Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Capacity Building to Accelerate the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care for Children Deprived of Parental Care (P168507) Output 1: Technical report including inputs into the design of an instrument for monitoring and evaluation of the progress of the transition from institutional to community-based care English version Bucharest, January 2020 Project co-funded from the European Social Fund through the Administrative Capacity Operational Program 2014-2020! www.poca.ro Disclaimer This report is a product of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Romanian Government. Copyright Statement The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with the complete information to either (i) National Authority for the Rights of People with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions (Bd Gheorghe Magheru no. 7, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania) or (ii) the World Bank Group Romania (Vasile Lascăr Street, no. 31, 6th floor, 2nd sector, Bucharest, Romania). This report was delivered to the National Authority for the Rights of People with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions in January 2020 under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on “Capacity Building to Accelerate the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care for Children Deprived of Parental Care” signed between the National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoptions, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on August 26, 2019. It corresponds to Output 1 under the above-mentioned agreement: “Technical report including inputs into the design of an instrument for monitoring and evaluation of the progress of the transition from institutional to community-based care”. 2 Acknowledgements Output 1 prepared under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Capacity Building to Accelerate the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care for Children Deprived of Parental Care was developed under the supervision of Mr. Cem Mete (Practice Manager), with overall guidance from Ms. Tatiana Proskuryakova (Country Manager). The report preparation activities were coordinated by Mr. Emil Teșliuc, Mr. Vlad Grigoraș (team leaders), and Cristina Iulia Vladu. The team was composed of: Manuela Sofia Stănculescu, Georgiana Blaj, Bogdan Corad, Monica Marin. The team also received support from Andrei Zambor, Monica Ion, Oana Perju, Oana Răican and Sonia Nițulescu. The World Bank would like to acknowledge the excellent cooperation, guidance and timely feedback provided by the representatives of the National Authority for the Rights of People with Disabilities, Children and Adoption, in particular by Ms. Elena Tudor and Ms. Cristina Cuculas. Also, the World Bank would like to express its gratitude to the representatives of General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection who provided their comments and inputs to the draft version of the instrument. 3 Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7 1. Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 2. General framework ............................................................................................................................... 10 3. The Monitoring Report ........................................................................................................................ 14 4. The M&E instrument ............................................................................................................................ 19 RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CHILDREN ...................................................................................... 22 1. Child placement centers ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 1.1. The Register of Placement Centers (CP) ................................................................................................................................. 22 1.2. CP: Statistics for the Monitoring Report ................................................................................................................................ 28 2. Small-sized residential services ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 2.1. The Register of Family-type Homes (CTF) and Apartments (AP) ................................................................................. 38 2.2. CTF/AP: Statistics for the Monitoring Report ....................................................................................................................... 43 3. Other residential services for children .............................................................................................................................................. 53 3.1. Register for other residential services (RezAlt = CPRU, CM, AZ/N) ............................................................................ 53 3.2. RezAlt: Statistics for the monitoring report .......................................................................................................................... 58 FAMILY-TYPE SERVICES ........................................................................................................................... 64 4. Professional foster care .......................................................................................................................................................................... 64 4.1. Professional Foster Carers (AMP) Register ............................................................................................................................ 64 4.2. AMP: Statistics for the monitoring report ............................................................................................................................. 69 5. Family placements .................................................................................................................................................................................... 77 5.1. Family Placement (PFam) Register ............................................................................................................................................ 77 5.2. PFam: Statistics for the monitoring report ............................................................................................................................ 81 5. Lack of affection = Summative index VK7 b+e+f+g+i ranging from 0 to 20, where the values exceeding 15 = most days the child feels sad, lonely, tired, restless and unhappy with himself/herself.................................................. 88 CASE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................ 89 6. Case Management .................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 6.1. Case Managers’ (MC) Register ................................................................................................................................................... 