This report was part of an effort to deepen inclusion in the Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools Project. Its authors are Hélène Pfeil and Sanjay Agarwal. The authors are grateful to Alanna Simpson, Alina Sava and Zuzana Stanton-Geddes, the Task Team Leaders for the Project and to Anna Akhalkatsi, Country Manager, Romania and Varalakshmi Vemuru, Practice Manager, Social Sustainability and Inclusion, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, who provided useful and timely guidance throughout the process. Valuable inputs and comments were provided by Shabbir Ahsan, Sonya Sultan, Zoe Elena Trohanis and Ayesha Vawda. The authors would like to thank Alina Birsan from Encore Research for coordinating the qualitative research work described in the report, as well as Laura Johnson for her excellent editorial support. Finally, the authors are grateful to the GFDRR for supporting the initiative. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 202-473-1000 | www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, World Bank Group, 1818 H Street, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax 202-522-2625; email: pubrights@worldbank.org. Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 Value of Assessment to the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 Key Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendixes A Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 B Site-Specific School-Level Consultations—Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Boxes 1.1 Overview of the Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools Project (SISSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 The Roma Filter: A Screening Tool to Enhance Roma Inclusion in World Bank-financed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Leveraging the Environmental and Social Framework to Promote Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Typical Drivers of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 School-related Challenges Among Vulnerable Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figures B3.1.1 Typical Drivers of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Vulnerable Groups Identified Before and During the Vulnerable Community Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Tables 2.1. Engagement Methods with Respondents for the Assessment of Vulnerable Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 i 1 Introduction In every country, certain individuals and groups find themselves apparent.2 Further, clients and project teams often assume that excluded from fully participating in political, economic, and social they know and understand the problems faced by vulnerable life. The barriers they face can be systemic (such as discrimina- groups and individuals when in fact they do not, or at least not tory laws, difficulty accessing the labor market, inequalities with fully. Even preliminary social assessments sometimes provide respect to land ownership, and ineffective social interventions), only a superficial overview of the issues faced by margin- or linked to attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions.1 Social exclusion alized groups or fail to delve deeply into their characteristics costs both the individuals who suffer from it because it hampers and project-related preferences. Some of the reasons for this the development of their full potential, as well as the society as include: a whole, because entire segments of the population struggle to access markets, services, and spaces, thereby limiting human n Project preparation time frames are typically very short, development and the creation of economic wealth. especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when face-to-face interaction is not possible, whereas comprehensive social A starting point for promoting social inclusion in World Bank assessments take time. lending operations is to identify in the greatest detail possible n The preference for options about which a person feels the vulnerable groups and individuals who will be impacted by well-informed is a common cognitive bias. Referred to as the a project as well as the people who risk being excluded or who ambiguity effect, it describes the tendency to avoid options might be unable to enjoy the project’s benefits. However, a key considered ambiguous or where information is missing. limitation to this process is the natural tendency of clients and World Bank staff to only consider those already generally rec- n Another well-documented cognitive bias, the confirmation bias, ognized as vulnerable, such as people with disabilities, ethnic describes the tendency to emphasize or place greater weight and linguistic minorities, women, and people living in poverty, on facts and data that match our underlying assumptions and while neglecting those whose vulnerabilities may be initially less to actively seek out additional information to validate them. All pictures in the report were taken during focus group discussions or individual interviews as part of the research process. Photo credit: Encore Research 1. Disadvantage is often based on social identity across the dimensions of gender, age, location, occupation, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship status, disability, and sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors. 2. In the absence of qualitative research, the complexity of individual and collective struggles may not be visible, and remain obfuscated by general labels and categories. 1 “That the poor are invisible is one of the most important things about them. They are not simply neglected and forgotten as in the old rhetoric of reform; what is much worse, they are not seen.” – American writer Michael Harrington (1928–1989) Yet in order to improve social inclusion in World Bank- This note shares the experience of an assessment of vulnerable financed operations, it is essential to identify vulnerable groups communities conducted for the Romania Safer, Inclusive and and individuals more broadly and thoroughly, and to listen to Sustainable Schools Project (SISSP, see box  1.1). The process them carefully to appreciate the constraints they face in a more followed is outlined in section 2, the added value is explored in nuanced way and to capture the solutions “they prefer,” as section 3, challenges encountered are summarized in section opposed to what “we prefer” in the context of particular proj- 4, and key lessons learned and implications for other project ects. During the preparation of an education and disaster risk teams considering a similar approach are offered in section 5. reduction lending operation in Romania, a recent active effort The terms of reference for the research firm that conducted the sought to identify and give voice to the recognized vulnerable assessment are provided in appendix A, and the template for groups with the aim of improving the terms by which they can school-specific consultations developed—but not tested because participate in and benefit from a project. In late 2020, a dedi- the project is not yet effective—is included in appendix B. The cated initiative assessed both “well known” and “lesser known” note and appendixes are intended to provide inspiration for proj- vulnerable communities and their characteristics. ect task teams looking to implement similar initiatives. BOX 1.1 Overview of the Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools Project (SISSP) The SISSP’s development objective is to improve the future schools, improved investment planning, and the cre- resilience, energy efficiency, and learning environment of ation of educational materials for outreach and training to selected schools, and to increase institutional capacity for foster disaster- and climate-resilient, inclusive, and sustain- integrated investments in Romanian schools. able schools and communities. PROJECT COMPONENTS 4. Project management to expand the capacity of support 1. Integrated investment in school infrastructure, including staff to ensure the successful implementation of all activities. the technical preparation, design, civil works, and supervi- sion linked to the retrofitting and rehabilitation or demolition 5. Contingent emergency response to allow the govern- and reconstruction of about 55 primary and lower secondary ment access to rapid financing for responding to eligible schools; temporary teaching facilities and transport support; crises and emergencies. and communications and outreach. The main beneficiaries of the project’s US$118 million Inter- 2. Investing in clever classrooms, including classroom fur- national Bank for Reconstruction and Development loan are niture and equipment, as well as outreach and training for teachers, students, and other users of school buildings, as teachers. well as local authorities in areas of high seismic hazard. The project is expected to leverage funds from the European 3. Foundations for future investments in sustainable and Union for similar activities. modern school infrastructure, including model designs for Source: World Bank 2021. An important caveat: At the time of the assessment, the project was not yet effective. Therefore, some of the outputs developed from the assessment and included in the stakeholder engagement plan, such as the site-specific school consultation template included in appendix B have not been tested. 