Executive summary

The purpose of this meta-evaluation of interventions for Roma inclusion is to learn
lessons a bout what works and what does not work in this field and why. These
questions are particularly relevant because of the need to come to terms with
seemingly scarce evidence of success in this policy area, although considerable
efforts have been made.
The meta- evaluation assessed sixty-four reports on Roma-inclusion measures in
the fields of education, employment, healthcare, housing and non -
discrimination/fighting antigypsyism. Since very few evaluation reports are
available for some of these fields and we included a few study reports wi th
equivalent information in the deficient fields. This means that about 20 % of the
‘primary reports’ are for mally not an evaluation. The reports are commissioned by
a range of national and int ernational actors from 2005 onwards. They i nclude
information from thirty countries covering a set of more than 140 interventions,
roughly equally distributed over policies, programmes and p rojects. Most of the
evaluations selected are in English.
Two critical observations in this meta-evaluation regarding the primary evaluation
The number of easily accessible evaluation reports in the various fields is
relatively low;
Evaluations using robust evaluation methods are scarce.
In fact, in much more than half of the reports the baseline data against which the
achievements should be measured, are inadequate or absent. The same is true for
an identification of t he targets for the intervent ion. Gender-disaggregated data or
well-founded needs anal yses are rare to find. Only a few reports have an eye for
the impact and just a handful of evaluations compared what happened to what
would have happened without t he intervention (counterfactual anal ysis).
Nevertheless, the sample size allows a number of aggregated observations
regarding the interventions:
Most of the evaluations, especially in the area of education, can demonstrate
results related to the intervention. In education there are several eval uations
that present medium-term effects and consequences linked to the project
goal. There are also examples in health care, but to a lesser extent. Still fewer
examples can be identified in employment and housing, but there are positive
results. Few interventions are ai med at combati ng racism and discrimination
against Roma in Europe and we found very few evaluations and little
evidence of demonstrable results.
Both the instituti onal and the financial mechanisms of the evaluated
interventions are very diverse in terms of scale, duration and adequacy.
Through the Instrument for Pre -Accession Assistance (IPA) and t he European
Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF), the EU is a major financier of specific
Roma interventions, in some cases with large-scale projects.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT