 20% 5 10%

0 0% Yes No Is being drafted Don’t know

No %

In continuation of the above question, the survey asked the municipalities to identify if such plans were prepared and approved. Less than a quarter of municipalities (23%) have already approved such plans, while more than 40% of the officials’ state that they are still in drafting process (as of 2016). What is concerning for us is the high percentage of officials (18%) that do not know if such process and policies are in place.

IS THERE A SPECIFIC BUDGET TO FUND SUCH A PLAN?

Graph 10: Specific buddget for action plan implementation 12 50%

10 40% 8 30% 6 20% 4

2 10%

0 0% Yes No Don’t know

No %

Budget plays an important part in implementing the action plans and achieving the goals and objectives. The officials who said that they already had approved actions plans in their respective municipalities, were asked to identify if there was also an approved budget to facilitate the implementation. As we can see from the Graph 10, only 35% of the municipalities have a budget to implement the Social Action Plans, while 40% of the officials stated that they don’t know if such a budget was available. Such a significant percentage of “don’t knows” among public officials tells us that the preparation of the budgets in municipalities is not a joint exercise among all the departments and sectors, but probably a process concentrated only in few people who deal with finance management and probably the Mayor. This could also explain why many national and local policies are not implemented.

IS THERE A SPECIFIC BUDGET TO FUND EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES?

Graph 11: Municipalities budget for ECD services 20 50%

15 40% 30% 10 20% 5 10% 0 0% Yes No Don’t know

No %

Only 32% of the municipalities officials’ state that they have a budget for early childhood services, while almost 40% of them do not have such a budget. The trend of not knowing if such a budget exists continues in this part of the survey, where 29% of the respondents stated this fact. The data presents an interesting fact in policy implications, since it is not clear how most the municipalities fund appropriately their policies and services, if no budget provisions are in place.

DOES YOUR MUNICIPALITY HAVE A REFERRAL AND SUPPORT SYSTEM OR MECHANISM FOR ROMA CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES?

Graph 12: Municipalities referral or supporting mechanisms for Roma 50% children and families 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ECD support Protection from Dealing with social Health issues Counceling / There is no referral violence & needs / social emotional support mechanism discrimination exclusion from your services or NGO ones

Law on Child Protection requires the Municipalities to have a referral system in place to protect children whenever their rights are violated. As we can see, only 18 out of 27 municipalities state that they have some sort of a system or mechanism for referral or the support of Roma children and their families. The survey aimed to identify through this question if the municipalities had already established an institutionalised system of recording and dealing with Roma children issues when they are faced with them and what will be the purpose of such referral and support. Table 5 shows us how the officials answered for this question:

Table 5: Referral and support mechanisms for Roma children in municipalities

No % ECD support 18 45% Protection from violence & discrimination 16 40% Dealing with social needs / social exclusion 14 35% Health issues 9 23% Counselling / emotional support from your services or NGO 13 33% ones There is no referral mechanism 4 10%

As we can see from Table 5 only 10% of the officials declare that their municipality doesn’t have a system of support of referral in place for Roma children (and generally for all vulnerable or children at risk). A considerable percentage of the public officials’ state that the main aim of such systems or mechanisms is to provide early childhood support (45%), protection from discrimination and violence (40%), dealing with social needs of children, counselling or health issues. What we understand from this is that municipalities across Albania are faced with a large magnitude of issues when dealing with Roma children and only such institutional tools make it possible to assist Roma children and families when they face crises or difficulties. Therefore, measuring the access to such services and how they work to protect children is of immense importance.

IS EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION OF ROMA CHILDREN A PRIORITY FOR YOUR MUNICIPALITY?

As we can observe from Graph 13, early childhood education is one of the priority areas of the newly established municipalities in Albania.

Graph 13: Early childhood education as a priority area for municipalities 35 90% 30 80% 70% 25 60% 20 50% 15 40% 30% 10 20% 5 10% 0 0% Yes No Don’t know

No %

Only 8% of municipalities’ officials said that ECD was not a priority policy area and another 10% of them don’t know if it is. Meanwhile a significant 83% of the officials stated that early childhood education is their municipality priority. What data tells us beyond the percentages is that municipalities across Albania consider ECD an important part of their work and prioritise it among many other issues that they have to deal on daily bases. This means that there are considerable opportunities to support policy, programme and budgetary development for early childhood development and education.

DOES THE MUNICIPALITY HAS AN ECD SECTION?

In continuation of the above question, the survey looked to observe if the municipalities had in place the institutional capacities and organisation to answer to the ECD being a priority for most of the officials.

Table 6: Municipality organisation for ECD

No. % Yes 14 38% No 16 43% Don’t know 7 19%

As we can see from the answers a significant percentage of the respondents assert that even though ECD is a priority for their municipality yet institutionally they lack organisational capacities to implement the policies and action plans. Only 38% of the officials they say that they have an established section to deal with ECD, while majority of them (43%) said their municipality doesn’t have such a section. A considerable 19% of the respondents don’t know if such a section exists in their municipality.

NUMBER OF STAFF SERVING IN THE ECD SECTION / DEPARTMENT

Graph 14: Number of staff working in the ECD section 6 50% 5 40% 4 30% 3 20% 2 1 10% 0 0% None 1 person 2 persons 5 persons 7 persons

Nr %

The municipalities that answered yes the previous section, were asked to identify how many people were working in this section / department. As we can see in the graph 14, the majority of the municipalities have assigned only one person to work in such section (40%), followed by two persons (28%) etc. 10% of the officials stated that their municipality doesn’t have a person employed in such a section, which again raises the question on how does the municipality implements its policies on early childhood development and education. Almost 20% of the officials affirmed that such offices have 7 or more employees, which will be typically for the largest municipalities in Albania, such as Tirana for example.

DOES THE MUNICIPALITY HAS SET QUOTAS TO GUARANTEE REGISTRATION ON CRECHES AND KINDERGARTENS OF VULNERABLE CHILDREN?

Graph 14: Municipality quotas for vulnerable children 25 70% 60% 20 50% 15 40% 10 30% 20% 5 10% 0 0% Yes No Don’t know

No. %

Only 15% of respondents affirm that the municipality has setup positive measures (quotas) for the inclusion of Roma and other vulnerable children in public creches and kindergartens, while almost 60% of them declare that there are no such quotas in place. Positive measures such as setting up quotas give to vulnerable groups an opportunity to access services that are typically accessed by those who have more opportunities. A sizable percentage of officials (28%) don’t know if such measures are in place in their municipality.

3.2 ACCESS OF ROMA CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN MUNICIPALITY SERVICES ACROSS ALBANIA

Several laws in Albania define the access to services open to everyone without prejudice and discrimination. Law for protection from Discrimination regulates access to three principal areas: employment, education and public or private services (Art 20 of the Law). Meanwhile the new law for Social Care in Albania of 2017 also provides a wide set of guarantees for the access to social services of everyone who needs them. Yet in the day to day running of social services we see that most vulnerable groups of the society not always have such an access to public services, be that social one, education or justice.

This section of the survey provides information on how public officials in municipalities evaluate the level of the services they provide to Roma children and their families.

HOW OFTEN DO ROMA CHILDREN AND FAMILIES VISIT YOUR PREMISES?

Graph 16: Frequency of visits of Roma at Municipalities

45% 40% 40% 38% 35% 30% 25% 25% 20% 15% 10% 8% 8% 5% 3% 0% Daily Weekly Monthly Every 6 months Once a year Don’t know

Roma children and families from the data of the survey seem to be frequent visitors of the Municipalities, which also shows the magnitude of the issues they face in their lives and how much external assistance they need from the responsible authorities. Even though social services delivery are a shared responsibility of local governments and national ones, yet the Municipalities are legally binding to provide services to the inhabitants of their territory. Public officials affirm that at least 40% of them have daily contacts with Roma children and families, another 38% on weekly bases and 25% of them on monthly bases. Such a large percentage of contacts among municipal officials and Roma people doesn’t tell us only the issues that Roma families face, but at the same time at a certain degree the inability of the Municipalities to find sustainable solutions to the difficulties that Roma children and parents face. Only 3% of the officials meet with Roma once a year.

