• An increased awareness about the importance of using ESI Funds other than the European Social Fund (ESF), notably the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), is perceived. In the 2014-2020 programming period, most countries foresee the use of both ESF and ERDF to address Roma inclusion. Moreover, there are plans to use other funding sources and instruments –including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Territorial Cooperation programmes- in certain countries

• While in some cases the use of ESF and ERDF is planned separately, a complementary use of both funds is foreseen in a large number of OPs, which represents a step forward towards a more integrated approach. Three options are used:
  • A single-fund OP (ESF/ERDF) supporting actions eligible under the other fund according to Article 98 of the Common Provisions Regulations
  • Including both funds within the same OP (multi-fund OP)
  • Complementing actions from different OPs (mostly single-fund) using ESF and/or ERDF funds.It remains to be seen how the complementarity of funds is applied in practice and how the main problems faced in this area in the 2007-2013 programming period (such as the difficulties in harmonising the calls for proposals from different funds) or new aspects (such as co-investing resources from different funds into one single intvention) are addressed.

• Unfortunately, the potential of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) to support the employment of Roma, a population significantly younger than the overall population and experiencing higher unemployment rates than the rest of society, is largely missed. In general terms, Roma youngsters are not specifically considered in the Plans and OPs adopted by Member States to implement the YEI at national level, assuming that they will benefit from the measures simply because they are young and they are unemployed. However, experience shows that, if specific measures are not adopted to take into account the profiles and needs of the groups furthest from the labour market such as Roma (with limited educational background to comply with the procedures established and to access the training schemes and the labour market offers) and to effectively reach them, the potential of this type of initiatives will be missed.

• Whereas certain progress is acknowledged, further efforts are needed to ensure that the needs of the Roma population are considered in all ESI Funds and that full advantage is taken of all the opportunities offered to achieve a more effective use of these funds such as the combination of funds.

• Different ways to address Roma inclusion are observed, mainly related to the reference made to Roma/Roma communities within the Operational Programmes:
  
  -Explicit mention: dedicated lines focusing specifically on Roma/Roma communities. This approach is largely used in certain ESF investment priorities, notably under ESF IP 9.2. (Socio-economic integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma), but also under other ESF IPs and TOs and to a lesser extent under ERDF IP 9.b. (Providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities in urban and rural areas).
  
  -Explicit but not exclusive mention: general lines of intervention focusing explicitly on Roma/Roma communities but as part of a larger group (e.g. disadvantaged group) or geographical area (e.g. disadvantaged area). In this category a distinction should be made between those OPs that merely mention Roma/Roma communities as one of the many target groups/greographical areas of the OP and those that pay particular attention to them by having a limited number of target groups/areas, one of them Roma/Roma communities. ‘Explicit but not exclusive’ Roma targeting, if implemented properly, has proven to be one of the best ways of tackling the socioeconomic inclusion of Roma.
  
  -No explicit mention to Roma/Roma communities but considered as part of a larger group /geographical area.

Finally, the territorial approach, which can be applied in any of the previous three cases. This approach aims at covering specifically the needs of geographical areas, sometimes micro-territories, in many cases at greatest risk of poverty and, as a consequence, tackle the needs of groups at risk of exclusion and discrimination living in these areas, as it is the case of the Roma.

• In general terms countries combine different approaches to address Roma inclusion (both within the same OP or in the different OPs) and target Roma explicitly. The only exception to this general trend is Sweden, which opts for not using an explicit approach (Roma are considered as part of the ‘minorities’ target group).

• There are also differences as regards the hierarchical level at which the interventions targeting specifically Roma/Roma communities are planned (from the maximum level of relevance when defined as a priority axis to a specific objective or an action/type of intervention). The most common trend is to use specific objectives, whether several ones or one only. Indeed Roma/Roma communities can also benefit from other priority axes, specific objectives and actions/types of interventions that are not targeting them specifically (whether they are mentioned as one of the target groups or not).

