pilot outcome report slovenia/media/europe/intesys/slovenian... · complex. it requires a changed...

Pilot Outcome Report

Slovenia

November 2018

Pilot Outcome Report – Slovenia 2

Authors: Dr. Jerneja Jager Mag. Mateja Režek Petra Bozovičar Cinzia Canali Devis Geron Contact: Educational Research Institute, Step by Step Centre for Quality in Education; [email protected] Fondazione Emanuela Zancan onlus; [email protected], [email protected] This publication has been developed with financial support from the European Commission, under the Erasmus+ Programme, Key Action 3, the Forward Looking Cooperation projects. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

mailto:[email protected]




Table of Contents 1. Summary of results .................................................................................................................. 4

2. Context, needs and goals in the pilot ........................................................................................ 4

2.1 Short description of the local reference context and the main needs addressed ....................... 4

2.2 Project goals in the pilot ............................................................................................................... 6

3. Monitoring and evaluation ....................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Methodology adopted for monitoring and evaluation ................................................................ 7

3.2 Pilot activities, outputs, outcomes: achieved vs. expected .......................................................... 8

3.3 Outcomes for the workforce involved in the project and outcomes for children and parents . 14

3.4 The journey towards integration: the dynamics of integration ................................................. 21

3.5 Insights from the pilot visits ....................................................................................................... 23

3.6 Overall strengths and weaknesses of the pilot .......................................................................... 23

4. Discussion about changes ...................................................................................................... 24

5. Dissemination, replicability and future sustainability of the pilot activities .............................. 26

5.1 Communication and dissemination at the local/national level .................................................. 26

5.2 Replicability of elements of the project in the country .............................................................. 31

5.3 Strategies of future sustainability ............................................................................................... 32

5.4 Summary of the journey and future developments ................................................................... 32

6. Recommendations for policy makers and professionals ........................................................... 33

6.1 Summary of lesson learned ........................................................................................................ 33

6.2 Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 34

Recommendations for policy makers ............................................................................................... 34

Recommendations at inter-institutional level .................................................................................. 34

Recommendations at institutional level ........................................................................................... 34

Recommendations regarding professionals ..................................................................................... 34


1. Summary of results The general goals of the project were:

1. To promote early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems which are responsive to and inclusive of vulnerable children and their families due to better integration of services and a more holistic and child and family-centred approach; and

2. Improved educational attainment of children from vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalized groups who have benefitted from more holistic, integrated and responsive ECEC services and systems.

In both pilot sites we have been working in direction toward both general goals with establishing Local Action Yeams (LAT), consisting of representatives of various sectors and services in local communities, which are in contact with Romani population. LATs were following specific goals in both pilots related to increasing the enrolment rate and attendance of Romani children in preschool programs (Preschool Kekec Grosuplje) and making transition from preschool to primary school for the Romani children smoother (Preschool Mavrica Trebnje). We can conclude that in reaching the first general goal, we have certainly achieved a big step forward (at least in one of the pilots). The second goal is very complex. It requires a changed understanding of professionals’ role in order to truly involve Roma families in the planning meaningful programs, for implementing outreach approach; and in particularly, requires a constant reflection of the role of a professional. At the same time, in order to achieve this goal, a competent, supportive and integrated system must be developed in the local environment. In our pilots, we made the first steps towards creating such a system, but in order to achieve the improved educational attainment, more time and joint efforts are required. The main lessons learned indicate that:

● Support from municipality is important ● Involvement of managers (managerial level) is important ● Sufficient and recognised time for joint meetings and activities carried out should be ensured ● Involvement of vulnerable group(s) into the process from the very beginning and taking into

account their proposals should be provided ● The importance of outreach activities, especially when the targeted (vulnerable) group(s) are

not frequent or regular ‘users’ of activities/services in the municipality (e.g. when they are segregated from the local community as Romani community (usually) is) should be recognised as one of the key organisational values

● Sensibilization of all key persons involved who come in regular contact with representatives of Romani community is a must.

2. Context, needs and goals in the pilot

2.1 Short description of the local reference context and the main needs addressed The pilot in Slovenia was implemented in Grosuplje and Trebnje, characterised by a very low enrolment rate of Romani children preschool’s education. The environments where the pilot was implemented are environments with traditional Romani settlement. Preschool Kekec Grosuplje operates in 9 buildings and includes approximately 750 children. In preschool’s area there are six Romani settlements, where approximately 20 Romani families live with 36 preschool children. At the beginning of the piloting phase one of them was enrolled in the preschool.


Preschool Kekec Grosuplje is a long-standing member of Step by Step Network of preschools, strongly focusing on professional development of preschool staff. Since 2014, the preschool is actively involved in initiatives focused on approaching Romani families and including children into preschool. In the preschool’s project core team, five preschool teachers, the director, the deputy director and the preschool counsellor was included. In the Local Action Team (LAT) were included representatives of the preschool (core project team), local Roma councelor, Amnesty International (accompanying Roma counsellor), 2 primary schools (school’s counsellors), health care centre (paediatrician, educator of health education/nurse), centre for social work (director and 2 professionals), public library (librarian),centre for school and outdoor education (2 providers of workshops in Romani settlement and their mentor), police, employment service (professional from local office). In steering group representatives of preschool, primary school, centre for social work, health care institution, centre for school and outdoor education (managerial and professional level) were included. Representatives of municipality were also invited to all meetings. In the Municipality of Grosuplje, the majority of Romani parents is unemployed, and their housing is very bad. All of the settlements have electricity, but not all of the cottages have running water, sewerage system is not regulated. In LAT were included: representatives of preschool (core project team), primary school (teachers, school counsellor), municipality, centre for social work, Roma association (few meetings, later representative could not attend meetings due to work obligations), health care institution (paediatrician), centre for adult education. In the Steering Group, representatives of preschool, primary school, centre for social work, municipality, health care centre (all managerial level) were included. Preschool Mavrica Trebnje in the municipality of Trebnje has nine units which are attended by approximately 620 children. One of the units is located (from 2009) in the Roma settlement Vejar, 4 km away from town Trebnje. In Roma settlement there are approximately 300 inhabitants. The settlement is equipped with basic infrastructure (electricity, water, sewerage, wastewater treatment plant, public lighting and paved road). Houses and barracks have very poor isolation and the quality of life is quite low. There are about 37 pre-school children in the settlement, of which 22 children aged 3-6 years are included in the preschool unit in the Roma community. From 2010, preschool Mavrica Trebnje continuously cooperates with our Centre, focusing on outreach activities and softening transition from preschool in Romani settlement to preschool in Trebnje and primary school. In the preschool project core team the deputy director and the preschool counsellor were included. At the start of building a more integrated system, both pre-schools have already established some kind of cooperation with representatives of local institutions/services/organizations/individuals, but this was still very basic and ad hoc (e.g. an event on International Roma Day). We have recognized that there is “room for improvement” especially in the following areas: - Transition: this is a relevant issue, to get elementary schools more focused on preparing for future

pupils (‘schools ready for children’), to get better connected with preschool (and preschool with elementary school), and create an understanding about the added value of working together with preschool teachers (this especially applies to Trebnje pilot site).


- Connecting activities: instead of many providers organising (too) many different actions for Romani children and families, a joint plan of action would be better and could have a more positive impact.

- Participation: the Romani community is not consulted and included in decision-making processes that concern them. Decisions are taken in a paternalistic way (‘we know what is good for you’) without even understanding enough about the Romani community.

- Confidentiality: there is a need for cooperation in sharing information about children and families between schools, municipalities, health and social centres to get a clearer view on what the needs of families are. The only purpose of sharing information should be more meaningful work with children and families, and responding to their needs accordingly.