MAIN REASONS FOR SUCH VISITS

Graph 17: Reasons of Roma citizens visiting municipalities

No Services were required 5%

Free school / kindergarten 'transport 10%

Civil registration 23%

Child registration in kindergarten 28%

Registration of child in creche 15%

Legal aid 8%

Shelter / Housing 75%

Food 60%

Cash handouts 93%

Employment 43%

Discrimination 8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

There is a magnitude of reasons why Roma children and their families visits and meets with officials at municipalities across Albania. The survey wanted to get a wide picture of the areas on where such visits consisted and for that reason, a various range of options were included.

As we can observe from Graph 17, almost 93% of respondents stated that “cash handouts” or otherwise known in day to day language as “economic aid” is the main reason why Roma children and families visit their premises. Another significant reason is “shelter and housing” which counts for 75% of the respondents, followed by “food” on 60% of cases and employment for 43% of the officials. Apart from the last reason, all the other ones show the dire situation that Roma families live and how much support they need from their elected officials. Beyond this, what we can logically observe is the fact that public policy if not failed hasn’t been able to solve the poverty issue for Roma families across Albania.

AGE-GROUP OF THE ROMA PEOPLE REQUIRING LOCAL SERVICES

Graph 18: Age-groups of Roma requiring local government services 80% 75% 65% 60% 55% 38% 38% 40% 20% 20% 8% 0% Up to 7 7-15 15-18 18-25 25-35 35-50 above 50

Graph 18 shows that there is a wide range of age-groups among Roma people that visit and meet with officials at municipalities. Yet 75% of officials stated that the age group 25-35 is the ones they meet most often, followed by 35-50 years old (65%) and 18-25 years old (55%). This corresponds also with the youthful age that many Roma parents have and consequently the problems (reported above) they face to support often their poor families.

LEVEL OF SERVICES DELIVERED TO ROMA CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES

Graph 19: Level of service delivery for Roma children at municipalities

120% Never Sometimes Often 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Frindly We facilitate the We provide every Free of charge We refuse service Staff has Relationship with environment families for opportunity to help to register delivery because communication Roma families is established for children to attend receive cash children in civil they are a issues with Roma conflictual and services delivery creches and handouts registration office diffficult group to people because often ends to kindergartens (economical aid) work with of language insults barriers Access to public services is one of the basic social rights for people. Graph 19 shows that in the majority of cases Roma children and their families have full access to local government services, as stated by the public officials. Yet we see that in several occasions children and families are denied their right to access such services. 3 percent of the officials declare that they have refused to deliver services because Roma are a difficult social group to work with. Meanwhile 8% of the respondents accepted that they charged Roma families to register in the civil registration office. More than 5% of respondents said that they have difficulties to communicate with Roma children and their families, because of the language.

CAN ROMA COMPLAIN IF THEY ARE DENIED ACESS TO LOCAL SERVICES?

Graph 20: Right to complain on denial of acess to service 40 100%

20 50%

0 0% Yes No Don’t know

No %

At least 3% of the municipality officials affirmed in the survey that Roma people do not have the right to complaint if local services are denied to them by local government officials. Another 8 percent declared that they didn’t know if this was possible. Even though law regulates and guarantees the right of every citizen to complain for lack of services, as this is a constitutional and legal right, a number of local officials believe that this is not possible. What this tells us is that at least 3% of public officials have a limited information on the legal instruments and protection of human rights for every citizen in their administrative territory.

IF YES, WHAT OFFICE DEALS WITH SUCH COMPLAINTS?

Graph 21: Which is the body to deal with complaints in the municipality

Mayor 51%

Public Relations Office (Municipality) 43%

Social Services Dept (Municipality) 49%

Child Protection Unit 46%

38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 54%

It was quite surprising to see in the Graph 21 that the main body to deal with citizens’ complaints is the Mayor’s office (51%), followed by Social Services Department (49 %), Child Protection Unit (46 %) and finally PR/Citizens Office (43%). As one can see from the graph the municipalities do have mechanisms in place to deal with complaints, yet it seems that cultural factors influence the approach that Roma citizens have towards the authority of the Mayor. It shall be noted that Mayors are the only elected official at Municipality level thus the relationship between such leadership position and the constituents seems to be maintained on this occasion too. It is not the aim of this survey to say whether this is a good and terrible thing. What concerns us is that the lack of protocols for such complaints made at the highest level, could trigger compliance issues or could feed corruptive practices among the elected public officials and their constituents.