2 2 Assessment Overview The task team’s objectives in commissioning a rapid assessment quantitative studies on exclusion in education. The current exer- of vulnerable communities during project preparation were to: cise thus connected previous efforts with a closer engagement identify disadvantaged groups and individuals, especially those of vulnerable groups, shifting from a statistical/civil society/ who are often missed; gather insights into the challenges these academic perspective toward one that is more focused on the groups and individuals face in accessing and completing a qual- grassroots level. ity education; and better understand their perceived priorities for enhancing their learning experience under the project or by The Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools Project other means. The explicit focus of the Environmental and Social (SISSP) task team decided to recruit a consulting firm to conduct Framework on inclusion and fostering the participation of vul- an assessment of vulnerable groups in 12 schools and their sur- nerable groups in projects made these goals achievable (see box rounding communities in Romania. This was due primarily to the 2.1). The process was also facilitated by research and efforts to COVID-19 pandemic, which considerably limited other options enhance inclusion in Romania over the past few years, such as for collecting relevant data—under normal circumstances, alter- the development of the Roma Filter to mainstream Roma-sen- natives would be to implement a similar assessment as part of sitivity across the World Bank’s Romania portfolio in 2015 (see the Environmental and Social Assessment, Social Assessments box 2.2); the introduction of the Roma Sounding Board in 2017, conducted by the client with the support of the Bank team, or a network of competitively selected civil society organizations even Bank missions. The SISSP task team selected Encore with expertise in Roma social and economic inclusion; and prior Research, a private company specializing in social and market BOX 2.1 The Roma Filter: A Screening Tool to Enhance Roma Inclusion in World Bank-financed Projects The Roma Sensitivity Enhancer, more commonly referred activities on marginalized and disadvantaged Roma. The to as the Roma Filter or the RSE, is a tool that systemat- RSE takes the form of a semi-structured questionnaire ically screens the portfolio at the concept note stage for which helps task teams increase Roma sensitivity in three entry points on the Roma agenda. Developed by the World dimensions: (a) analysis, (b) actions, and (c) monitoring Bank team in Romania, it has already been applied to several and evaluation. The RSE guides task teams to take these World Bank-financed operations in Romania since 2015. Roma-related aspects into consideration when they are designing and implementing project activities. It also helps According to the Country Partnership Framework for Roma- teams to incorporate Roma-specific project monitoring indi- nia (World Bank 2018a): cators to track results related to Roma. The objective of the RSE is to help task teams of World Bank The background note for the Romania Systematic Country operations identify: (a) specific challenges and circum- Diagnostic (World Bank 2018b) further reflects: stances that could impede marginalized and disadvantaged Roma from benefiting from Bank supported activities; (b) Beyond the reflexive focus on education and social protec- potential negative impacts of Bank-supported activities on tion, it has allowed Bank teams to integrate a strategic Roma marginalized and disadvantaged Roma; (c) opportunities and lens in operations focused on rural infrastructure upgrading measures to increase the Bank-supported activities’ positive or justice system modernization, which have been found to impacts on marginalized and disadvantaged Roma and pro- be areas with the opportunity to create a high impact for mote their social inclusion; and (d) measures to avoid or Roma communities. mitigate the potential negative impacts of Bank-supported 3 BOX 2.2 Leveraging the Environmental and Social Framework to Promote Inclusion Prior to the introduction of the Environmental and Social ESS1 further stipulates that where the assessment Framework in 2018, the World Bank’s social safeguards policies were primarily focused on two specific groups of identifies specific individuals or groups as disadvantaged project-affected people: or vulnerable, the Borrower will propose and implement differentiated measures so that adverse impacts do not fall 1. Those whose land, assets, or livelihoods had been taken disproportionately on the disadvantaged or vulnerable. away because of a project, who were targeted by the World Bank’s Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (Opera- ESS5 on Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use, and tional Policy 4.12) to ensure that they would receive com- Involuntary Resettlement.a ESS5 spells out that “particular pensation and assistance to improve or at least restore attention will be paid to gender aspects and the needs of the their livelihoods and living standards; and poor and the vulnerable.” For example, all census surveys must include “information on vulnerable groups or persons 2. Indigenous peoples, with whom, according to the World for whom special provisions may have to be made.” Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10, Borrowers must engage in a process of free, prior, and informed consultation to ESS7 on Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Histor- guarantee the full respect of their dignity, human rights, ically Underserved Traditional Local Communities.b ESS7 economies, and cultures. recognizes that these communities are often “disadvantaged by traditional models of development” and are, in many The Environmental and Social Framework substantially instances, “among the most economically marginalized and expands the range of people who must be considered by vulnerable segments of the population.” It also points out World Bank-financed projects. Both the Environmental and that they “may not always be adequately consulted about the Social Standards (ESSs) and the World Bank Directive on design or implementation of projects that would profoundly Addressing Risks and Impacts on Disadvantaged or Vulner- affect their lives or communities.” able Individuals or Groups (World Bank, 2016) highlight that all project-affected parties should be identified, analyzed in ESS10 on Stakeholder Engagement and Information Dis- as much detail as possible, and engaged in a manner ade- closure. ESS10 specifies that quate to their interest in the project and their expressed preferences. Both also make social inclusion a goal in its the Borrower will identify those project-affected parties own right, unlike previous safeguard policies that focused (individuals or groups) who, because of their particular on rectifying any adverse impacts on people. Task teams are circumstances, may be disadvantaged or vulnerable. Based specifically mandated to consider the inclusion of various on this identification, the Borrower will further identify groups, especially the vulnerable and disadvantaged under individuals or groups who may have different concerns and the following standards. priorities about project impacts, mitigation mechanisms, and benefits, and who may require different, or separate, ESS1 on the Assessment and Management of Environ- forms of engagement. An adequate level of detail will be mental and Social Risks and Impacts. ESS1 stipulates that included in the stakeholder identification and analysis so as the environmental and social assessment consider: to determine the level of communication that is appropriate for the project. all relevant environmental and social risks and impacts of the project, including … risks that project impacts fall dispro- The ESS10 guidance note (World Bank, 2018c) adds that “it portionately on individuals and groups who, because of their is advisable to conduct discussions with representatives of particular circumstances, may be disadvantaged or vulner- the stakeholders identified and with persons knowledgeable able [as well as] any prejudice or discrimination toward about the local, country, and sector contexts.” individuals or groups in providing access to development resources and project benefits, particularly in the case of (continued) those who may be disadvantaged or vulnerable. 