89 6.2. MC: Statistics for the monitoring report ................................................................................................................................ 93 IMPACT ON CHILDREN .......................................................................................................................... 100 7. The wellbeing of children in the special protection system ................................................................................................. 100 7.1. Register of children included in the special protection system (KIDS)................................................................... 100 7.2. Voice of Children ........................................................................................................................................................................... 107 PREVENTING THE SEPARATION OF THE CHILD FROM THEIR FAMILY .......................................... 112 8. Community-based support and prevention services .............................................................................................................. 112 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 119 4 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................. 121 Annex 1. County codes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 122 Annex 2.1. Placement centers for children in Romania (as of February 2018) .................................................................. 123 Annex 2.2. Types of placement centers for children in Romania based on the categories "classical" and “modulated” (January 2017) ................................................................................................................................................................... 130 Annex 2.3. List of placement centers with relatively high chances of being closed down (in February 2018) .... 135 Annex 3. List of rural source communities for the child protection system and rural communities with marginalized areas, by counties............................................................................................................................................................ 146 5 List of Acronyms AMP Professional foster carer ANDPDCA National Authority for the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, Children and Adoptions1 AP Apartments AZ/N Day/Night Shelters CJ County Council CM Maternal Center CNASR Romanian National Association of Social Workers CNP Personal Numeric Code CP Placement Center CPC Child Protection Committee CPRU Center for Emergency Placement CTF Group home DGASPC General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection ISJ County School Inspectorate M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MC Case Management/Management MEN Ministry of National Education MMJS Ministry of Labor and Social Justice ONG Non-Governmental Organization OPA Private Accredited Body PIP Individual Care Plan PIS Specific Intervention Programme PS Plan of Services PFam Family Placement RAS Reimbursable Advisory Services RC Case officer SEN Special educational needs SPAS Public Social Assistance Service SPSC Special Child Protection System UAT Administrative-territorial unit WB World Bank 1ANDPDCA resulted from the merger of the ANPD - National Authority for Persons with Disabilities with the ANPDCA - National Authority for the Protection of Child Rights and Adoption, in November 2019. 6 Introduction The Reimbursable Advisory Services regarding the Capacity Building to Accelerate the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care for Children Deprived of Parental Care are provided by the World Bank within the project implemented by ANDPDCA: “PROGRESS in ensuring the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care”, funded from the European Social Fund under the Operational Program for Administrative Capacity. The advisory services are complementary to those provided by the World Bank between May 2016 and December 2018 within the RAS Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based Care, provided within the project Development of the Plan for the Deinstitutionalization of Children in Residential Care and Their Transition to Community-Based Care – SIPOCA 2, funded from the European Social Fund under the Operational Program for Administrative Capacity and implemented by the ANPDCA.2 The current RAS has two specific objectives, namely: (1) The development and enforcement of a system of evidence-based policies in the field of child protection, through the implementation, at national level, of a system of periodic monitoring and evaluation of the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care and (2) Supporting the development of local public administration authorities with responsibilities so as to prevent the separation of the child from his/her family in order to increase the quality of the services provided to children exposed to the risk of being separated from their family. The main expected results refer to: 1. An instrument for monitoring and evaluating the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care, which should be applied twice during the implementation of the project and used to generate public policy recommendations on improving and diversifying alternative services to institutionalized care; 2. A practical guide of alternative models to develop the activity of preventing the separation of children from their families and support for 100 communities in order to prepare prevention services development plans; 3. A study on the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care, which generated policy recommendations on improving and diversifying services aimed at preventing the separation of children from their families. This report refers to the expected Output 1 and deals with the construction of an instrument for monitoring the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care. 2 The main objective of this project was to increase the capacity of public authorities to prepare the deinstitutionalization process. To this effect, the following results, among others, have been obtained within the project: a prioritization of the closing of traditional and modular placement centers, a methodology for closing down the placement centers, an application for data collection and reporting to guide and standardize the preparation of closing plans, support for the DGASPCs for the preparation of the closing plans and a comprehensive evaluation of alternative care services to the residential centers in the child protection system. 