- Linking sectors/rethinking some system solutions: certain issues and opportunities need to be better linked and reconsidered (e.g. the issue of higher child allowance when children are not enrolled in preschool; employment systems, like the public work program, which can have Roma engaged also in educational work)

- Importance of shared learning across sectors: about working methods, about successful approaches

- Outreach activities: the work of pre-schools is still very much considered as only the work with children, already involved in pre-school. Also, as these institutions already have enough regular work, there is no sense of urgency to engage in outreach work. There is need to reconsider the role and responsibility of ECEC professionals (‘just enrolled children or all children’)

- Monitoring and Evaluation: besides the regular project M&E, more combined strategies should be used, such as self-evaluation, group- and external-evaluation, and getting parents and children involved. This approach could probably lead to a higher quality level in all sectors involved.

- Combating stereotypes and prejudices. - Engaging in CPD activities, rethinking the role of ECEC, school professionals, path toward the

reflective practitioner. Since there was very low participation of Romani children in the pre-school education, especially for the under 3 age group, we aimed to develop a common understanding about the right to education for every child and about the importance of quality education for each and every child. We strived to mobilise all relevant stakeholders, in order to connect them and to develop services that will correspond to Romani families’ needs.

2.2 Project goals in the pilot The pilot focused on both a horizontal and vertical integration and aimed at:

● Increasing the enrolment rate and attendance of Romani children in preschool programs (Preschool Kekec Grosuplje) and

● Making transition from preschool to primary school for the Romani children smoother (Preschool Mavrica Trebnje).

More specific objectives were:

● to raise awareness about the importance of addressing holistically child’s and family’s needs and providing them with integrated ECEC services, especially when it comes to the most disadvantaged children like Roma;

● to empower all in the pilot included stakeholders (representatives of Romani community, educators, social workers, health workers, administrators, etc.) for recognizing and understanding the importance of integration of ECEC systems, and the importance of supporting the whole family and bringing it at the centre point of view;


● to bring representatives of the municipality to joint meetings with other relevant stakeholders (Grosuplje);

● to raise questions of social justice and equal rights for all members of society (both environments, and in Grosuplje especially on the level of representatives of the municipality)

● to raise awareness about benefits of joint, integrated work (in Trebnje especially on the level of Elementary school);

● to break stereotypes and prejudices towards Roma (both environments); ● to raise participation of representatives of Roma community in all activities, connected to

Romani issues (both environments).

3. Monitoring and evaluation

3.1 Methodology adopted for monitoring and evaluation Following the Evaluation Protocol shared and discussed with Fondazione Zancan, the pilot in Slovenia used a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) for assessing the results of the pilot activities. The baseline of the pilot was built filling in a questionnaire about the network of partners and meeting local partners in individual interviews. The preliminary collection of information via questionnaire, reinforced by the site visits, provided the baseline of integration in the Slovenian pilot, as indicated in the Baseline Report. For monitoring and evaluating the changes, after implementing the integrated activities and the Toolkit, a before and after perspective has been used. A Questionnaire for the workforce involved in the integrated activities about the situation at the beginning and after the integrated activities was developed. The questionnaire provided a useful description of the point of view of professionals in terms of integration and integrated activities. The questionnaire was completed on-line at the beginning of the integrated activities organised by local partners and at the end of them, in order to understand changes for professionals. Tools:

– Map of responsibilities and resources (MRR)

– Levels of integration

– Other: Questionnaire gathering the viewpoint of the workforce involved Other tools have been used for assessing the changes occurred after the integrated activities:

1. Questionnaire gathering the viewpoint of the workforce involved in the integrated activities about the situation at the beginning and after the integrated activities (module 1)

Questionnaire for the workforce The questionnaire for the workforce is divided in two parts. The first part is related to the viewpoint of each professional related to his/her organisation:

1. service coverage, 2. level of ability of the service to identify strengths and capabilities of parents, 3. level of ability of the service to involve parents on the basis of their strengths and capabilities, 4. level of ability of the service to involve other non-professional resources, 5. level of ability of the service to identify needs of the children, 6. level of appropriateness of service responses,


7. level of coordination in the service network, 8. level of information sharing in the service network.

The second part of the questionnaire for the workforce considers the viewpoint of each professional related to his/her knowledge on integration:

1. knowledge about integration, 2. knowledge about how to work in an integrated environment, 3. expected changes in the level of integration, 4. knowledge of the other partners, 5. activities that are the most integrated in this pilot, 6. activities that are the least integrated in this pilot, 7. individual competences in terms of integration.

Monitoring and evaluation of the process At every meeting of local action team (LAT) in both pilot sites, we have used the following methodology for monitoring and evaluation of activities that were carried out:

● At the first meeting of LAT, a common vision based on a commonly identified goal of the pilot site was developed. The vision served members of LAT as a guideline where they would like to ‘land’ at the end of the process. This served also as a “Why do we need change?” exercise;

● At every meeting, some specific actions were planned in order to achieve the vision (“What change is needed?”);

● The implementation of those specific actions was always evaluated at the next meeting (“What was achieved?”), and, based on the evaluation, new actions were planned.

Meetings were always face-to-face. Besides monitoring and evaluating the process itself, we have provided members of LATs also with content on integration and enable discussion on specific topic on integration. By this, we have ensured that not only field-work was carried out, but also understanding of integrated system was developed and shared among all members of LATs. Researchers of ERI were actively involved in planning and steering the monitoring and evaluation activities, and also in planning next steps in the process based on the results from monitoring and evaluation meetings. The tool that was used by members of LATs, was an ‘action plan’ tool, which is used in various ERI’s initiatives to plan concrete actions.

3.2 Pilot activities, outputs, outcomes: achieved vs. expected

Activity Date Place Description of the activity carried out

1. Local steering committee meeting

3.3.2016 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school 1, centre for social work, health care institution, centre for School and Outdoor Education, ERI, Content of the meeting: presentation of the initiative, agreement on the implementation of introductory activities led by the Italian partner, agreement on the establishment of a coordination group for the development of an integrated system of care for preschool children and their families


4.4.2016 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, centre for social work, municipality, ERI, Content of the meeting: presentation of the initiative, agreement on the implementation of introductory activities led by the Italian partner.


2. Local steering committee

4.1.2017 Trebnje

Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, centre for social work, health care institution, ERI. Content of the meeting: Presentation of the initiative, the importance of continuous and integrated approaches, the importance of cross-sectoral cooperation, the presentation of the dynamics of meetings, the predicted content and expected results, the agreement on the establishment of a coordination group for the creation of an integrated system of care for preschool children and their families.


9.1.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school 1, centre for social work, centre for School and Outdoor Education, ERI. Content of the meeting: Presentation of the initiative, the importance of continuous and integrated approaches, the importance of cross-sectoral cooperation, the presentation of the dynamics of meetings, the predicted content and expected results, the agreement on the establishment of a coordination group for the creation of an integrated system of care for preschool children and their families, agreement on a round table.

1. Working meeting

20.3.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, ERI Used material from toolbox: Eco-mapping Content of the meeting: presentation of the project, the purpose of the working meetings, consideration on the extension of the set goal in order to be more inclusive/meaningful for other representatives of the institutions. Planning common activities until the next meeting

1. Roundtable 30.3.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, Roma community, primary school 1,centre for social work, health care institution, library, employment service, police, Ministry of Education, Amnesty International, municipality, centre for School and Outdoor Education, ERI.