4 TABLE 2.1. Engagement Methods with Respondents for the Assessment of Vulnerable Communities Method Number of Respondents Type of Interaction Interviews with representatives of identified vulnerable groups 180 (15 interviews per community) Face-to-face Interviews with school directors 12 (1 per school) Telephone Interviews with primary and secondary school teachers 24 (2 per school) Telephone Interviews with social assistants 7 Telephone Interviews with school mediators and school councilors 6 Telephone Interviews with parents from parents’ associations 5 Telephone Interviews with experts in inclusive education, representatives 7 Telephone or online of nongovernmental organizations Total number of people interviewed 241 research, which carried out the assessment by mobilizing a team schooling as well as their suggestions for improving the comprised of 14 field researchers specializing in the collection of school’s learning and physical environment; and qualitative data. The firm’s tasks were to: n Document findings of the discussions and interviews in a comprehensive final report.3 n Identify key project-relevant vulnerable groups and provide a detailed description of the characteristics of their vulnerabil- The views of over 240 individuals were solicited and collected ity as they relate to the education sector; between October 20 and November 10, 2020 (see table 2.1). n Select representatives from and conduct focus group dis- Each of the 12 selected communities4 are from low-income or cussions or in-depth interviews with various vulnerable lower-middle-income areas of the country, and are located in groups to gain insights into their previous experiences with lagging territorial administrative units. Many included significant numbers of Roma residents.5 3. The full terms of reference for the consulting firm are included in appendix A. 4. The localities selected for the assessment were Smeeni, Mălureni, Popești, Movilita (Ialomita County), Sihlea, Târgșoru, Movilita (Vrancea County), Vernești, Hârlău, Bărbulești, Liești, and Viziru. 5. The Roma comprise the largest ethnic minority in Europe and are among the most deprived and socially excluded groups. Individuals in this group typically have only limited access to basic services and economic opportunities. BOX 2.2 Continued The World Bank Directive on Addressing Risks and a. ESS5 does not apply to the SISSP. Impacts on Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals or b. ESS7 does not apply to the SISSP. Groups specifies that task teams should review the envi- c. The directive defines the disadvantaged or vulnerable as “those individuals ronmental and social assessment and the stakeholder or groups who, by virtue of, for example, their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, engagement plan to verify that disadvantaged or vulnerable physical, mental or other disability, social, civic or health status, sexual orien- individuals or groups, as well as all project risks, impacts, tation, gender identity, economic disadvantages or indigenous status, and/or and mitigation measures that pertain to them, are identified dependence on unique natural resources, may be more likely to be adversely alongside measures to allow for their effective participation affected by the project impacts and/or more limited than others in their ability and to ensure that they will not be disadvantaged in terms to take advantage of a project’s benefits.” of sharing development benefits resulting from the project.c 5 3 Value of Assessment to the Project The assessment of vulnerable groups and individuals added for and whose vulnerabilities had not yet been fully explored. value to the Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools For example, it brought to light the challenges faced by children Project (SISSP) in several ways, outlined below. whose parents completed little or no education, children whose way to school is unsafe or impracticable, children who did not The assessment provided a granular identification of vulner- attend kindergarten or who began schooling at an advanced able and disadvantaged individuals and groups. In the initial age, children who experience discrimination or bullying, and terms of reference, the task team identified the following vul- children who try to reintegrate into the school system after hav- nerable groups: children with disabilities; children with special ing migrated abroad with their parents for an extended period.6 educational needs; Roma; minorities; children from rural areas, The assessment thus helped more groups, each with their own from low-income households, or whose parents had migrated unique problems, become visible—beyond those who are usually abroad; children who dropped out of or perform poorly in school; identified (see figure  3.1). These findings informed the stake- the digitally excluded; and the elderly (see box 3.1). holder engagement plan; environmental and social documents, such as the Environmental and Social Management Framework; The assessment uncovered additional categories and subcate- and the project appraisal document. gories of vulnerable groups that had not initially been accounted 6. For the full report, please see: Encore 2020. BOX 3.1 Typical Drivers of Vulnerability Stakeholders in World Bank projects may be vulnerable characteristics such as the geographic location or socio- for reasons related to physical access, access to informa- economic features of affected communities), others may tion, language, economic status, gender, social norms, and be harder to discern, which is why a dedicated assessment legal status (see figure B3.1.1) The assessment carried out can prove instrumental to giving voice to groups and indi- as part of the Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable viduals who may otherwise remain unheard. In addition, Schools Project (SISSP) highlights that these categories some drivers of vulnerability may overlap, leading to inter- are by no means exhaustive. While some vulnerability driv- sectionality and thereby putting specific groups at an even ers may easily come to mind when preparing projects (for greater disadvantage. example, based on obvious contextual or project-related FIGURE B3.1.1 Typical Drivers of Vulnerability Access to Physical access information Language Economic status Gender Social norms Legal status • Remoteness • Lack of digital • Linguistic • Low-income • Women/men • People with • Internally • Lack of devices minorities • Resettled • GBV survivors disabilities displaced people transportation • Lack of digital • Low literacy households or • Sexual orientation • Youth/elderly • Asylum seekers, • Fragile or conflict- infrastructure • Low technical individuals and gender • Indigenous groups refugees a ected areas • Lack of digital literacy • Special economic identity minorities • Ethnic or religious • Migrants skills or occupational minorities • Limited access status to media 6 FIGURE 3.1 Vulnerable Groups Identified Before and During the Vulnerable Community Assessment Roma Children with Children from Children living in children disabilities poor families remote areas Identified ex-ante Identified ex-ante Identified ex-ante Identified ex-ante • Special language needs • Special accessibility • At risk of digital • Long distance to school • Lack of role models needs exclusion • Lack of transportation • Extreme marginalization • Special educational • Lack of financial re- Additional categories needs sources to participate Additional categories identified in assessment in school identified in assessment Additional categories • Impracticable roads • Boys who drop out of identified in assessment Additional categories to school (e.g., mud, school due to economic • Children without a identified in assessment snow) factors special education needs • Lack of infrastructure • Dangerous roads to • Girls who drop out of certificate (therefore to do homework school (e.g., tra c, school due to safety ineligible for state (e.g., electricity, desk) dogs, no sidewalks) concerns support) Additional vulnerable groups identified during assessment Children from Children at Children in Children in Children in Children at risk families with an educational critical fragile family emotional of dropping out many siblings disadvantage situations contexts distress of school • Roma and pente- • Children with • Children in the • Children under • Children experi- • Children return- costal families illiterate parents state protection the care of rela- encing discrim- ing from abroad • Expected to help • Children enrolled system tives because ination, violence, with no study with younger in school at a • Children in parents have or physical or equivalents siblings and later age juvenile centers migrated abroad verbal abuse • Children at risk household chores • Children who • Children who are for work • Children experi- of dropping out • Cannot be accom- did not attend being tra cked • Single-parent encing bullying of school before panied to school kindergarten • Children who are households • Children who have completing the • Overcrowded not enrolled in • Households lost contact eighth grade spaces, unsuit- school with domestic with their parents • Children at risk able for doing violence of dropping out homework of school at the end of eighth grade 7 The assessment offered a more thorough understanding of the charging them, and reservations about using the tablets provided constraints faced by vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals by public schools over concerns about a family’s financial liability and groups in accessing quality education. The assessment for them (see box 3.2). Overall, the collected data considerably highlighted the significant impact of poverty and hunger on increased the World Bank team’s and the client’s understand- school attendance among children from lower-income groups ing of the contextual drivers of inequality, poverty, and social and brought to the fore narratives that might otherwise not have exclusion in education. For example, the consultations brought received a great deal of attention, such as the perceived lack of to light solutions that could improve safety and reduce the risk safety and risk of being sexually exploited, abused, or harassed girls face of being sexually exploited, abused, or harassed, such among Roma girls travelling back and forth from school, and as after-school programs, safe areas for students to wait for challenges associated with accessing online education during their parents to pick them up, and better transportation options the COVID-19 pandemic due to unreliable Internet service, insuf- for traveling to and from school. ficient online data, low numbers of digital devices or options for BOX 3.2 School-related Challenges Among Vulnerable Groups All quotations are from focus group discussions and interviews with parents from vulnerable groups. Poverty and lack of an adequate learning environment Digital exclusion at home “My child is using my phone to attend classes. I didn’t agree to “We don’t have electricity; the children do their homework by get that school tablet because we would have to return it and if lamplight.” we broke it, we would have to buy it.” Hunger Discrimination “We don’t have enough money for anything (…). The school asks “The attitude of some teachers is not ok, there is some discrim- for many things, but we cannot afford them, we are twelve peo- ination against the poor, they fail poor children, they do not pay ple eating at the table. At school they get no food, we pack some enough attention to them; you can’t talk to them, they won’t see snacks for them if we have something to pack, if we don’t, they us.” stay hungry till they get home.” Physical violence and bullying Lack of financial resources to participate in school “My middle son, who also completed school here, had to inter- “There were times when the boy had nothing to wear and I told rupt his studies for two years and he had very serious thoughts him: ‘Stay at home for two or three days, until I get the money. I of quitting for good, due to the bullying that he was dealing with. will borrow some money and I will buy your shoes and then you He was harassed, beaten up and humiliated.” will go to school.’” Emotional distress due to late enrollment in school or Lack of transportation and safety concerns having to repeat grades “We are withdrawing our girls from school because there is no “The children were ashamed to go to school because the older transportation, in winter the day is short, the girls stay longer at ones should have been in classes with the younger ones. (…) The school, and we can’t take them because we have other children; kids started laughing at him: ‘You’re with your brother,’ ‘You were so we withdraw them from school for fear that the boys stalk held back grade,’ and so on. Well, that’s all he needed. And he them.” didn’t go to school anymore.” Educational disadvantage for children whose parents did Emotional distress due to lacking infrastructure for not complete many years of education children with special needs or disabilities “I don’t think I can help him much, because he needs help, for “The others laugh at him in the toilet. At school there is no sep- example, with math or other subjects that (…) are too difficult for arate toilet for those with special needs.” me. If I could help him more, maybe his results would be better.” 8 The assessment provided opportunities for exploring cooper- school counselors and mediators, experts in inclusive education, ation with relevant civil society actors, who provided insights and representatives of nongovernmental organizations gener- into the exercise. As part of the effort to reach out to multiple ated a range of recommendations on how to improve the quality stakeholders, some interactions—particularly those with non- of school infrastructure and the learning experience of children. governmental organizations and student bodies—helped con- Some suggestions might be included under the project itself; ceptualize opportunities to engage various actors in activities some were communicated to local- and regional-level actors; such as facilitating site-specific school-level consultations, ask- and some were channeled back to the Ministry of Education to ing students to conduct small surveys to identify harassment hot guide long-term policy planning (see section  5). For instance, spots in schools to generate ideas for preventing harassment, the school improvement suggestions that emanated from the establishing a multistakeholder group in charge of participatory consultations will inform the creation of checklists to be shared project monitoring, and involving various groups and communi- with school stakeholders to help them select and prioritize the ties in awareness-raising initiatives. design of project-financed interventions during school-level consultations. At the time of this writing, the recommendations The assessment provided a set of concrete recommendations were still being discussed with the Ministry of Education. Once and led to an enhanced understanding of the most effective the project becomes effective and the project implementation ways to engage with different actors during project imple- unit has been set up, the suggestions voiced in the assessment mentation. The interviews conducted with representatives of will be integrated to the greatest extent possible. vulnerable groups, school board representatives and teachers, 9 4 Challenges Key challenges encountered in the process of conducting the vulnerable members had to be conducted by phone. Furthermore, assessment of vulnerable communities and individuals for the fieldwork researchers had to follow special COVID-19 protocols, Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools Project such as collecting data in settings where no more than three (SISSP) are outlined below. people were gathered at one time; providing masks and disin- fectants to both interviewers and respondents; and conducting Budget. Normally, an assessment like the one for SISSP would all face-to-face interviews outdoors, in open spaces and with be carried out and financed by the client. But because no state everyone wearing a mask and maintaining a minimum physical funds were available for the effort, the task team instead relied distance of 1.5 meters. To limit risk, the research team decided on internal resources, with the Global Facility for Disaster Risk to conduct interviews only in communities with infection rates Reduction Trust Fund providing half of the funding for the under 3 per 1,000. If any selected community experienced infec- survey.7 tions above this rate, it was replaced with one from a reserve list. Time frame. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impractical- Structuring suggestions. Myriad ideas and suggestions were ity of face-to-face interactions, project preparation time frames expressed by vulnerable groups during the assessment. To avoid were significantly compressed.8 All interviews therefore had to ending up with a “laundry list of wishes,” an important part of the be conducted within a three-week window (October 20–Novem- exercise was therefore the categorization of the proposals. The ber 10, 2020). The writing of the report was also expedited. project team encouraged the research firm to clearly distinguish COVID-19. A key methodological limitation to the data collection effort is linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions on in-person meetings, resulting in interviews with school rep- resentatives (school directors, teachers, school counselors, and school mediators), social assistants, representatives of parents’ associations, national experts, and representatives of nongov- ernmental organizations being conducted by phone or online. Members of vulnerable groups were interviewed face-to-face but in open spaces such as yards, gardens, or areas in front of their homes. As the assessment highlights: “This limitation, in addition with the weather conditions [all interviews were conducted in winter] influenced the length of the interviews—they were limited to maximum 30–40 minutes, both with parent and child.” Overall, restrictions related to COVID-19 limited both the time that field operators were able to spend at each locality and the time they could allocate to each respondent. Due to an increased infection rate in one community (Hârlău), interviews with its 7. The assessment cost around US$50,000. However, Romania, as a European Union country, is relatively expensive, and costs could vary greatly depending on the project context. 8. The project concept was approved on October 21, 2020, the decision meeting held on December 14, 2020, and the project approved by the Board on April 29, 2021. 10 recommendations emanating from the assessment, for example, respondents, and how to best address sensitive issues, such as by differentiating between those that could be addressed under discrimination against the Roma and dropping out of school. Chil- the project and those that would go beyond its scope. dren between the ages of 10 and 14 were interviewed with their parents; and children between the ages of 13 and 14 were given Expectations management. The final list of selected schools the option to be interviewed with or without their parents, based under the project had not yet been finalized at the time of the on their preferences.9 Several of the facilitators were women. assessment, and the expectations of communities and school In line with best practices, focus group discussions began with staff had to be carefully managed because the interviews guarantees of confidentiality, encouragement to share openly, naturally raised hopes that the schools participating in the and easy questions to make participants feel comfortable. In assessment would directly benefit from the project’s planned the follow-up to this study, which specifically focused on Roma investments. The focus group guidelines thus made very explicit inclusion, the research firm used Roma mediators because in that the Ministry of Education did not yet know which schools the first assessment’s experience, responses seemed more can- would be selected under the project. did when interviewees could relate to the interviewers. Making participants, particularly children, feel at ease during Involvement of the project implementation unit. At the time interviews. To ensure an adequate framework for the discus- of the assessment, the project implementation unit had not yet sions, attention was given to the choice of moderators. All field been set up and could therefore not be involved in the effort. The researchers who performed interviews were required to have Ministry of Education was fully informed of the process but their experience in studies involving interactions with vulnerable representatives did not take part in the key informant interviews. groups and were trained by the contracted firm’s project coor- At the time of this writing, a dissemination event with ministry dinator in the project’s specifics, the approach to adopt toward representatives was pending. 9. For each interviewed child, the field researchers obtained a written consent letter signed by parents. 11 5 Key Recommendations Recommendations for the Ministry of Education and County Structures Recommendations That Can Be Taken Up Within the (e.g., inspectorates and county centers for educational resources and Scope of the Project assistance) n Improve sanitary facilities by locating toilets inside n Provide continuous teacher trainings and improved school curricula, school buildings and by ensuring access to hot running such as in the information technology, environmental, and health/nutri- water. tion education fields, to improve teaching methods and quality. n Improve heating and insulation. n Provide hot meal programs at schools (e.g., through canteens or dining rooms) or food vouchers for disadvantaged families. n Make structural repairs to roofs, windows, walls, ceilings, floors, and doors. n Promote after-school homework support programs. n Improve accessibility for children with disabilities by n Offer financial aid to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, partic- installing adapted bathrooms, elevators, access ramps, ularly focused on the beginning of the school year when the parental and wider doors and entrances. financial burden peaks, especially among those with many children. n Provide digital equipment, such as school computers, n Provide more substantial financial support for children from disadvan- laptops, tablets, large-screen television sets, video taged families who go on to vocational school and high school. projectors, digital whiteboards, and teaching software; n Provide free school supplies (e.g., notebooks, pens, and pencils) to and improve internet connection. children from disadvantaged backgrounds. n Set up new or better-equipped teaching facilities, such n Provide learning support programs for children from vulnerable families as computer, chemistry, and physics laboratories. and those with poorer learning outcomes. n Supply new school furniture, including desks, chairs, n Offer dedicated teacher trainings on how to include children with SEN. whiteboards, benches, and hallway furniture. n Increase the focus on supporting children with SEN by hiring special- n Provide new equipment, such as textbooks, sports ized staff (e.g., permanent itinerant support teachers) and additional equipment, and musical instruments. support teachers, and by improving access to speech therapists and n Improve learning environments by, for example, psychologists, ideally free and onsite, at school, or within the locality. decorating classrooms, planting trees in the courtyard, n Support parents or simplify the process for receiving a SEN certificate. or providing trash cans. n Provide additional auxiliary staff at schools, such as mediators and n Support additional facilities, such as medical offices, counselors. libraries with a reading room, gymnasiums, schoolyard playgrounds, sports fields, amphitheaters, activity n Allow for a more flexible school timetable so children with disabilities rooms, and waiting areas for children and parents. can be provided individual support. n Install cabinets or lockers in which students can store n Offer second-chance programs. their belongings. n Deliver exercise programs for national evaluation exams. n Provide dedicated materials for children with SEN or n Colocate medical and psychologist offices in schools. various disabilities, such as laptops with keyboards for children with motor disabilities, headphones for n Provide parental education programs. children with hearing disabilities, special glasses for n Support two- to three-month preschool activities to prepare children the visually impaired, and dedicated play and learning who did not attend kindergarten for school. areas. 12 Recommendations for Municipalities and Local Authorities Recommendations for School Administrators n Provide better transportation to school within and from other n Promote the equal treatment of all children, nondiscrimina- localities by, for example, securing additional school minibuses. tion, and a reduction of favoritism by teachers toward certain parents and children. n Budget for extracurricular activities, such as trips, camps, and competitions. n Promote empathy so teachers can demonstrate a greater understanding of the children. n Provide school supplies for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. n Improve communication with parents. n Create scholarships. n Promote a friendlier work environment. n Increase the value of kindergarten participation vouchers (to n Increase teacher involvement to prevent and address bullying more than 50 lei). and discrimination. n Provide more consistent material support for children with n Offer optional Romani language or Roma history classes. disabilities and SEN. n Recruit school mediators. n Offer solutions to ensure the safety of children traveling to and n Provide equipment related to children’s hygiene, such as from school, including hiring school security staff, driving away toilet paper, soap, and disinfectant. dangerous dogs, and addressing accessibility issues through, for example, the installation of sidewalks and snow removal during n Engage the local community through interactive programs the winter. with parents or other community members (e.g., community cleanliness initiatives). “We don't have an “They should make the school after-school program, but it beautiful; we should have a bus to would be good to study take us to school, not to after classes.” (Child) have to miss classes when it snows or when it rains.” (Child) “A canteen would be the most important. It would be good “Parents should get vouchers to have an after-school program. for clothes and school food.” And maybe more places where to (Parent) do sports after school.” (Parent) SEN = special educational needs. 13 6 Lessons Learned To make projects truly inclusive, social assessments required Due attention should be paid to involving vulnerable stakehold- under Environmental and Social Standard 1 of the Environ- ers in a sensitive manner that puts them at ease. Therefore, mental and Social Framework should not only map vulnerable the firm to perform this kind of assessment should be carefully and disadvantaged individuals and groups but also provide an selected. For this project, Encore Research made a special effort in-depth analysis of their vulnerabilities. An essential step of to come across in the right manner to the respondents during the project preparation is the preidentification of vulnerable groups assessment. This was very important to build the trust required and individuals who, based on prior knowledge, secondary to respond to the questions. sources, and in-house expertise, are expected to have a stake in the project. Social assessments should ideally refine this Consultations begun as part of an assessment should con- preidentification, preferably by carrying out direct consultations tinue throughout the project life cycle. Initial consultations with with impacted communities. Such an effort is likely to reveal vulnerable stakeholders should serve as a starting point, not a unanticipated categories of vulnerable individuals and groups finish line. There should be follow up as the project moves toward and to generate new insights and recommendations that can implementation in line with Environmental and Social Standard 10 enrich project design and implementation. on Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure. This has implications on financial and human resources, which need to be For social assessments to be able to influence project design, adequately planned for in the resources and management func- plan well in advance and start as soon as possible. As outlined tions and responsibilities sections of the Stakeholder Engagement in section 3, carrying out a thorough assessment of vulnerable Plan. In the SISSP, it is planned that school-specific consultations communities requires time and financial resources, so it is best will take place at the subproject level, with the aim of convening to factor those in from the start. Conducting social assessments different stakeholders, including school management, teachers, upstream rather than in a reactive manner (to assess the impacts students, parents, to discuss and prioritize their needs regarding of a given design) and involving the social team early in the pro- the planned reconstruction of schools. It is envisaged that the rec- cess can help amplify the voice of vulnerable groups and give ommendations voiced during the assessment and summarized in them a better chance to steer project activities in the direction section 5 will help to structure those discussions and allow for the they desire. most pressing needs to surface. Teamwork is key. Task team leaders and Environmental and Acting on the recommendations provided and reporting back Social Framework specialists are not expected to accomplish to those who were consulted on how their suggestions were any of this alone. A critical factor in pulling the assessment considered is essential to closing the feedback loop. When together in the Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools this step is not taken, it can create “engagement fatigue”—the Project (SISSP) within the short time frame was the productive impression that provided inputs are not being acknowledged and collaboration of the task team across Global Practices and with that the consultations are useless. the Environmental and Social Framework team, colleagues in Washington, DC, and the country office. Furthermore, support For projects where the definite location of project sites is still from the country management unit has been essential in allow- to be determined, a stakeholder engagement framework is ing the assessment to take place, especially given the difficult preferable to a typical stakeholder engagement plan. In the circumstances linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. case of the SISSP, schools had not yet been selected at the time of the assessment. A stakeholder engagement plan was pre- pared but complemented by a site-specific consultation template (see appendix B). 14 References Encore Research. 2020. “Rapid Community Vulnerability Assessment for World Bank. 2018b. Romania Systematic Country Diagnostic. Background Schools in Romania—A Qualitative Social Study.” Unpublished draft. Note: Roma Inclusion. World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2016. Bank Directive: Addressing Risks and Impacts on Dis- World Bank. 2018c. ESS10: Stakeholder Engagement and Information Dis- advantaged or Vulnerable Individuals or Groups. World Bank, Wash- closure Guidance Note. World Bank, Washington, DC. ington, DC. World Bank. 2021. “Romania Safer, Inclusive and Sustainable Schools Proj- World Bank. 2018a. Country Partnership Framework for Romania for the ect.” Project Information Document (P175308). World Bank, Washing- Period FY19–23. World Bank, Washington, DC. ton, DC. 15 Appendix A. Terms of Reference for Research firm tasked with conducting the Rapid Community Vulnerability Assessment for Schools in Romania: Identifying Vulnerable Groups, their Special Needs, and Possible Interventions to Foster Inclusive Education BACKGROUND 3. Meet with representatives of school boards and parent and teacher associations from the selected schools to discuss The World Bank is currently preparing the Safer, Inclusive and validate key findings and recommendations for fostering and Sustainable Schools in Romania Project (SISSP). Its social inclusion. development objective is to facilitate access to safer, disaster- resilient, inclusive, and sustainable school infrastructure for 4. Review the school improvement plans of the selected schools, Romanian students and teachers. It is expected that the project identify recommendations on fostering social inclusion, and will finance investments in school infrastructure as well as in examine how they compare with those emanating from the modern, clever classrooms in approximately 70–100 schools consultations. that are currently at high seismic risk. 5. Document the findings of the FGDs and interviews in a final As part of project preparation, the task team plans to commis- report that summarizes key findings and recommendations sion a rapid community vulnerability assessment to be carried for fostering social inclusion as part of the project, as well out in selected schools and local communities to provide insights as school-specific mini-reports that highlight the specifics of into the challenges faced by specific groups in accessing and each context. completing a quality school education and their perceived needs and priorities to enhance their learning experience. RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE CONSULTANCY 1. Identifying vulnerable groups The selected firm will be tasked with identifying and mapping The objective of this consultancy is to conduct a rapid and small- the vulnerabilities and risks faced by various groups, including scale community vulnerability assessment in 12 to 15 schools refining and updating the table below to better reflect the “invis- and surrounding communities in Romania. The schools should ible” project-affected groups and provide a more detailed dis- be selected from the attached school list.10 aggregated analysis of the key challenges faced by each group and subgroup as well as possible ways to deepen inclusion for The firm selected for this consultancy will accomplish the fol- each group. lowing tasks: 1. Identify key vulnerable groups that are relevant to the proj- In-School and Out-of-School Children ect and, based on existing data, provide a summary of the Children with n Children with hearing impairments characteristics of their vulnerabilities as they relate to the disabilities n Children with walking impairments education sector. n Children with visual impairments n Children with other health impairments 2. Select and conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) or Children with n Children with learning difficulties, in-depth interviews with representatives of multiple vul- special learning autism, dyslexia, speech and nerable groups in 12–15 schools (with around seven from needs language difficulties, attention deficit rural communities, five from small towns or cities, and three hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from mid-size or large cities). Each school should survey a minimum of 10–15 stakeholders from each of the vulnerable Roma n Boys groups. n Girls 10. The Ministry of Education assembled a list of schools for possible project beneficiaries. 16 n A proposed mapping of each school’s wider social context Minorities n Hungarian origin (e.g., location, number of students and teachers, history, and n Other minority groups the social profile of students and neighboring communities). Rural areas n Children from low-income households n Children whose parents have migrated 3. Documenting findings to a city or overseas The research findings will be presented in the form of a compre- Small cities n Children from low-income households hensive final report outlining key outcomes from the community n Children whose parents have migrated vulnerability assessment and recommending interventions to (to cities/overseas) improve inclusion in schools. In addition, short school-by-school reports will provide an overview of the main topics discussed Large cities n Children from low-income households with each context’s representatives. (e.g., Bucharest) n Children whose parents have migrated (to cities/overseas) ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES Dropouts Boys The consultancy is expected to start on October 1, 2020. All n Girls products will have to be delivered by November 8, 2020. The n Poor performers n Boys breakdown of activities and timelines is listed below. n Girls Digitally n Boys Activities Delivery Date excluded n Girls Preparation By October 11, n Select school communities in the differ- 2020 Eldersa ent suggested contexts. n Parents n Prepare a list of proposed questions to n Grandparents be asked during FGDs and key informant n Retired community residents interviews and translate them into local languages as required. Teachers n Identify representative respondents/par- n Older teachers (at risk of digital ticipants for the FGDs and key informant exclusion) interviews as well as the best way to n Teachers in rural/remote areas contact them. n Participate in a Webex meeting with the a. It may be possible for community elders to contribute to the education experience of vulnerable children, especially in rural areas. If so, such measures can also be World Bank team to discuss methodology added to the report. and instruments. n Schedule physical or virtual meet- 2. Selecting participants and conducting focus group ings with selected representatives/ discussions and interviews participants. The firm will be tasked with selecting schools and relevant Implementation By October 25, participants for the FGDs and interviews. Participants will be n Conduct FGDs and key informant inter- 2020 asked to provide insights into their previous experiences with views at eight schools. schooling as well as their suggestions for the improvement of n Consult with and report to the World the school’s learning and physical environment. Bank team every week on progress achieved. The firm will propose an adequate methodology for capturing these insights, including: n A proposed list of qualitative and quantitative questions to be asked of the representatives of various subgroups; and 17 Analysis By October 31, Bidder agrees that should the proposal be deemed successful, n Provide to the World Bank for review 2020 the Bidder will enter into a contract with the World Bank. and comments a first draft of the overall report, describing main themes and rec- EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THE FIRM ommendations to foster social inclusion Proposals received as a response to this request will be scored that have emerged from the participatory according to methodology listed in the table below: exercises, and a first draft of the two- to four-page reports for each school com- Category Description Weight (%) munity to highlight contextual specifics. n If appropriate, given the COVID-19 con- Relevant The extent of recent experience 30 text: provide photos of FGDs and existing experience in the conduct of projects similar school infrastructure and any other in scope and nature to the work relevant information about the community described. vulnerability assessment implementation. Team The proposed personnel 20 n Provide the final version of the overall By November 8, profile have qualifications, skills, and report and school-by-school reports, 2020 experience similar in scope and integrating all World Bank comments as nature to the proposed project. appropriate. Project The proposed plan and 30 plan methodology for providing REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS the services is adequate, The bidder must provide an outline project plan. The plan must comprehensive to meet the be sufficiently comprehensive in scope and detail to convey the scope and work described, bidder’s ability to manage this project. The project plan must and the bidder exhibits a include the following: reasonable capacity to carry out the requested tasks within the n An outline of the proposed methodology, including how indicated timeframe. schools and respondents will be selected and approached Cost The bidder proposed to 20 and how the FGDs and in-depth interviews will be conducted perform the work at a fair and given the current COVID-19 mobility and meeting restrictions. reasonable cost. n A breakdown of the total cost for providing the services. TIME FRAME AND SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS Such total cost shall be expressed as a single, all-inclusive lump sum amount, expressed in Romanian leu inclusive of all The following time frame and schedule of payments are to be taxes, deductions, and expenses of any kind. used as aspirational targets and will be subject to the ongoing discussion between the World Bank and the research firm. An n Relevant experience in the conduct of similar research, i.e., output timeline and payment schedule is provided below. community vulnerability assessments. Output Timeline Amount n Team profile, i.e., composition of the team that will conduct (%) the research and their qualifications. The proposal should also include their names, titles, experiences, responsibilities Upon signing of contract October 1, 2020 25 (both researchers and managerial staff), and subcontracting Upon submission of the October 31, 2020 50 services such as translation (if any). This section needs to first draft of deliverables include how progress will be monitored and who is on the Upon submission of November 8, 2020 25 team. finalized deliverables Proposals will only be considered if they are received by the fol- lowing closing date and time: [tbd]. By submitting a proposal, the SUPERVISION The firm will report to [tbd]. 