Las políticas establecidas por las Secretarías de Educación y sus implicaciones en los

Official efforts to improve the situation of Roma have been largely based on principles adopted at the first meeting of the EU Platform for Roma Inclusion, which set common standards for EU Member States to address inequalities faced by Roma populations (WHO, 2014). Critiques of such initiatives emphasise how policies aimed at Roma inclusion simultaneously promote improvement in their situation and singles them out as different and (in some cases) may create a perception that they are in receipt of preferential treatment from authorities (Richardson & Codona, 2018; Salioska et al., 2017). With these targeted approaches comes the danger of propagating a ‘perception that there is something inherently at fault in the Roma population, rather than in the structurally racist behaviour of many non-Roma people’ (Ryder & Taba, 2018; p. 61). On the other hand, policy measures aimed more broadly at promoting the rights of minority groups have the potential to further subjugate the Roma, as measures promoting equality across social groups often fail to capture the distinct profile and needs of Roma communities (Salioska et al., 2017). Without attention to Roma cultural values and the long-term impacts of official measures to suppress this culture, efforts to promote the integration and inclusion of Roma populations can take on an assimilationist tone, in which the victims of structural inequalities to carry the dual burden of cultural preservation and pressures to conform to an unaccustomed social order (Bourgois, 2003; Peller, 1995).

Initiatives to improve the situation of Roma communities often take the form of governmental efforts to combat anti-Roma discrimination and to improve access to public services. It was amid calls to bring greater consistency to Roma integration efforts that the Decade of Roma Inclusion, from 2005 to 2015, was adopted as a World Bank initiative to coordinate measures to improve the situation of Roma in countries with substantial Roma populations¹. This began when the involved countries signed an agreement pledging to institute policies and programmes to combat discrimination against Roma and to improve Roma ‘participation’ in society. According to Bruggemann & Friedman (2017), bringing about meaningful involvement of Roma communities in the Decade proved to be a challenge, with NGO representatives and academics taking on key roles yet failing to offer Roma individuals tangible means of improving their situations. Also at issue in the delivery of the Decade was the lack of commitment from the participating state governments, which in many ways led it to be an exercise in developing

1 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia and Spain; with Slovenia, the US and Norway participating as observers

integration plans without any political will for implementation (Bruggemann & Friedman, 2017; WHO, 2014).

Despite the challenges associated with the Decade of Roma Inclusion, the European Commission adopted a similar strategy when it published the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, which set out requirements for Member States to develop initiatives aimed not simply at fighting discrimination, but also at improving the situation of Roma across the areas of education, employment, healthcare and housing (European Commission, 2010; European Commission, 2011; Scullion & Brown, 2016). Each country has a National Roma Contact Point, which is responsible for the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) (European Commission, 2011). The European Commission is then responsible for assessing each Member State’s progress on NRISs and evaluating their effectiveness in meeting the needs of Roma populations, working with data gathered from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), as well as data submitted by Member States (European Commission, 2011). The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is furthermore involved in monitoring Member States’ Roma integration activities, housing a permanent study group on Roma that monitors the implementation of the EU Framework on NRIS from the point of view of civil society organisations (EESC, 2018). Despite these monitoring measures, questions remain as to the consequences for non-compliance with the EU framework, perhaps limiting its effectiveness is achieving sustainable change (WHO, 2014).

According to European Commission guidance, implementation of NRISs should be based on the Open Method of Coordination – in which Member States share good practice methods – to address the disparities in inclusion programmes and ensure that the most effective possible policies are adopted across Europe (European Commission, 2011; Ringold et al., 2005). Actual development and delivery of NRISs, however, is grounded in each Member State’s individual policy-making environment, with substantial variations in approach from one country to another. Some Member States have adopted

‘targeted schemes’ that focus exclusively on Roma, while others instituted ‘mainstream approaches’

that fall within broader measures to minimise social inequalities (Scullion & Brown, 2016). The UK, for example, lacks a concerted NRIS and instead asserts that Roma inclusion can be achieved through local and regional initiatives to improve service accessibility and equal opportunities across social groups (European Commission, 2018). Much like the Decade of Roma Inclusion, EU objectives to promote Roma integration are beset by lack of political will, lack of capacity for implementation of NRISs, lack of

national funds to supplement EU funds, lack of integration of targeted services into mainstream services, lack of meaningful involvement of Roma in strategy design and delivery, and persistent statutory prejudices towards the Roma (Andor, 2018; FRA, 2018b; Scullion & Brown, 2016; Ryder, 2015).

Such initiatives have also been criticised as applications of post-colonial development practices to Roma in the aim of making them ‘less dependent, less vulnerable, less poor, less isolated and more “capable”

to become full members of the societies in which they live’, and all the while representing the Roma as

‘inferior’ (van Baar, 2018, p. 448).

Where governmental initiatives have fallen short in bringing about tangible improvements in Roma individuals’ life situations, Roma people often turn to other sources of social support. Religion can be a key factor for some Roma in gaining a sense of social acceptance, yet this does not necessarily occur through adherence to the majority religion, which can in fact reinforce Roma individuals’ sense of distance from majority communities. It is perhaps due to perceived hostility within majority religions that there has been an increasing trend within Roma communities towards the adoption of forms of

‘charismatic Christianity’, with many Roma turning towards the Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witness and Adventist segments of Protestantism as a means of seeking out social acceptance. Within these belief systems, Roma are not demonised as the ‘other’, but are instead empowered to participate in religious traditions on equal terms (Todorovic, 2012).

Efforts to counteract discrimination and stigmatisation of the Roma identity can also be seen in the inward-looking nature of social life in Roma communities. This reluctance to engage with non-Roma social groups and institutions suggests an impulse toward self-protection, avoidance of hostile attitudes and preservation of cultural identity, yet it can also place limitations on access to necessary support services (Sime et al., 2017; Jarcuska et al., 2013; Kolarcik et al., 2009). For migrant Roma communities, this impact of inward-looking social networks can be further compounded by limited knowledge of the language of the receiving country (Sime et al., 2017). The focus on life within the community thus represents a simultaneously self-protective and pragmatic preference from the perspective of community members, yet non-Roma may view this inward turn with suspicion. Powell (2012) identifies how the increasing ‘ghettoisation’ of European Roma in spaces defined by shared ethnic and cultural identity distinguishes them from an overall trend towards ethnic desegregation. Policy makers and service providers may perceive a tendency towards ‘isolation’, which, when interpreted as social

non-participation, can be harnessed as a mechanism of coercion, control and further exclusion from services (Powell, 2012).