• Experience shows that there is no single right or better approach, what is important is that planning is translated into actions that actually reach Roma/Roma communities. Particular attention should be paid to those actions that do not target Roma explicitly to avoid programmes disregarding them. The necessary guarantees should also be taken as regards the ‘explicit but not exclusive’ approaches, notably when there is a large number of target groups, to prevent the risk that Roma become blurred among the many other groups. To this end, it is crucial to put in place strong and continuous monitoring processes.

• It is also important to bear in mind that there is still much scope to reach Roma/Roma communities in the implementation phase even if the adopted programming documents do not feature specific measures or do not explicitly mention them (e.g. Roma can be mentioned as potential target groups of the calls for proposals or in the priorities of the projects…).

• Luckily most countries have understood that the fact that there is a dedicated investment priority to address Roma inclusion within ESF (IP 9.2.) does not prevent them from planning interventions under other ESF IPs and TOs as well as under other funds (ERDF).

• The most common trend within the ESF is to address Roma inclusion under Thematic Objective 9 (Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination), followed by Thematic Objective 8 (Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility) and Thematic Objective 10 (Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and life-long learning).

• As it could be expected, the OPs addressing Roma inclusion under IP 9.2. are the ones that include the most targeted actions, including dedicated priority axes, thematic objectives and/or actions/type of interventions. But it is worth noting that a number of OPs that address Roma inclusion under IPs other than 9.2. also pay particular attention to Roma, even with dedicated actions targeting Roma.

• With respect to the ERDF, Roma inclusion is mainly addressed under Thematic Objective 9 (Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination) and Thematic Objective 10 (Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning by developing education and training infrastructure).

• The most explicit and targeted approaches to Roma/Roma communities under ERDF are found under IP 9.b. (Providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities in urban and rural areas). However, in ERDF interventions it is more common to use ‘explicit but not exclusive approaches’ or even not mentioning Roma explicitly (considering them as part of larger groups), a trend that is to some extent related to the wide use of territorial approaches.

• The consideration of Roma inclusion in a large number of ESF and ERDF thematic objectives and investment priorities, beyond the specific IP 9.2. implies substantial progress in terms of Roma policies and opens a lot of opportunities to achieve impact if it is appropriately implemented.

• The use of other thematic objectives which could have potential to reach Roma people (e.g. 2, 5 and 6) could be considered as merely anecdotal.

• It is positive to observe that in the adopted Operational Programmes countries incorporate actions addressing the four key fields of intervention identified by the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (employment, education, healthcare and housing), together in some cases with interventions in other areas such as the fight against discrimination or social inclusion/community-level social integration (i.e. community centres, field social work, intercultural mediation, access to social services…).
• Despite the wider scope in terms of fields of intervention, and similarly to the 2007- 2013 programming period, interventions are mainly focused on employment and education while healthcare and housing are considered to a lesser extent, although housing issues are acquiring increased importance, with specific lines of support.The area of healthcare is however primarily included in general lines of support and considered from a global approach (initiatives covering different areas).
• One of the main challenges perceived in the previous programming period was the design and actual implementation of an integrated and multidimensional approach (both in terms of foreseen interventions and funds). In the 2014-2020 period, despite
  the fact that it is widely recognised as a crucial element to address complex situations for Roma inclusion, it is still not broadly considered and when it is the case, it is often not clear how it will be implemented in practice.
• While these approaches are of particular relevance in areas with relatively widespread geographical segregation and marginalisation or where Roma are overrepresented, it is important to go further and apply them in all types of interventions targeting Roma, emphasising links between the different fields.
• It seems that further efforts are also needed as regards the use of integrated approaches in micro-territorial interventions. Integrated actions in these cases should entail investment in education, employment generation and access to healthcare with the pivotal development of basic infrastructure, including the rebuilding and renovation of housing. Other key areas to be considered as regards housing interventions are infrastructural (including sanitation) and environmental improvements in Roma communities, integrated actions for improving physical and housing conditions in neighbourhoods with a high concentration of Roma as well as desegregation and urban planning.