1. Roundtable 4.4.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, Roma association, primary school, centre for social work, health care institution, library, Ministry of Education, municipality, centre for adult education, ERI

1. Working meeting

6.4.2017 Grosuplje Present: representatives of kindergarten, primary school 1, centre for social work, health care institution, library, centre for School and Outdoor activities, ERI Used material from toolbox: Eco-mapping Content of the meeting: Presentation of an integrated system of care, presentation of participants and their expectations, creating a common vision of all involved in the meetings (shaping a vision that will include all present institutions) Planning of joint activities until the next meeting: joint activities aimed at building trust with Roma parents (puppet show for children in the kindergarten playground - kindergarten in cooperation with centre for School and Outdoor activities) morning visit of


children from the Roma community and their parents in kindergarten, obtaining medical examinations for already enrolled Romani children in kindergarten (kindergarten in cooperation with health care centre and centre for School and Outdoor activities), agreement on contacting the municipality regarding the possibility of organizing free transfers to workshops in the library), activities aimed at establishing links between Roma and non-Roma community (workshop in the library, children's events in the library) , activities for raising awareness among Roma parents about the importance of education and activities in the kindergarten; activities for soft transition to the elementary school (visit of future 1st graders in the primary school)

2. Working meeting

20.4.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, health care institution, ERI Used material from toolbox: Levels of integration Review and evaluation of the work done since the previous meeting. A joint reflection on the set goal: what in the context of their institution means providing "soft transition" and every institution can do in their context? Reflection on a common vision. Planning of joint activities until the next meeting: the idea of establishing a working body within the municipality; visits/workshops of kindergarten and primary school teachers in Roma community - getting to know parents and children.

2. Working meeting

11.5.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school 1, centre for social work, health care institution, library, centre for School and Outdoor activities, ERI Used material from toolbox: Levels of integration Review and evaluation of the work done since the previous meeting. Planning of joint activities until the next meeting: joint activities aimed at building trust with Roma parents (agreement with the library to devote special attention to Roma families visiting the library, a workshop in the Roma settlement, visiting children from Romani community in the kindergarten), joint activities aimed at establishing connections between the Roma and non-Roma community (workshops in the library), development of a protocol at the non-attendance of pupils in the primary school, activities for acquiring the presence of a municipal representative on meetings of local action team.

3. Working meeting

25.5.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, Roma community, primary school, centre for social work, health care institution, municipality, ERI. Used material from toolbox: A reference framework for integration in ECEC system Content of the meeting: the original goal was expanded and a wider vision was developed, in which all stakeholders were involved


Planning of joint activities until the next meeting: planning of joint workshops for getting to know the elementary school teachers

3. Working meeting

8.6.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, Roma community, Amnesty Intl, primary school, centre for social work, library, entre for School and Outdoor activities, ERI Used material from toolbox: A reference framework for integration in ECEC system Review and evaluation of the work carried out last month: discussion on the "homework" - overview of the reference framework Planning common activities until the next meeting.

4. Working meeting

19.9.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school 1, centre for social work, health care centre, ERI Used material from the toolkit: Stories of integration→ reading in small groups, discussing how these descriptions help them understand the integrated system. The discussion leads to the idea of a joint visit of the Mala Ulica (Little Street) Family Center in Ljubljana https://www.malaulica.si/en/aktivnosti/ Review and evaluation of the work done in the previous month Planning common activities until the next meeting

Visit to Family Centre Mala ulica

10.10.2017 Ljubljana Representatives of kindergarten Kekec Grosuplje visiting Family Centre Mala Ulica

4. Working meeting

21.9.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, health care centre, ERI Used material from toolbox: Stories of integration

5. Working meeting

12.10.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, centre for social work, centre for adult education, municipality, health care centre, ERI Used material from toolbox: Holistic development of the child

5. Working meeting

17.10.2017 Grosuplje Mapping existing activities carried out by different organizations in this environment


23.11.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, centre for social work, health care institution, centre for adult education, ERI

6. Working meeting

23.11.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, centre for social work, centre for adult education, municipality, health care centre, ERI


28.11.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, centre for social work, centre for outdoor education, health care centre, ERI

6. Working meeting

28.11.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school1, centre for social work, centre for outdoor education, health care centre, ERI

7. Working meeting

20.12.2017 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, centre for social work, centre for outdoor education, health care centre, red cross, library, Roma representative, Amnesty Intl, ERI

7. Working meeting

21.12.2017 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school, centre for social work, health care centre, centre for adult education, ERI, representative of kindergarten from Murska Sobota


Content: At this meeting, the representative of the kindergarten Murska Sobota (unit Romano-unit in the Roma settlement) presented their path of developing soft transition from kindergarten to elementary school and ways of connecting with the local community. Action plan

8. Working meeting

25.1.2018 Trebnje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, adult education centre, primary school, ERI Action plan

8. Working meeting

31.1.2018 Grosuplje Present: representatives of kindergarten, library, health care centre, centre for social work, centre for outdoor education, employment service office, ERI. Action plan


14.02. 2018 Trebnje Participants: directors of Centre for adult education, Kindergarten Trebnje, Centre for social work, Primary school, Health care centre, municipality Content: presentation of detected successes and challenges on the level of their institutions and wider after the establishment of local action teams, proposals for further work. Everyone expresses establishment of multidisciplinary action team on the level of municipality as great success. One of the participants points out the greater awareness of the scope of each institution's work and closer connections between them. The mayor presented some plans that the municipality has in the years to come in connection with resolving the coexistence of the Roma and majority population. The head of the elementary school expresses the need for additional training for teachers on topics of partnership with parents and social justice. We offer the possibility of training, the mayor greeted the initiative (unfortunately, later the director did not decide to carry out the training, the reason was the overload of teachers at the end of the school year). The head of the elementary school asks if there are any recommendations for policy and practice foreseen within the project.

1. Training 28.3.2018 Grosuplje Capacity building: training on topic Social justice (training with expert) Participants: members of local action team and also other representatives of their institutions. Present were representatives from health care, centre for social work, centre for outdoor activities, kindergarten, local library and local employment service.

9. Working meeting

4.4.2018 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, primary school1, primary school2, police, centre for social work, centre for outdoor education, health care centre, ERI Content of the meeting: Evaluation of training on the topic of Social justice, planning the next training on the topic of Partnership with parents, Review and Evaluation of the Action Plan of the previous month Planning common activities until the next meeting: joint workshop of kindergarten and centre for outdoor education in the Roma community, ethno evening in the library, workshop in the library on the topic of health


(for parents and children)- collaboration of kindergarten, library and health care centre. Deputy director of Kindergarten and mentor from centre for outdoor education will meet and plan activities for soft transition of children enrolled in the kindergarten (starting in autumn); workshop held by police in Roma community.; discussion on organization of final joint round table (Trebnje and Grosuplje).

2. Training 10.5.2018 Grosuplje Capacity building: training on partnership with parents and establishing trustful relationship (training with expert) Participants: members of local action team and also other representatives of their institutions. Present were representatives from health care, centre for social work, centre for outdoor activities, kindergarten, local library and local employment service.

