Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized at theLocalLevel of Social Interventions Inclusion Framework and Implementation thePlanning forImproving Directions in Hungary Growth Inclusive Enabling Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 4 Abbreviations and acronyms ............................................................................................. 5 Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11 2 Inclusive growth in Hungary: A prerequisite for economic sustainability .................. 13 3 The evolution of LEPs .............................................................................................. 16 4 The institutions behind the framework .................................................................... 19 4.1 Actors, roles, and responsibilities at the national level ................................................ 19 4.2 Actors, roles, and responsibilities at the district and county levels ............................... 20 4.3 Actors, roles, and responsibilities at the local level ...................................................... 21 4.4 Key bottlenecks for effectively planning LEPs .............................................................. 22 4.5 Key bottlenecks for effectively implementing LEPs ...................................................... 25 5 Learning from experiences, part I: Local social inclusion frameworks in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia ........................................................................................ 29 5.1 Poland’s Social Inclusion Program (part of the Poland Post-Accession Rural Support Project—PARSP) ..................................................................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Context ............................................................................................................................ 29 5.1.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 29 5.1.3 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................... 31 5.2 The Czech Republic—The Agency for Social Inclusion .................................................. 31 5.2.1 Context ............................................................................................................................ 31 5.2.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 32 5.2.3 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................... 32 5.3 Slovakia’s Comprehensive Approach ........................................................................... 34 5.3.1 Context ............................................................................................................................ 34 5.3.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 34 5.3.3 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................... 35 6 Learning from experiences part II: Delivering equal opportunity activities at the local level in Hungary .............................................................................................................. 37 6.1 What makes a practice “good”? .................................................................................. 37 In the spotlight: Social economy ..................................................................................... 44 6.2 Global lessons from the social and solidarity economy ................................................ 45 6.3 Social economy in Hungary—and its lessons ............................................................... 45 6.4 Box 1. Lessons from Kiútprogram and Autonómia’s SIMS program .............................. 47 6.5 Looking ahead ............................................................................................................ 47 7 Main findings and recommendations ....................................................................... 49 7.1 Recommendations for streamlining and revitalizing LEPs............................................. 53 2 7.2 Recommendations for developing an equality safeguard for EU-financed LEP activities in towns with country rights ....................................................................................................... 56 7.3 Recommendations for developing county equality programs (CEPs) ............................ 57 8. References .............................................................................................................. 61 Annex I. Case studies ...................................................................................................... 64 Porcsalma: A safe start into life .................................................................................................... 65 Integrated education in Ács .......................................................................................................... 69 The farming village of Gyulaj ........................................................................................................ 72 Target group: ................................................................................................................................ 72 Social Economy in Katymár ........................................................................................................... 77 Public work and EU Funds in Karcsa ............................................................................................. 84 Kiútprogram: Income generation in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County ......................................... 87 Social rehabilitation and housing integration in Pécs .................................................................. 93 Békéscsaba, a city of cooperation ................................................................................................ 98 The thoughtful town: Jászfényszaru ........................................................................................... 102 Alsómocsolád, a village of entrepreneurs .................................................................................. 106 Annex II. RAS implementation roadmap—consultations and field visits .......................... 110 3 Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a World Bank team composed of Sándor Karácsony, Miklós Kóródi, Ádám Kullmann, Valerie Morrica, and Nóra Teller, under the guidance and supervision of practice managers Nina Bhatt and Andrew D. Mason. The team would like to thank György Molnár from the Institute of Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for his contributions to Section 6. The team would also like to express its gratitude to peer reviewers Joost de Laat, Maria Beatriz Orlando, Katalin Szatmári, and Andor Ürmös for their helpful inputs and technical comments during the review process. The team is particularly grateful to counterparts from the Government of Hungary, in particular Csaba Andor and László Ulicska from the Ministry of Human Capacities and Katalin Ferdinandy from the Türr István Training and Research Institute. Their guidance, support, and comments were invaluable during the preparation of this report. The team was further supported by Isadora Nouel, András Tamás Torkos, and Andrei Zambor, and editorial work was provided by Lauri Scherer. This report has greatly benefited from several rounds of consultations with local-level Hungarian stakeholders (mayors, municipality employees, managers of social inclusion projects, civil society representatives) in a number of Hungarian locations. Annex II of this report provides a detailed account of visits, locations, and a list of stakeholders who were consulted. 4 Abbreviations and acronyms ÁEEK National Health Care Service Centre ASI Agency for Social Inclusion BM Ministry of Interior CEP county equality program CSO Central Statistical Office EC European Commission EFOP Human Resources Development OP ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union GINOP Gazdaságfejlesztési és Innovációs Operatív Program (Economic Development and Innovation Operational Program) HRDOP Human Resources Development Operational Program KLIK Klebelsberg Institutional Management Center (Klebelsberg Institutional Management Center) LEP Local Equal Opportunity Plan LLTK Lechner Lajos Knowledge Center LSCA local strategies of comprehensive approach M&E monitoring and evaluation MfNE Ministry for National Economy MHC Ministry of Human Capacities MIS Management Information System MoI Ministry of Interior NAPSI National Action Plan on Social Inclusion NEET neither in employment education or training 5 NGM Ministry for National Economy NRP National Reform Program NSIS National Social Inclusion Strategy OP Operational Program OPGRC Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Government for Roma Communities ORÖ National Roma Self-Government PARSP Post-Accession Rural Support