ISSUES THAT ROMA PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES

Graph 22: On which issues Roma people complained most during last year

None of the mentioned ones 6%

Lack of infrastructure (road, power, water etc) 3%

Lack of housing / shelter 77%

Lack of registration to creches / kindergartens 17%

Lack of food for child/ren 40%

Discrimination or lack of access to public services 14%

Lack of assistance for registration to the Civil… 11%

Lack of cash handouts 49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Graph 22 shows the number of respondents’ answers to the question “On what issues did Roma children and families complained most during the last year”. As we can see the highest number of complaints were made in relation to absence of housing / shelter (77%) followed by absence of cash handouts (almost 50%) and a considerable 40% of complaints were related to lack of food for children. Complains were made also in relation to civil registration, kindergartens etc.

Previous researches have shown us that Roma children make up 38% of the Roma population living in Albania15. Yet their livning situations are some of the worst. The Roma Population and Housing Census (2013), collected extensive information on Roma housing and living conditions. The study found that Roma inhabit urban areas at a higher rate compared to non-Roma populations.

At least 68% of Roma people live in urban areas compared to 53.5 for the general population. Roma people do not benefit equally as the non-Roma people. At least 69% of Roma families live on 15,000 Lek monthly income (approx. 4.5 USD a day), while 23% of them live on 166 lek a day (approx. 1.5 USD a day). Roma Census 2014 also found that 80% of Roma families don’t have access to warm water, while 16% of them don’t have access at all in water and 11% don’t have access to electricity16. When it comes to employment 74% of Roma people declare themselves as unemployed compared to 15% that is the national unemployment rate in Albania.

15 Roma Census 2014, Study of Albanian Communities, Open Society Foundation in Albania (Soros), Tirana 2014. 16 idem

3.3 ATTITUDES TOWARDS ROMA IN MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS ALBANIA

Attitudes play an important role in service delivery. Studies have linked the quality of public services with a range of factors that impacts positive or negative attitudes towards beneficiaries such as organisational climate, relationships and coordination17. Based on this approach the instrument of the survey aimed to identify the impact that the societal attitudes of public officials have on service delivery for Roma children and their families.

Officials of the municipalities were asked a set of statement on which they had to express their degree of agreement from “not at all” to “a lot”, which represented the least or complete form of acceptance. All of the questions were based on multiple optional choices in order to fully understand the degree of the compatibility of the officials’ attitudes towards Roma children and parents. The statements included both negative and positive statements. This was done in order to let us understand the volume of their attitudes, thinking and behaviours and how they affect the provision of services in local government units.

Graph 23: Degree of compatability in relation to services

Segregated services are not in the benefit of anyone

Sugragated services are for the benefit of the society

Segregated services are for the benefit of the Roma people

They should get segregated services

Roma people should not get services in our offices

Roma people should receive specialied services destined only for them

They shall reveive services like everyone else

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

A lot Somehow A little Not at all No answer

Graph 23 provides information (in %) on the degree of the compatibility for each of the statements as explained above. Meanwhile Graph 23 provides a visual description of the answers.

As we can see from the table there is a range of attitudes that we can observe from the answers of the respondents. Public officials hold many conflicting views when it comes to service provisions delivery for Roma children and their families. Such views seem to influence also their attitudes, that in some cases are related to their legal duties and responsibilities, while on some occasions they are influenced by prejudices or lack of information.

17 Glisson C., Hemmelgarn A., Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 22. No. 5, pp. 401–421, 1998

CHAPTER 4:

Findings and recommendations

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY

Structural and institutional deficiencies, lack of a democratic culture and little understanding of factors that influence poverty and social development, seems to play a key role in letting down Roma people in Albania. Despite the fact that there have been at least two national policies in place for the development of the Roma community, so far, they haven’t delivered the expected outcomes. As this assessment and many other sound studies have shown, Roma people continue to live in poverty and social inclusion, where the discrimination as the most probable cause of such suffering.

Personal and cultural factors among Roma communities may play a certain role in the general situation of Roma people and children in particular, yet they can’t fully explain or justify the high level of social exclusion and poverty among this social group. For this purpose, we looked into institutional and structural issues, in relation to how the inputs (policy) have influenced the outputs (deliverables such as programmes, budgets etc), and if these has played any role to change or improve the continuous situation under which Roma families live in Albania18.

Further to this the assessment looked into the delivery of services, mainly focused on social services, across 27 municipalities in Albania and correlate them with the needs of the Roma families, based on their complaints or reasons of their visits to the municipalities.

Based on this line of reasoning we could share the following findings from our assessment:

18 Based on model of systems theory of David Easton. A Systems Analysis of Political Life, 1965, New York.

Several studies nationally and internationally confirm that almost 80% of Roma people live in extreme or relative poverty. As such it shall not be a surprise that Municipalities are affronted daily with unresolved and consistent issues of Roma community. Information gathered from the questionnaires of public officials confirms this finding.

Roma complain or visit the premises of the municipalities to fulfil their most basic survival rights such as food, shelter or aid. The assessment found that at least 93% of Roma families visit municipalities to ask or complain about economic aid (cash handouts), 75% of Roma families ask for shelter, while 60% for food vouchers and 43% ask for employment.

Further to this at least 40% of Roma families visit the municipalities on daily bases while another 38% of them weekly. Such high turnout of visits come from all the age groups of Roma communities, including children and young people, which shows that the communities where such families are a conglomerate of daily problems to secure the survival of their children and families. Yet it seems that the institutions and their structures seem not to be able to provide a sustainable solution to Roma families issues.

It is our opinion that the Roma poverty continues to remain unresolved because the institutional policies have not been able to deliver for Roma people. As we will see below, lack of proper planning and budget, weak leadership and lack of support for staff and their services, institutional and personal attitudes, are among the main reasons why policies have been not able to bring a change in the lives of Roma people.

The assessment shows that despite the fact that more than 50% of the complains from Roma people is made directly to the Mayors and another 49% of them to the Social Services departments, yet municipal programmes to alleviate poverty, provide shelter, protection, education and preparation and access to employment, have not achieved the expected results.

This well could be related to structural problems that the functioning of local government units has, limited access of Roma people to democratically elected officials such as city council members, lack of accountability of public officials towards Roma people, since they represent a minority group or personal attitudes of officials towards Roma communities.

A substantial number of municipalities across Albania already have in place institutional structures to enable them to support the implementation of their policies in relation to Roma children and their families. Almost 70% of the municipalities officials declared that there is a section or a department within the municipality to deal with Roma issues. Meanwhile, at least 37% have an early childhood education section functioning. Having such structures in place should strengthen policy and programmatic work of the municipalities to achieve their goals and objectives in relation to children.

The new territorial reform of 2015 has given the 61 new municipalities a chance to initiate new policies to support the poorest members of their societies. They are facilitated in their work by a wide range of laws and policies that regulates the functioning of their institutions, their mandate and obligations towards the citizens. Law on Local Government is the bases of their functioning, while laws related to taxation, social services, children, women etc provide them the mandatory requirements to deliver services. Meanwhile several national policies such as

Social Inclusion policy, National Roma Action Plan, Children Agenda, National Youth Action Plan etc.

In this respect, the assessment found some positive developments across municipalities in Albania.

- At least 70% of the municipalities have a section or department dealing with Roma issues.

- At least 23% of municipalities have included Roma issues in their Social Plans, while another 40% were preparing them at the time of the interview;

- 92% of the municipalities’ officials state that early childhood is a priority for their municipality;

- At least 35% of officials stated that they have a budget to implement their Social Plans;

When it comes to identifying negative aspects into the work of the municipalities we observed the following:

- 40% of the public officials don’t know if they have budget for early childhood development and education;

- Only 45% of the officials declare that they have a referral and/or support mechanism in place for Roma children and their families;

- At least 60% of the municipalities do not have any quotas to support early childhood education or Roma children;

As the local government units aim to expand and strengthen their policy work in support of the development of the city, it becomes important that such progress doesn’t leave out the most vulnerable ones, be children, young people or adults. In this regard participation of the most vulnerable groups in the design of local policies and budgets becomes of prime importance, because their needs need to be reflected in the support programmes for early childhood development, child protection, alleviation of poverty, social services, employment etc.