10. Working meeting

5.6.2018 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergarten, centre for social work, centre for outdoor education, primary school2, ERI. Revision of monthly action plan, planning of autumn’s round table, planning of LAT work after the project‘s end (meeting 4 times per year, kindergarten as an initiator)

Joint Evaluation meeting with Cinzia

12.6.2018 Grosuplje Participants: director of Kindergarten Grosuplje, deputy director of preschool Grosuplje and Trebnje, primary school‘s counsellor from Grosuplje and Trebnje, 2 primary school teachers from Grosuplje. Report from members from Grosuplje: LAT is prepared to work together even after the project end, they see their cooperation as very meaningful and supportive. Aim: „transition of Romani children to preschool“: some individual children are enrolled and are attending the preschool, but in comparison to 2 years before, it is a step forward. Preschool is eager to continue with outreach activities. Report from members from Trebnje: Great success in this environment is establishing of „multidisciplinary action team“ and strong support of local municipality. In sense of following the aim „softer transition from preschool to primary school“ a lot of issues remains (strong connections of preschool-primary school staff, understanding the transition in sense making institutions/ schools ready for children instead of children ready for school).

Final joint roundtable

24.10.2018 Grosuplje Participants: representatives of kindergartens Trebnje and Grosuplje, Roma communites in Trebnje and Grosuplje, primary school 1,centre for social work Trebnje and Grosuplje, health care institution Grosuplje, library Grosuplje, police Grosuplje, Ministry of Education, Amnesty International, municipality Trebnje and Grosuplje, centre for School and Outdoor Education, ombudsman, office for national minorities, ERI.

Achieved vs. expected


In Trebnje, softening of the transition between kindergarten and elementary school for Roma children was set as a goal. On the side of the kindergarten it is expected that children the last year before entering elementary school, will visit Trebnje kindergarten instead of a kindergarten in Romani settlement. There are quite a few challenges at the level of transition of children from kindergarten in Roma settlement to the kindergarten in Trebnje. Since there is no organized transportation of children from the settlement to the kindergarten in Trebnje, parents have to drive their children there by themselves. Most parents do not decide on this, so they do not decide to "relocate" children to the kindergarten in Trebnje, so the children visited this kindergarten in the settlement also last year before entering the primary school. A possible solution, organized transportation of children from the Roma settlement to the kindergarten in Trebnje, does not seem appropriate to the kindergarten, so they do not see this as a solution at this moment. The kindergarten’s point of view is that Roma parents should take care of their child's transportation, as all other parents do. Otherwise, transportation of children from the Roma settlement to elementary school in Trebnje is organized, but the joint transportation of preschool and primary school children is not possible at this moment because of various obstacles (security, organization, etc.). Therefore, when transitioning from kindergarten (in Roma settlement) to the elementary school (in Trebnje), children are faced with a double transition: the transition between different learning environments and between different cultural contexts. Kindergarten and primary school teachers, as well as other members of the local action team - representatives of other organizations, carried out quite a few activities that were directed to parents and children in the Roma settlement. Activities were carried out both in the settlement, as well as in the kindergarten, elementary school and in the local community. The activities carried out were wide-ranging, bringing together different stakeholders in the environment. We note that the professional staff of the kindergarten and elementary school were meeting more often, they also planned various workshops together. Workshops for Romani parents and children were carried out in the kindergarten in the Romani settlement and also in the elementary school. The next expected step would be professional meetings of kindergarten and primary school staff, where they would look for solutions to ensure continuity in approaches at both levels of education, as well as possible system solutions that would ensure softer transition of children from kindergarten in Romani settlement to kindergarten in Trebnje the last year before entering primary school. The question whether families are hard to reach or institutions hard to access, still remains. Certainly, the placement of the multidisciplinary action team in strategic document of Municipality Trebnje is an important achievement which was not expected at the beginning. In Grosuplje, a higher share of Roma children enrolled in the kindergarten was set as a goal. Looking at quantitative indicators, this goal has not been fully achieved. Two children were enrolled in the kindergarten in the school year 2017/18, later one of them stopped attending. Parents (father) of the other, established very trustworthy relationship with kindergarten teachers. Nevertheless, kindergarten teachers and director report that the achievements in the context of developing a supportive environment for kindergarten in local community (“we do not feel alone”), established connections between professionals from various field , changes at the professional and personal level in terms of breaking prejudices and stereotypes against Roma parents, awareness of kindergarten teachers about their mission and, consequently, readiness to carry out activities in the Roma settlement- outside the kindergarten, were much higher than expected.

3.3 Outcomes for the workforce involved in the project and outcomes for children and parents

The workforce at the beginning


Between June and July 2017, 12 professionals completed the on-line questionnaire aimed at analyzing their perspective, with 7 respondents from Trebnje and 5 from Grosuplje. Most of them were female (91.7%), 66.7% younger than 40 years old and 33.3% older than 41 years old. The majority of professionals (91.7%) had a Bachelor’s or equivalent education level. Most of the respondents worked in the educational domain, while the others worked in the social and health domains (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 – Respondents by domain (%), questionnaire before integrated activities How do professionals consider their organisation? Professionals considered themselves as capable of identifying the diverse needs of the children, although to a different degree depending on the type of problem they are confronted with. In Trebnje (Fig. 2), professionals associated the lowest ability with identifying the needs of children adopted/in foster care (to which they attributed an average score of 1.8, on a scale ranging from 1 – low to 5 – high). On the other hand, they attributed the highest average score (5) to their capability of identifying the needs of children with disability/special needs. In Grosuplje (Fig. 3), professionals attributed the lowest average score (1.6) to their ability to identify the problems of migrant-background children. The highest average score (3.2) in Grosuplje was instead attributed to the capability of identifying Romani children’s needs.

Fig. 2 - Level of ability of the service in Trebnje to identify the needs of the children, by dimension, initial

Fig. 3 - Level of ability of the service in Grosuplje to identify the needs of the children, by dimension, initial

Service responses to child problems were considered at a medium level of appropriateness. Professionals in Trebnje (Fig. 4) considered responses provided to children with specific needs as the most appropriate (average score 3.9 on a 1-5 scale). Professionals in Grosuplje (Fig. 5) considered responses to the cultural deprivation of families as the most appropriate (average score 4.0 on a 1-5 scale).


Fig. 4 - Level of appropriateness of service responses in Trebnje, by target, initial

Fig. 5 - Level of appropriateness of service responses in Grosuplje, by target, initial

With reference to integration, an important area is the ability of the service to involve parents and other non-professional resources. Professionals in Trebnje (Fig. 6) on average attributed the highest average score (3.6) to their ability to identify strengths and capabilities of parents. Professionals in Grosuplje (Fig. 7) on average attached the highest score (3.3) to their ability to involve other non-professional resources.

Fig. 6 - Level of ability to identify strengths and capabilities in Trebnje, initial

Fig. 7 - Level of ability to identify strengths and capabilities in Grosuplje, initial

Coordination and information sharing within the network are central elements to the integration of services. Respondents on average considered these two dimensions at a medium level, equalling around 3.5 in Trebnje (Fig. 8) and around 2.5 in Grosuplje (Fig. 9).

Fig. 8 - Level of coordination and information sharing in the network in Trebnje, initial

Fig. 9 - Level of coordination and information sharing in the network in Grosuplje, initial

How do professionals consider themselves in the organisation? Professionals provided their perspective on their knowledge regarding integration and working in an integrated environment. As for both their level of knowledge about integration and their level of


knowledge about how to work in an integrated environment, most professionals considered themselves at a medium level (around 3), both in Trebnje and in Grosuplje (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11).

Fig. 10 - Level of knowledge about integration and how to work in an integrated environment in Trebnje, initial

Fig. 11 - Level of knowledge about integration and how to work in an integrated environment in Grosuplje, initial

Professionals also described their competences in specific areas of integration: listening to other professionals, knowing the role played by others, sharing information, cooperating with other professionals, carrying out joint actions and evaluation with other professionals. The average level of ability was overall recognized as medium to medium-high (average score from around 3 to more than 4), both in Trebnje (Fig. 12) and in Grosuplje (Fig. 13).

Fig. 12 - Level of competence of professionals in Trebnje, by type, initial

Fig. 13 - Level of competence of professionals in Grosuplje, by type, initial

The workforce after the integrated activities Between July and September 2018, a new questionnaire was administered to professionals. Overall, 9 professionals completed the on-line questionnaire, 6 of them from Trebnje and 3 from Grosuplje. The respondents provided their final perspective on their knowledge about integration, after integrated activities. Despite the different numbers of respondents to the two (“beginning” and “final”) questionnaires, the results of the second questionnaire can be compared with the answers provided in the first questionnaire, in order to have an idea of whether and how the (self-) evaluation of professionals may differ at the end of the “journey” with respect to the initial situation. As regards the level of ability to identify the needs of children and their families, there seems to be an overall increase in abilities (although to a different extent for different dimensions), both in Trebnje (Fig. 14) and in Grosuplje (Fig. 15).


Fig. 14 - Level of ability of the service in Trebnje to identify the needs of the children, by dimension, initial and final

Fig. 15 - Level of ability of the service in Grosuplje to identify the needs of the children, by dimension, initial and final

The appropriateness of service responses for different targets at the final stage appears on average to be evaluated as higher in Trebnje (Fig. 16) and approximately equivalent in Grosuplje (Fig. 17), with respect to the initial stage.

Fig. 16 - Level of appropriateness of service responses in Trebnje, by target, initial and final

Fig. 17 - Level of appropriateness of service responses in Grosuplje, by target, initial and final

As regards the ability of the service to involve parents and other non-professional resources, the average scores are mostly increasing from the initial to the final questionnaire. This is the case in Trebnje (Fig. 18), for all the dimensions considered (ability to identify strengths and capabilities of parents, to involve parents and other non-professional resources). This is also the case in Grosuplje (Fig. 19) for two of the three dimensions considered.


Fig. 18 - Level of ability to identify strengths and capabilities in Trebnje, initial and final

Fig. 19 - Level of ability to identify strengths and capabilities in Grosuplje, initial and final

The perceived level of both coordination and information sharing within the network also appears to increase from the initial to the final phase. The average scores attributed to coordination and information sharing by professionals are slightly higher in Trebnje (Fig. 20) and considerably higher in Grosuplje (Fig. 21).

Fig. 20 - Level of coordination and information sharing in the network in Trebnje, initial and final

Fig. 21 - Level of coordination and information sharing in the network in Grosuplje, initial and final

The level of knowledge about integration also seems to have improved in level. The average scores attributed by professionals to both their level of knowledge about integration and their level of knowledge about how to work in an integrated environment are finally higher in Trebnje (Fig. 22) and in Grosuplje (Fig. 23) with respect to the initial scores.

Fig. 22 - Level of knowledge about integration and how to work in an integrated environment in Trebnje, initial and final

Fig. 23 - Level of knowledge about integration and how to work in an integrated environment in Grosuplje, initial and final

Considering their level of competence, professionals in the second questionnaire highlighted on average a higher level as compared to the answers in the first questionnaire, both in Trebnje (Fig. 24) and in Grosuplje (Fig. 25). This can be observed for all the different types of ability (listening to and cooperating with other professionals, carrying out joint actions and evaluation with other professionals) and knowledge (specifically regarding the role played by others).


Fig. 24 - Level of competence of professionals in Trebnje, by type, initial and final

Fig. 25 - Level of competence of professionals in Grosuplje, by type, initial and final

Moreover, in the second questionnaire professionals were asked the following final question: How would you describe your journey toward integration? How can you continue the journey that you started with the INTESYS project? Some respondents outline specific activities they plan to carry out, continuing the actions of the INTESYS project:

“Postopno vključevanje družin v institucionalno in domače okolje z delavnicami za otroke s starši” (Gradual inclusion of families in the institutional and home environment with conducting workshops for children with parents) “Še naprej bom sodelovala z dejavnostmi, ki so povezane z izobraževanjem romskih otrok” (I will continue to work with activities related to the education of Roma children)

The answers provided by professionals also highlight their desire to consolidate the results that have been achieved so far, underlining the relevant role played by communication with other professionals/services:

“Boljša komunikacija prinaša lažje in bolj poglobljeno delovanje ter večji pedagoški optimizem glede učinkovitosti našega dela. Tako kot smo zastavili dejavnosti, tako bomo tudi nadaljevali z njimi in jih dodatno razvijali” (Better communication brings easier and more profound operation and greater pedagogical optimism about the effectiveness of our work. Just as we set the activities, we will continue to develop them and further develop them) “V nadaljevanju nameravamo ohranjati in utrjevati medinstitucionalno sodelovanje” (In the continuation we intend to maintain and consolidate inter-institutional cooperation)

Some respondents highlight the need to reinforce cooperation with the community, notably by deepening the involvement of local institutions:

“Upam na uspešno sodelovanje še naprej z željo, da odpremo pot sodelovanja tudi z lokalno skupnostjo” (I hope for a successful cooperation with the desire to open the way of cooperation also with the local community) “Z večjim povezovanjem z ostalimi institucijami, iskanje novih možnih rešitev za delo” (By more interaction with other institutions, finding new possible solutions for work)

The abilities needed to tackle the prospective challenges are also clearly stated:

“Pripravljenost za medsebojno sodelovanje in usklajevanje, pomoč, vključevanje različnih deležnikov in sposobnost iskanja novih rešitev” (Readiness for mutual cooperation and coordination, assistance, involvement of different stakeholders and the ability to find new solutions)


3.4 The journey towards integration: the dynamics of integration The analysis devoted a specific attention to integration. In the first visit a 5-point scale (1=weak, 5=strong) was used for gathering the point of view of stakeholders in regard to the level of integration at the four levels:

1. Institutional integration: when institutions act together, for example in terms of integration or coordination between the educational sector and the social sector;

2. Managerial integration: when integration pertains to the functioning of services, the integrated management of resources, the joint overcoming of barriers to access;

3. Professional integration: when professionals belonging to different systems (for example health services and social services) share responsibilities;

4. Community-level integration: when different resources available in the local communities (e.g. organized volunteering, social-commitment associations, family associations, etc.) are also involved.

The same scale was used at the end of the integrated activities to understand if the integrated activities had produced changes at the four levels. Considering the situation in Grosuplje, as represented by local stakeholders, it is possible to see an increase in institutional and managerial integration (Fig. 26). The voices of stakeholders underlined that, at the institutional level, even if the municipality could not be involved, some good cooperation developed; at the managerial level, a number of things were jointly changed by the services involved (incentives for medical examinations, kindergarten visits, getting support for children with special needs). Regarding professional integration, it emerged that cooperation and connection among professionals are improving, but they are not yet fully satisfactory. A lower level was recorded by community-level integration: the respondents highlighted that there are only few connections in this area and everyone is working primarily in its own field. Fig. 26 - Level of integration in Grosuplje, by type, initial and final

In Trebnje, respondents highlighted a much aligned coordination at the institutional level and very well coordinated actions at the managerial level. This also contributed to a high level of professional integration because all tasks and responsibilities agreed on within the project were aligned. The score attributed to community-level integration remained at the same level as it was at the beginning (Fig. 27). This representation seems to reflect the establishment of a multidisciplinary action team in the municipality of Trebnje, as an important unexpected achievement of the project.


Fig. 27 - Level of integration in Trebnje, by type, initial and final

By jointly considering the views of all stakeholders in Grosuplje and Trebnje, it is possible to highlight that improved integration at different (professional, managerial, institutional, community) levels has overall contributed to creating value affecting different dimensions: professionals’ involvement and competences, professional practices, involvement and attitude of the other stakeholders and the community at large. Part of this “value creation” within the Slovenian pilots is directly related to activities and events that have occurred through the INTESYS project:

“Activities within INTESYS project contributed a lot. We would like to involve higher number of staff coming from primary school, preschool and other institutions” “We have recognized values and a common goal, and then developed and implemented activities to achieve this goal”

Professionals have also experienced outcomes, in terms of their knowledge and competences:

“Knowledge has deepened, understanding and sensibility towards the Roma group has been preserved (we had it before the project)” “I gained a lot: knowledge about Roma communities, strategy of work, insight in functioning of various institutions and their role, new acquaintance …”

Changes have also affected professional practices, towards increased connections and cooperation:

“We have repeatedly discussed cases with colleagues and unified the practice of working with Roma library users” “In general, there are more links, connections also deepened”

Some other changes have extended to organizational attitudes and to the wider community context, which in turn has provided more opportunities for cooperation and collaboration, within and out of the service:

“We made a first step towards families-parents and children with visits to their settlement and inviting them to kindergarten (socializing, workshops)” “Better visibility of our work outwards” “Faster and better transfer of information, to help find opportunities for collaboration”

Stakeholders have been directly affected by the project, which may also contribute to increasing integration among services and favouring the continuation of activities, focusing on disadvantaged social groups (notably Roma):

“We understand each other better, different tasks, responsibilities of each institution”


“The situation of the Roma was looked upon from several angles. We combined our views into a whole” “[Stakeholders] are prepared to continue to work together and cooperate, they understand that it is necessary to continue”

3.5 Insights from the pilot visits The first round of site visit (May 16-17, 2016) was organised in the two sites: Grosuplje and Trebnje. In both places, pre-schools already established some cooperation with representatives of local institutions, services, organizations, individuals, but only on the level of organizing events (once-twice per year, for the International Roma Day, for example), or when there are any urgent issues. The goal was to increase this collaboration between actors. The visits were an occasion to meet a number of partners. These interviews helped to build the baseline of integration in the pilot site. We also discussed the System of Classification. The aim of the following round of site visit (March 15, 2017) was to meet the same group of people encountered in the first visit in order to start working with them for understanding how things are changing/can change before and after the toolkit implementation. The attention focused also on the map of services available for children and the levels of integration as perceived by the local stakeholders. In the third round of site visit (June 12, 2018), the professionals from the two sites were invited to join the meeting together. In that occasion, an overview of the other pilot sites introduced the meeting. After that, each group described the activities in each local site (participants, goals, actions) and the results reached with the project, highlighting pros and cons in each local site. In the final session, participants completed a form about the level of integration. The meeting was also an occasion to highlight the importance of filling in the final questionnaire in order to provide a feedback about the integrated journey.

3.6 Overall strengths and weaknesses of the pilot Trebnje Strenghts:

- Strong support of municipality - Multidisciplinary action team placed in the strategical documents of the community - Long tradition in working with Roma community - Good relationship between Roma community (parents) and kindergarten teachers, especially

those, working in kindergarten in Roma community - Roma assistant working primary school, having good relationship with preschool in Roma

community, Roma parents and majority population - Strong connections among different stakeholders in the local action team

Weaknesses:

- Challenges in understanding the concept of equal opportunities which results in activities that do not tackle the core of the problem (soft transition between kindergarten and elementary school. In between kindergarten in the Roma community is also kindergarten in Trebnje).

- Not sufficient sensitization/insight for the needs of Roma children and families (‘difficult to access institutions or hard to reach parents?’) in the transition among different learning environments

- Management staff not present at the meetings, only at steering committee meetings.


Grosuplje Strengths:

- Inspiring pedagogical guidance of the kindergarten - Enthusiastic kindergarten teachers - Strong connections among different stakeholders in the local action team - Willingness to continue working in local action team also after official project ending - Network of different NGO’s/providers working with Roma community - Library seen as common, safe and neutral place for inhabitants of municipality - Management staff on board and always present at the meetings

Weaknesses:

- Not a strong support from the local municipality.

4. Discussion about changes Changes in terms of improved integration of policy, services and practices in the pilot sites resulting from integrated activities, at the end of the project, are the most seen on the level of improved services and practices. This is why the most prominent changes has happened on the level of workforce, e.g. knowing each other's work and competences better, working closely and more often as usual, feeling empowered by colleagues from other sectors (not feeling alone for all the problems), which could be upgraded in terms of developing network of services; personal and professional changes of the individuals involved. Although the appropriateness of services for different targets at the final stage appears on average to be evaluated approximately equivalent in Grosuplje (evaluated as higher in Trebnje), there is an important progress seen in terms of appropriateness of services for target groups with cultural deprivation (see Fig. 17). As regards the ability of the service to involve parents (the ability to identify strengths and capabilities of parents and to involve parents), the average scores also increased from the initial to the final situation in both pilot sites, however there is a slightly higher increase in Grosuplje (see Fig. 18 and Fig. 19). This could be a result of additional training activities carried out in Grosuplje pilot site focused on building trust with Romani parents and social justice training. The needs for this training were identified during working meetings and were also expressed by participants themselves. Considerably higher average scores attributed to coordination and information sharing within the network by professionals in Grosuplje (Fig. 21) could be a result of developed Communication protocol in cases of school absence, developed primarily to be used by primary school and social service centre (in case school children are absent from school). However, this protocol aims also on raising awareness of all employees at different services about the importance of education, e.g. how to react when a parent comes in e.g. social service centre with a (pre)school-aged child in the morning hours; at the time when the call for enrolment of children into preschool was open, employees at social service centre would encourage parents to enrol their child(ren) in preschool (if parents would come to social service centre at that time). The most prominent change is visible also in terms of understanding the need for integrated work, e.g. preventive vs. curative activities. In the beginning of integrated journey, especially in Trebnje pilot site, they worked together when a problem occurred. In such cases, usually a preschool would call other relevant organisations in order to ‘fix the problem’. During the pilot implementation, more activities that were able to prevent problems to occur took place. This could be seen also in Fig. 22 -


the average scores attributed by professionals to both their level of knowledge about integration and their level of knowledge about how to work in an integrated environment are higher with respect to the initial scores. Although average scores for the level of knowledge about the integration are higher in Trebnje, the level of competence for integrated working are higher in Grosuplje compared to the initial situation (see Fig. 25), especially in terms of knowledge of the role played by others, ability to share information and ability to carry out joint actions with other professionals. The reason could maybe lay in more active involvement of managerial structures in the Grosuplje pilot site (especially of the preschool) than in the other pilot, since strong leadership is recognised as one of the key factors towards integration. Importance of preventive way of working and the importance of integrated activities was recognised also on the level of Trebnje municipality. Trebnje municipality supported the idea and expressed its appreciation by establishing a ‘multidisciplinary action team’ as an official municipal body. The establishment of a multidisciplinary action team, as an important unexpected achievement of the project, seems to be reflected in Fig. 27. However, this could not happen if the person appointed by the Municipality would not recognise the importance of integrated working and if the person would not see a possibility how this could be incorporated in the structure of the Municipality. We are quite sure this could happen in every municipality, also in Grosuplje, but the first step is to have municipality on board (which did not happen in Grosuplje municipality). Because of the latter, one of the project goals was not achieved. Although Municipality of Grosuplje did not block the work of the pilot, members of Grosuplje pilot team feel helpless since they could not bring municipality on board. It seems this is reflected in Fig. 19 in dimension ‘involving other non-professional resources’. Reasons are probably different and multi-layered. However, other important outcomes has happened in Grosuplje: the group, which already had some experiences in connecting with other relevant stakeholders in order to achieve the desired goal (greater enrolment of Romani children in preschool), deepened relationships among relevant stakeholders, developed more supportive preschool environment in order every family could feel welcomed and desired, and they developed an awareness of the importance of outreach activities. Building on this, the results in Fig. 26 (Level of integration in Grosuplje, initial and final) are very interesting: the results show a lower level regarding the community-level integration: the respondents highlighted that there are only few connections in this area and everyone is working primarily in its own field. The impression and also what members of the group were reporting during the meetings are mainly in favour of greater community-level integration. In terms of improved integration on the level of policy, a ‘multidisciplinary action team’ from Trebnje municipality could be reported, as “changes in the local environment are possible only if measures in terms of policies of integrative nature on national level are in place” (representative of Trebnje municipality).


5. Dissemination, replicability and future sustainability of the pilot activities

5.1 Communication and dissemination at the local/national level

Activities Date Location Audience Nr of persons reached

Sources

The INTESYS project page set up at Centre for Quality in Education Step by Step website

December 2015

N/A Visitors of our website 540 active users

Chttp://www.korakzakorakom.si/skupaj-podpiranje-ogrozenih-otrok-preko-integriranih-storitev-INTESYS

News on INTESYS project at Centre for Quality in Education Step by Step website

September 2017 January 2018 October 2018

N/A Visitors of our website 540 active users

http://www.korakzakorakom.si/v-grosupljem-in-trebnjem-smo-ustanovili-lokalna-akcijska-tima http://www.korakzakorakom.si/poleg-grosuplja-in-trebnjega-lokalni-akcijski-tim-tudi-v-sentvidu-v-ljubljani http://www.korakzakorakom.si/okrogla-miza-o-oblikovanju-integriranega-sistema-skrbi-za-ranljive-skupine-prebivalstva-v-zgodnjem-otrostvu

Centre for Quality in Education Step by Step Facebook page

N/A Visitors of our Facebook webpage 633 https://www.facebook.com/korakzakorakom/

http://www.korakzakorakom.si/v-grosupljem-in-trebnjem-smo-ustanovili-lokalna-akcijska-tima




http://www.korakzakorakom.si/poleg-grosuplja-in-trebnjega-lokalni-akcijski-tim-tudi-v-sentvidu-v-ljubljani




http://www.korakzakorakom.si/okrogla-miza-o-oblikovanju-integriranega-sistema-skrbi-za-ranljive-skupine-prebivalstva-v-zgodnjem-otrostvu






Sources

ISSA Conference 2016 GORDON, Jean, IONESCU, Mihaela, JAGER, Jerneja, VANDEKERCKHOVE, Ankie. Mapping the road towards integrated early childhood service: [predavanje na konferenci Early childhood in times of rapid change, Vilnius, Lithuania, 11-13 October 2016].

11 October 2016

Vilnius, Lithuania

ECEC professionals, school teachers, counsellors, principals, researchers

40 Conference Program

ISSA Conference 2017 GORDON, Jean,IONESCU, Mihaela, REŽEK Mateja, HULPIA Hester, SICA Marzia, MASCARENHAS Monica. Final destination – integration of early childhood services. How far are we? Experiences from four countries: Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Slovenia.

5 October 2017

Ghent, Belgium

ECEC professionals, school teachers, counsellors, principals, researchers

25 Conference Program http://issa2017.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/issa_conference2017_program-1.pdf

Meeting of coordinators from 35 preschools, members of Step by Step Network for Changing Quality of Practice

6 and 7 October 2016

Kope, Slovenia

Preschool teachers, school teachers and counsellors

50 List of Participants

Meeting of principals from 35 preschools, members of Step by Step

10 and 11 November 2016

Bohinj, Slovenia

Preschool principals, principals’ assistants and counsellors


http://issa2017.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/issa_conference2017_program-1.pdf





Sources

Network for Changing Quality of Practice

Centre for Quality in Education Step by Step Newsletter

August 2017 December 2017 March 2018 October 2018 November 2018

N/A All members of Step by Step Network for Changing Quality of Practice, representatives of different preschools, schools, municipalities, NGO, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport

1500 Different adremas

INTESYS newsletter March 2016 December 2016 June 2017 December 2017

N/A Representatives of different preschools, schools, municipalities, NGO, Ministry of Education, Science and Sport

250 https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?u=2b6b42c869263f9b387dba2b1&id=724bca7747 https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?e=[UNIQID]&u=2b6b42c869263f9b387dba2b1&id=5c6d741ffa http://www.korakzakorakom.si/storage/app/files/projekti/INTESYS%20novi%C4%8Dnik%20%C5%A1t.4%20-%20razposlan.pdf

Initial roundtable in Grosuplje 30 March 2017

Grosuplje ECEC and primary school professionals, counsellors, principals, medical doctors and nurses, staff from local library, representatives of Roma community, staff from social work center, representatives of Centre for school and Outdoor Education, representatives of municipality Grosuplje, staff from Employment Service, representatives of Police


https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?u=2b6b42c869263f9b387dba2b1&id=724bca7747




https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?e=%5bUNIQID%5d&u=2b6b42c869263f9b387dba2b1&id=5c6d741ffa




http://www.korakzakorakom.si/storage/app/files/projekti/INTESYS%20novi%C4%8Dnik%20%C5%A1t.4%20-%20razposlan.pdf






Sources

department, representatives of the Ministry of Education

Initial roundtable in Trebnje 4 April 2017

Trebnje ECEC and primary school professionals, counsellors, principals, medical doctors and nurses, staff from local library, representatives of municipality Trebnje, representatives of Roma community, staff from social work center, representatives of Ministry of education


Communique (minutes from the initial roundtable)

March 2017

N/A Participants of the initial roundtable in Grosuplje

25 Adrema

Communique (minutes from the initial roundtable)

April 2017 N/A Participants of the initial roundtable in Trebnje

20 Adrema

Final jroundtable in Grosuplje 24 October 2018

Grosuplje ECEC and primary school professionals, counsellors, principals, staff from local library, representatives of Roma community, staff from social work center, representatives of Centre for school and Outdoor Education, representatives of municipality Grosuplje and Trebnje, staff from Employment Service, representatives of Ministry of education, Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia

34 List of participants



Sources

Article about the final roundtable

24 October 2018

Slovenian Press Agency STA

STA subscribers https://www.sta.si/2566822/nussdorferjeva-za-se-hitrejse-korake-za-izboljsanje-polozaja-romov?q=Varuh,%C4%8Dlovek,prav,za,%C5%A1e,hitrej,korak,za,izbolj,polo%C5%BE,Romov

https://www.sta.si/2566822/nussdorferjeva-za-se-hitrejse-korake-za-izboljsanje-polozaja-romov?q=Varuh,%C4%8Dlovek,prav,za,%C5%A1e,hitrej,korak,za,izbolj,polo%C5%BE,Romov







5.2 Replicability of elements of the project in the country

Pilot in Slovenia was implemented in environments where representatives of Romani community live. The main points of this process can be transferred to any context, to any vulnerable group. Below are some elements of project replicability that should be taken into account when starting a journey towards integrated system in a new context.

Replicability of elements of project Description

(Professional) Guidance of the group - external leader or someone, who is not involved in the situation, who has a broader view on the topic

In the pilot, our organisation (ERI) was a coordinator who organized meetings and took care of the process. The importance of balancing concrete actions and group process (developing an integrated way of working) must be taken into account, and too much involvement affects subjectivity.

A group with permanent members This was highlighted also by the member of two pilots. Permanent members are important in terms of smooth work, and in terms of having all information from the past meetings.

Established trust and confidentiality between members of the group

Trust and confidentiality are important prerequisite for a joint work. Members of the working group must trust each other in order to work as a team, and confidentiality is crucial in terms of protecting the privacy of the persons involved.

Common goal and a shared vision As a main red thread that guides the group towards desired goal.

Regular meetings of the group In order to meet the needs of a vulnerable group, meetings should be regular and frequent. In our case, meeting at least once a month seems to be essential.

Motivation of members of the group for the integrated way of working

The key is to have motivated members of the group, since success of the action and of the way towards building integrated system is dependant (besides supportive and collaborative management) also on them.

Willingness to change Sometimes, members of the group could say ‘all is the same, nothing could be changed because of…’. In developing an integrated system, this kind of thinking should be ‘forgotten’, since integrated system is something that does not exist yet and there should be steps taken that have never been taken before. This means that thinking outside of the box should be valued, and working towards new knowledge, practices and values should be encouraged. Willingness to change should be present also on the other (Romani) side. It is important to stress that Romani community should be involved in planning measures from the very beginning - according to the well-known phrase ‘Nothing about Roma without Roma’.

Ensure time for discussions, for getting to know each other’s competences, working area(s)

this is an important step at the beginning of the integrated journey; members of the group should have enough time to discuss and explore each other’s working areas in order to know who would be the most appropriate first ‘link’ for a


certain problem to address (where to start) and where could others professionals step in.

Ensure time for planning next steps (concrete actions)

Meetings could be very rich in terms of inspiration for the future work (what should be changed), but it could stay at this level only (with no changes for practice) if no time for planning concrete actions is ensured.

Ensure time for evaluation of activities

Evaluation is important in terms of making measures more in line with the needs of the vulnerable group; some actions might seem to be very good and responding to the group’s needs, but in reality in turns out they were not as appropriate as we thought they would be

Ensure participation and involvement of managerial structures of the organisation(s) involved

It is important that the leadership recognize the importance and urgency of such cooperation and organize the working process of professionals accordingly; and also in order to work in the field of prevention (work before a problem occurs), certain decisions need to be made, which are not in the practitioners domain

Professional support for the group - in terms of ensuring training on a theme, which is a central point of developing an integrated system

In our case we have worked in environments where representative of Romani community live. Getting to know more about the Romani culture, and challenge own prejudices and stereotypes was crucial on the way to success in (one) pilot site, e.g. ensure support for professionals in order to understand the concept of equal rights (“There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”)

Support (and preferably involvement) of local municipality

Especially important when we aim to incorporate integrated work on systemic level (for example strategic development document on the level of municipality)

Efforts to build trust with a target (vulnerable) group

The importance of outreach activities and working towards breaking the statement: ‘there are no families hard to reach, there are only institutions hard to access’

5.3 Strategies of future sustainability

● Promoting the operation of local action teams at the national level and find a solution for placing LATs in the strategic documents of municipalities;

● Promoting the operation of LATs in all environments with vulnerable population groups; ● Including both professionals as well as managerial levels in LATs. ● Involving higher number of staff coming from primary school, preschool and other institutions

(in the sense of ensuring ‘back-up’ staff )

5.4 Summary of the journey and future developments

Lessons learned Description

Support from municipality is important

In an environment where individuals have had this support, the group's commitment to the integrated system has been formally transferred to the local level; in an environment where individuals did not feel this support (although there was no opposition from the municipality), there is a certain measure of disability among


Lessons learned Description

the members of the group for the establishment of an integrated system, since certain issues cannot be decided on their own or, their decisions do not have a far-reaching impact

Involvement of managers (managerial level)

Workforce (especially kindergarten and elementary school teachers) were, to some extent, autonomous, but in certain situations they could not have a say, as they do not have the mandate/authority to make decisions that concern the kindergarten/school as a whole

Involvement of vulnerable group(s) into the process from the very beginning and taking into account their proposals

It is important to stress that Romani community should be involved in the process from the very beginning - according to the well-known phrase ‘Nothing about Roma without Roma’. This is one of the important factors in terms of successfulness of the process.

Sufficient and recognised time for joint meetings and activities carried out

It is crucial that managers in each of the organisations involved find solutions how to incorporate meetings with other relevant stakeholders and organisations into employees’ daily working hours. Such work should be recognised as important and incorporated into organisation’s vision.

The importance of outreach activities, especially when target (vulnerable) group(s) are not frequent and regular ‘users’ of activities/services in the municipality, when they are segregated from the local community as Romani community (usually) is

It is important that services see the value of outreach activities and that they are the one who should take the first step, who should do also the fieldwork. Professionals in different services should see and understand the needs of the families they are working with, and they should adapt their everyday activities to the vulnerable groups’ (families’) needs.

Sensibilization of all key actors involved who come in regular contact with representatives of the Romani community

Work on developing a common understanding about the inclusive approaches is still a must; it is also evident that this is an ongoing process.

6. Recommendations for policy makers and professionals 6.1 Summary of lesson learned During our work in two contexts with Romani community ‘Nothing about Roma without Roma’ principle has been consolidated as an important factor in terms of successfulness of the process. In order to develop integrated way of working, support from (involvement of) the municipality seems to be important, as well as involvement of managerial level (in order to make decisions). On the institutional level, sufficient and recognised time for joint meetings and activities carried out should be ensured, and outreach activities should be recognised and implemented as a core organisational value. Although Romani community live in the environments where we have worked for a very long time, sensibilization of all key persons involved that come in regular contact with representatives of Romani community is still a must.


6.2 Policy Recommendations

Recommendations for policy makers At the national level, it is important to provide systemic conditions that enable the implementation of an integrated system. For this to happen, policy makers should ensure that the following recommendations are implemented:

● Adapt legislation in order to support more intensive connections among different sectors; ● Adapt legislation in order to enable the implementation of integrated measures (to enable

integrated working on the systemic level); ● Establish systemic conditions for creating multidisciplinary action teams in every municipality

in order to ensure ‘official’ integrated working; ● Ensure information sharing that enables working in the best interest for children and families.

However, it is certainly not enough to provide conditions only at the policy level. It is important to build a competent system that will allow integration among different sectors. In order to develop such a system, we need to think about the inter-institutional level, institutional level and level of professionals, too.

Recommendations at inter-institutional level ● Define common values and goal(s) and develop a common vision ● Ensure adequate support for sensibilization of all key persons involved that come in regular

contact with representatives of vulnerable groups ● Involve representatives of Romani community (vulnerable group) in planning, implementation

and evaluation of integrated activities ● Understand that implementation of pre-school programs in a Roma settlement is a

transitional form; an active effort of all involved actors to integrate Roma children into regular kindergartens at least one year before entering school is a must

● Provide professional support for the group, especially in terms of understanding the concept of equal rights

● Develop shared responsibility for a joint success

● Implement advocacy activities in order to influence the policy level Recommendations at institutional level

● Support organisations in order to develop strong leadership ● Set outreach activities as one of the core values of an organisation ● Ensure sufficient and recognised time for meetings with professionals from other sectors and

for activities carried out

Recommendations regarding professionals ● Develop a shared understanding of the needs of the target group(s) ● Ensure enough time at the meetings in order to present, explore and understand each other’s

work for better planning of integrated activities ● Ensure support for professionals in order to understand the concept of equal rights (“There

is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”)

pilot outcome report slovenia/media/europe/intesys/slovenian... · complex. it requires a changed...

Documents