18 ANNEX A.1. SUGGESTED GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR n Inadequate quality of previous education, making it difficult to FGDS AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS follow the content of the class Have you faced any of the following challenges at school? n Problems with socializing/participating in group work and teamwork n Bullying/mistreatment by other pupils n Difficulties in obtaining and using digital tools to enhance n Lack of individualized attention by the teacher learning n Lack of interest in course content n Lack of provisions to cater for special learning needs (e.g., dyslexia and ADHD) n Unattractive/unpractical/old classroom facilities n Preference to do something else than school (e.g., work) n Inadequate sanitary facilities n Lack of ergonomic equipment If you could choose, what would be your top-1 priority with regard to improving the school environment? n Problems with language Appendix B. Site-Specific School-Level Consultations—Template (TO BE TESTED) 1. PURPOSE n Be free of external manipulation, interference, coercion, dis- crimination, and intimidation. The project management unit will encourage school boards to engage in timely and meaningful consultations with the commu- The consultations will provide a space to consider and respond nities linked to each of the schools that will be selected under to feedback, support the active and inclusive engagement of the project. project-affected parties, and operate on an ongoing basis as risks and impacts arise. The consultations will: In the context of the project, the primary purpose of consulta- n Begin early in the project planning process to gather initial tions at the school level will be to discuss the needs of the school views on the project proposal and allow for any needed mod- users and local community and to ensure that those needs are ifications to the project design; met. The consultations will also provide an opportunity to share n Encourage stakeholder feedback, particularly regarding the information about the project, answer any questions, and dis- identification and mitigation of environmental and social risks cuss feedback or concerns from project-affected people and the and impacts; broader community. It will be a space for all parties to express their views, have their opinions seriously considered, and dis- n Be based on the prior disclosure and dissemination of rele- cuss viable options for how to take them into account. These vant, transparent, objective, meaningful, and easily accessible consultations will be part of an ongoing process whereby open information on a schedule that enables participants ample lines of communication will be maintained and information con- time to familiarize themselves with the project and to provide tinuously and transparently shared with stakeholders. informed inputs; and 19 2. INSTRUCTIONS/METHODOLOGY For the follow-up consultations Participants will be provided with information regarding: The school-level team carrying out the consultation should use this template to document the initial consultation with each n Updates on the progress of the (re)construction works, any selected school and the topics that were discussed. A copy of issues encountered, or changes in plans; the questions for discussion should be shared with the school representatives and local stakeholders before the consultation so n Updates on the arrangements linked to the temporary reloca- that the discussions can be meaningful. If useful, a walk around tion of students or temporary facilities; the site can be included to discuss the proposed works. n Current environmental and social impacts and how they are being handled; and After the start of the civil works, it is expected that the school- level team carrying out the consultation will also hold follow-up n Overview of feedback received to date via the grievance consultations to evaluate the progress of the (re)construction mechanism and actions taken in response. works and allow people to raise any issues with implementation For the wrap-up meetings on a regular basis (for example, every 4–6 months). Participants will be provided with information regarding: Following the completion of the civil works, a wrap-up meet- n Final outcomes of the (re)construction works and any pend- ing will be held with affected school communities to review ing issues; achieved outcomes and allow people to raise any further issues or concerns. n Plans to restart teaching in the newly refurbished/constructed facilities; Given the current context, marked by ongoing restrictions to n Overview of feedback received to date via the grievance personal interaction linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, necessary mechanism and actions taken in response; and arrangements may need to be made to ensure all stakeholders’ safety, including planning for online options where in-person n Any future plans and possibilities for engagement. meetings are not feasible. SUGGESTED TEMPLATE TO RECORD 4.  The consultations should aim to involve a minimum of 90 percent PARTICIPANT DATA of teachers, 30 percent of students, and 60 percent of parents, Name and address of school: as well as representatives from student and parent associations, local authorities (e.g., mayor and city hall members), and com- munity members. Date of consultation: INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO STAKEHOLDERS 3.  Record of participants (and if possible, their contact details) For the initial consultations Participants will be provided with information regarding: First name: n The background and rationale of the project, envisaged Surname: short- and long-term benefits, implementation modalities, Gender: Age: and envisaged time frames; Position (e.g., teacher or parent): n Site plans and proposed works; Phone (optional): n Potential environmental and social impacts and proposed mitigation measures, including particular options surrounding Email (optional): temporary relocation or temporary teaching facilities; and n The availability and procedures of the project’s feedback/ grievance mechanism. 20 5. S  UGGESTED QUESTIONS TO EXPLORE Proposed questions to be discussed during the wrap-up WITH STAKEHOLDERS meetings n Now that the construction works are completed, which Below is a list of illustrative questions that can be used during aspects are you most satisfied with? Which are you least consultations. satisfied with? Proposed questions to be discussed during the initial n How can the school and local community be best engaged to consultation make the most out of the new facilities? n Which priorities do you see in terms of improving the current n What can be done to ensure that the project-related changes school infrastructure (e.g., ventilation, heating, bathrooms, to the school environment will be sustainable and lead to access ramps, and lighting)? long-term benefits for the school and local communities? n Which priorities do you see in terms of improving the school’s equipment and furniture (e.g., white boards, desks, and library 6. SUGGESTED DOCUMENTATION OF THE books)? CONSULTATIONS n How could the quality of the school environment be improved The consultation records should include a summary overview of: overall (e.g., special rooms for students to do homework after school or for meetings with psychologists or counselors)? n Key issues discussed; n From your perspective, how can the continuing of education/ n Agreements reached with authorized representatives of any avoidance of disruption be best guaranteed during the civil section of stakeholders; works? n Form and manner in which the comments/suggestions n Do you have any concerns regarding the process of school received can be taken into account in project design and reconstruction/demolition? If so, what are they? implementation arrangements; n Will the works impact different groups differently? n Points on which there is disagreement, either between dif- ferent stakeholders or between stakeholders and project n How can the project ensure that everyone will equally benefit implementation team; and from the reconstruction? n If necessary, the reasons why some of the comments made n How would you like to stay informed about the project’s by the stakeholders cannot be accommodated. progress? n Do you need clarifications on any aspect of the project? The recommendations gathered from the consultations should be broken down into three main categories: (1) those that can Proposed questions to be discussed during the easily be implemented at the school level without additional follow-up consultation funds; (2) interventions that can be taken up at the project level; n How have you been impacted by the project’s activities so far? and (3) interventions that go beyond the project’s scope, which can be forwarded to the Ministry of Education and Research for n What has gone well? What could have been done better? consideration. n Do you think anything needs to change in terms of how the project is being implemented? The consultation records should be sent to the project manage- ment unit for aggregation. n Do you feel you have received sufficient information about the project’s progress? n Are you aware of the means available to you should you like to submit questions, suggestions, or complaints about the project? n Do you need clarifications on any aspect of the project? 21