RECOMMENDATIONS

At the conclusion of this assessment we have drafted a list of recommendations that aims to provide the policy makers at local and national level with an opportunity to start changing the situation of Roma communities across Albania and support Roma children early childhood development and protection.

For the Albanian Parliament and Government

- The cash handouts are providing a minimal support for the poorest families, yet they don’t support their education, personal strengthening or secured shelter. As such cash handouts programme in our opinion shall be closely combined with child allowance for food and education, mothers and fathers’ provisions of vocational training for employment and a range of good services of care such as free of charge creches and kindergartens. Such systematic approaches shall be measuring their success based on the outcomes of alleviating people out of poverty, and integrating them into education and employment.

- We recommend that the Parliament and the Government amend the Law on Local Government to make it mandatory for them to plan at least 20-30% of their budget to be spent for social services delivery. Not having a legal obligation in place, it allows for municipalities a wide space to spend the citizens taxes into projects that do not necessarily help the ones most in need such as Roma for example. Further to this a set percentage of the new Social Fund that will be established as a legal requirement from the new Law on Social Care shall be also made available to support the strengthening of services for the most vulnerable groups in society;

For Municipalities and local government structures

- Municipalities shall draft and approve in their City Councils the list of basic services that they are required by the law to provide for every citizen in their territory. Once they have done that, the staff needs to be prepared and provided with full support to offer such basic social services to every citizen in need without prejudice. Such services should include also early childhood development as a prerequisite to support child care and development;

- Training of staff on new legislation and policies in social care, child rights and Roma rights could bring a change into the attitudes of the public officials towards Roma people. Staff of municipalities shall make visits in premises where Roma families live in order to fully understand and evaluate their needs and provide them with necessary support that is legally required;

- Municipalities shall prepare and install in their day to day work a system of planning, reporting and accountability for social services towards their citizens. This should not only include reporting to city councils but also the provision of free public information on what their plans and actions are on yearly bases and how are they being implemented. Such transparency increases the delivery of social services especially for those most in need such as children and young people. Open information sessions and meetings,

webpages etc, increase the level of coordination among social partners in the planning and execution process;

- It is up to the Municipalities to exercise their right to provide their services for the children most in need for free. Human development requires that those in need are provided with opportunities that they can afford. Children who have access to good early childhood services become future taxpayers and their development is a development for the society.

- It is important for the Municipalities build a system of registering and reporting on citizens complaints in a sound manner. Several municipalities have started to setup such systems. It is important that they also include gender, age, minority status, service required and how the municipalities responded to the complaint. Such systems hold accountable the public officials, but at the same time they promote the delivery of public services in a timely and sound manner.

- Mayors and members of city councils have an obligation to support the staff of social services departments as they are usually that face the hardest and most difficult issues and complaints from the citizens, be they Roma children or other social groups. As such they shall not feel powerless to provide the services that by law are required. Further to this such backing shall include also a better supervision and technical support to facilitate their work for vulnerable children, but also exercise accountability and responsibility.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books, Reports and Publications

David Easton (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science.

David Easton (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis.

Brüggemann, C. (2012). Roma Education in Comparative Perspective. Analysis of the UNDP/World Bank/EC Regional Roma Study 2011.

Roma Census 2014, Study of Albanian Communities, Open Society Foundation in Albania (Soros), Tirana 2014.

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Do you believe in Magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programmes. Social Policy Report, Volume XVII, Number 1, 2003.

Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. Future of Children, 15(1).

Ministry of Education conference paper: Achievements and challenges in education of Roma and Egyptian Children in Albania. Tirana 2014.

De Soto at al. Roma and Egyptians in Albania: From social exclusion to social inclusion. The World Bank, Washington DC., 2005.

Campbell, F.A. and Pungello, E.P. (1999). The Carolina Abecedarian project. Website presentation on long-term benefits of intensive early education for impoverished children.

The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study to Age 40, 2005. Lawrence J. Schweinhart. High/Scope. Available online at: http://www.highscope.org/file/Research/PerryProject/specialsummary_rev2011_02_2.pdf

Heckman, J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital, Research in Economics, 54.

A needs assessment study on Roma and Egyptian communities in Albania, Center for Economic and Social Studies, UNDP Albania, 2012.

Mihailov, Dotcho (2012). The Health situation of Roma communities: Analysis of the data from the UNDP/World Bank/EC Regional Roma Study 2011.

Hazizaj A., Haxhiymeri E., Legislation and public services for street children in Albania. Save the Children / CRCA Albania, Tirana, October 2011.

Study on Children in Street Situation in Albania, UNICEF, Save the Children and Arsis, Tirana April 2014.

Cenko E., Hazizaj A., Haxhiymeri E., Çoku B., Violence against Children in Albania. Balkan Epidemiologic Research on Child Abuse and Neglect (B.E.C.A.N), CRCA Albania, Tirana 2013.

Gedeshi I., Jorgoni E., “Mapping Roma Children in Albania”, UNICEF and CESS, Tirana 2011.

Civil Society Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy and Decade Action Plan in 2012 in Albania, Roma Active Albania & the Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation, 2013.

Roma Decade and the situation of Roma communities in Albania, Open Society Foundation, Tirana 2013.

Population and Housing Census 2011, Albanian National Institute of Statistics, Tirana 2012.

Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, eds. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000

Haxhiymeri E., Ndrio M., Hallkja E., Boci A., Assessment of the capacities of healthcare institutions, residential care institutions and crèches to support and encourage early childhood development in Albania, Shelter for Battered Women and Girls in Albania / UNICEF, Tirana, November 2013.

Albania: Child Marriages, October 2012, Version 1, UNFPA.

Ana María Rodríguez, The impact of Early Childhood Care and Development services on Women’s empowerment in Albania, UNICEF Albania, October 2013.

Campbell FA, Ramey CT. Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: a follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Dev.1994

Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: an overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. J Appl Dev Psychol.2001;22 :457– 492

Fröbel, F. 1826. Die Menschenerziehung [On the education of man]. Keilhau; Leipzig, Wienbrack.

Statistical Indicators of Academic Year 2013-2014 for Pre-University Education in Albania, Ministry of Education and Sports, Tirana 2014.

Nelaj D., Kaciu E., Dundo J., Dervishi D., Factors that impact Roma Integration in Albania, a comparative Study. Open Society Foundation in Albania, Tirana 2012.

Analysis of Education Indicators, Albanian Parliament (available in Albanian only) (accessed on 15.11.2014 in the following link: http://www.parlament.al/web/pub/aneks_treguesit_arsimore_16988_1.pdf)

Laws and Policies

Albanian Constitution was approved by referendum on 22 November 1998, promulgated on 28 November 1998, amended in January 2007. Source: http://www.osce.org/albania/41888 (accessed on 10.12.2014)

Family Code of the Republic of Albania (2004) (An English translation of the Code can be accessed electronically in this address: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/65148/89474/F1958881334/ALB65148%20(English). pdf)

Law on Measures against Discrimination in Albania, link: http://kmd.al/skedaret/1306833181-Anti- discrimination%20law%20En_FZ.pdf (accessed on 10.12.2014)

Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination, Decisions are available in Albanian at the following link: http://www.kmd.al/?fq=brenda&emri=Baza%20Ligjore&gj=gj1&kid=83&kidd=86 (accessed on 10.12.2014)

Law No. 10347, 4 November 2010, For the Protection of the Rights of the Child in Albania.

Article 26 of the Law No. 9355 of 10.03.1995 “For Economic Aid and Social Services in the Republic of Albania”

Law No. 69/2012 “On Pre-University Education in the Republic of Albania”.

National Strategy for the improvement of living conditions of Roma minority in Albania 2003-2013, approved by the Council of Ministers Decision No. 633, date 18.09.2003.

Decision No. 323, of the Council of Ministers, date 14.06.1993 “On the administration of crèches”.

Law 69/2012 “For Pre-university education system in the Republic of Albania”. A translation of the law in English can be accessed in this link: http://www.phzh.ch/Documents/ipe.phzh.ch/Projekte/Laenderubergreifende%20Projekte/NEZI%20Ne tzwerk%20Albanischer%20Sprachraum/4_Nezi%20Konferenz%202/LAPU-NR.69-2012-english.pdf (last accessed on 16.11.2014)

Instruction of Ministry of Finances and Ministry of Education and Sports, No. 32, of 04.08.2011.