Two small municipalities, two firsts

Slovakia had the smallest scope in implementation. The two municipalities were chosen to be as different as two neighbours can be.

Zborov has around 3,600 people, more than half of them Roma. It has a large marginalised settlement, a dense network of NGO and EU-funded provision, and a funding cliff approaching. Koprivnica has 665 people, no marginalised community at all, a single-class kindergarten, a two-class primary school, and almost no non-formal provision of any kind.

Both had one thing in common, and it is the reason this pilot matters: neither had ever collected data on early childhood, written an early childhood strategy, made an early childhood action plan, or set up any formal coordination mechanism. As the baseline evaluation puts it: “Projects in this area are generally not based on long-term strategies, but rather are the result of municipalities’ participation in calls for proposals.”

Both analyses share the same account of the Slovak system, and it is a clear description of what a fragmented system looks like:

• Early childhood development for children aged 0–3 is treated as a social service, under the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family. Pre-school education sits elsewhere.
• Programmes for pre-school-age children span the Ministries of Labour, Education, Health, Interior and Finance
• The participation rate in formal childcare for children under 3 is 2.3%.
• Pre-primary education became compulsory for 5-year-olds in 2021; a legal entitlement to a kindergarten place from age 3 is imminent; the target is 96% participation for 3–5 year-olds by 2030.
• Around 9,500 refugee children from Ukraine aged 0–5 were in Slovakia in early 2024, of whom 1,906 were enrolled in kindergartens.

Zborov: depth of need, and a funding cliff.

The marginalised settlement data are the starkest in this whole body of work. In one site, 721 people live exclusively Roma at an average of 8.5 persons per dwelling; around 540 of them live in shacks with no legal connection to utility networks; approximately 290 have no access to running water in their dwelling at all.

39% of Zborov’s population has only primary education as its highest level; 7% have been to university. In the last five years the municipality has dealt with almost 300 cases of truancy. There is no secondary school in Zborov — probably one reason a high proportion of pupils, especially from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, do not continue past primary.

The primary school has 499 pupils in 30 classes but only 29 classrooms, so classes have to be twinned, with predictable consequences.

At the same time, Zborov has real assets. A new kindergarten building opened in 2022 with capacity for around 160. A community centre has run since 2019. The OMAMA programme, run by the civic association Cesta von, works with children aged 0–3 from marginalised communities, and four Omamas were active in the village at the time of the analysis — instrumental, the analysis notes, in kindergarten enrolment and in awareness-raising about why it matters. A working group of every helping profession in the municipality meets four times a year.

The problem is that almost all of it is grant-funded, and the grants are ending. The analysis states the risk without euphemism: many activities “are not anchored as systemic measures at the national level. Thus, the municipality does not have sufficient resources to ensure their financing and loses the results achieved in the previous periods.”

The ask is specific and modest: around €10,000 a year to hold the current level of work, and an entitlement to funding for a staff member dedicated to early childhood development above a certain number of 0–6s.

And a note on patience that funders should read: direct outreach in Zborov has run since 2009, with two short interruptions — “however, the shift in the positive direction has been observed only in recent couple of years.”

Koprivnica: satisfaction, and a blind spot.

Koprivnica’s questionnaire results are the mirror image. 95% completely agreed there are plenty of playgrounds and sports facilities. 100% agreed they do not have to worry that their children will be well cared for. 75% said care for children from birth to six is at an excellent level.

But two answers cut against the rest. Only 15% agreed that conditions exist for pregnant mothers to meet and take part in support programmes — 65% said no. Only 30% completely agreed about medical care for children; the nearest paediatric care is nine kilometres away in Raslavice.

And the analysis is honest about what the village does not have: “the municipality has not developed and does not implement systematic programmes in the field of early childhood development. These are not systematic programme activities, but rather one-off events.” On networking: “so far there has not been any mention of the intention to create institutional and/or individual networks.”

The top-rated needs in Koprivnica were, in order: informing parents about services provided by the municipality (75%); informing parents about services they are legally entitled to (65%); the number of kindergarten places (55%).

Twenty-three children attend the kindergarten. Eighteen aged 2–6 do not — though eleven of those had already turned six and moved on to primary school.

Both municipalities adopted the same five strategic objectives (see The Primokiz Approach) and organised everything under the three Primokiz pillars, with short-, medium- and long-term measures each carrying a named responsible person, a place, implementation steps, the change expected and a feasibility note.

Koprivnica’s vision:

Its measures answer its analysis directly: a paediatric office in the municipality (long-term, 2030); regular parents’ consultations with a dentist at the kindergarten and the school; a clubroom and play hub for young children and their parents; social counselling and legal advice; a reconstructed kindergarten playground; more books in the children’s library; a virtual space on the municipal website with information about programmes for young children; speed bumps on the road to the primary school; and a plan of cultural and sporting events for children and families explicitly aimed at “involving the children not attending the kindergarten and their families.”

Zborov’s vision adds two words and a clause that tell you everything about the context — “an attractive and safe* place to live”, and rights secured by a network of institutions “and support programmes that enable every member of our municipality’s community to participate actively in meeting their needs.”*

Its measures include: health prevention activities and support for vaccination; support for the mental health of children and parents; child safety work with the police; a multifunctional children’s playground sited in the parts of the village with rental housing; a clothing exchange and a goods exchange, twice a year each; the OMAMA programme for children under 3 not attending kindergarten, delivered in family homes and the community centre; socio-legal protection and social guardianship; a toy library; lessons for parents of preschool and early-school-age children; reading lessons for mothers and children; and a set of one-off educational trips — to Zborov Castle, the agricultural cooperative, the spa, the cinema, the theatre in Prešov, the playgrounds in Bardejov, Košice zoo.

Both established a Monitoring and Evaluation Group building on the local action team, with ten criteria to judge every measure against — including whether it is sustainable, whether it is adequately staffed by qualified people, whether it is “sufficiently inclusive and allows for an actual participation of children and their families with different social status and cultural background”, and whether it “sufficiently enables children in early age to perceive themselves as independent actors and strengthens their sense of belonging and identity.”

Slovakia is at an earlier stage than the other three countries, and the site should say so.

Phases 1 to 3 were completed in 2024 — community and facilitator selection, political buy-in, local teams and situation analyses. Phase 4 is documented: both mayors signed formal confirmations in June 2024 mandating a named officer to draw up the implementation strategy. Phase 5 is complete: both strategies were published in December 2024, formally approved by the respective municipal councils and signed by both mayors.

The achievement so far is precise: two municipalities that had never had an early childhood strategy, a data system or a coordination mechanism now have all three. Service-level results are still to come.

Zborov: Continued provision of early childhood development and parenting support programmes, community-based educational activities for young children and their families, and reading activities reaching more than 100 children in 2026. These activities have been implemented by non-governmental organisations in cooperation with the municipality.

Koprivnica: Continued provision of preschool education through the local kindergarten and expansion of library resources in 2026, contributing to improved early learning opportunities for children.

These developments reflect ongoing local efforts to strengthen early childhood services and are well aligned with the priorities and strategic directions established through the PRIMOKIZ process.

In the coming years, both municipalities intend to continue implementing additional measures outlined in their approved strategies, depending on their financial capacities and their success in securing external funding through grant opportunities.