7 1. Context This technical report describes the instrument for monitoring and evaluating the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care of children in Romania. In line with other international organizations playing an active role in the process of deinstitutionalization of children,3 this report refers to the transition from institution to community-based care as a process of planning the restructuring and closing of placements centers (institutions) for children, while setting up, developing and consolidating modern and effective community-based services for children and families in order to prevent the separation of children from their families. Therefore, the closing of an institution should be treated as an opportunity to step up efforts “to maintain or reintegrate children into the care of their families or, if this is not possible, to find other appropriate and permanent solutions such as adoption”4 for all children currently in institutions. In addition, the closing of an institution must be accompanied by the development and strengthening of community services that prevent the separation of children from their families, to ensure the reduction of the number of children separated from their families who need care in the public special protection system. The whole process must be planned and carried out by considering the best interests of the child and the individual needs of the child and of his/her family. On the one hand, no institution should be closed until better solutions are identified for each beneficiary in the respective center. Institutionalized children are a very diverse group, and (re)integration is not possible for some of them. Some of them must continue to be protected either in family-type foster care services (such as family placement or foster care) or in small- sized residential-type facilities (family-type homes or apartments). All these alternative services should be developed under right-based standards and they should be result oriented so as to provide better conditions and care for children. On the other hand, in the community, in order to avoid the separation of children from their families, educational, health, recovery/rehabilitation, housing and social services must be developed to ensure that all children are able to develop to their full potential within the family. In order to support deinstitutionalization over the next period, it is necessary to create a mechanism for the ongoing monitoring of this process. In the event that the placement centers are closed and that transition from institutional to community-based care is ensured, monitoring and evaluation are essential for each child and family, as well as for all newly established services. In order to change the child protection system, it is necessary that systematic data be constantly generated and presented in a transparent way regarding the situation of the placement centers, alternative services and prevention services. The data collected in February 2018 under the SIPOCA 2 project indicated not only centers that have been closed or where the number of children has decreased but also centers for which the number of children has actually increased. Moreover, due to the obscurity of the information, either the age structure (children may sometimes enter the centers too young) or the mixture of children (children with very severe disabilities who require specialized care mixed with children without any difficulties, who could 3 For example, Hope and Homes (2004), SOS-Kinderdorf International (2008), UNICEF (2010), European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care (2012). 4 European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care (2012). 8 benefit from other types of services) is not always appropriate. Past experience shows that even when the children were out of the placement centers, the decisions taken were not always in their best interests. In order to generate reform and pinpoint problems of the system, such information should be collected, presented to the public, systematically discussed and used when making the decisions. It is particularly important that the transition to community-based care should not replicate the institutional culture or recreate institutional care practices in the newly created services. That is why, on the one hand, it is necessary to monitor and evaluate the training of staff working within the new services and, on the other hand, it is necessary to have new standards for the quality of the care that focus on the quality of life and on the rights of children and not on technical and organizational aspects related to the service provider. Currently, there is insufficiently detailed systematic reporting on alternative services to residential centers that should allow for the correction of the problems existing at national level or of the regional discrepancies. The data collected under the SIPOCA 2 project in 35 counties indicate discrepancies between counties regarding, for example, the training of professional foster carers, the period during which a child stays in foster care, the number of family placements and the time spent by children in family placement (which should also be a transitional measure), the number of segregated family-type homes or apartments or which do not have enough beneficiaries etc. These types of information presented systematically for all the counties in a system monitoring the development of alternative services would allow both the detection of specific problems in certain counties and their subsequent correction and the improvement of the existing policies at national level and of the allocation of financial and human resources. The statistical analyzes conducted under the SIPOCA 2 project indicated different practices at county level regarding both the effective closure of institutions and the quality of the alternative services offered. Creating a transparent monitoring system will allow the identification of centers/counties where the deinstitutionalization process is stopped/slowed down or is not being carried out properly and would allow for faster corrective measures to be taken. Moreover, the existence of such a system would allow for a comparative analysis between the counties in terms of quality of the alternative services and, by updating the legislative framework and through specific professional training, it could standardize county practices. Children are the main beneficiaries of the deinstitutionalization process, and, as such, monitoring and evaluation should have them and their families at their center. The closure of the placement centers would not be sustainable without the implementation of measures aimed at preventing the separation of children from their families and at reducing the number of entries in the protection system, as such the M&E instrument does not only consider the closure of the institutions and the development of alternative services, but also the development of prevention services at community level. There is no systematic record of the prevention services at locality level and of the activities conducted by the DGASPCs to support them. The data collected in 30 source communities and for the functional micro-areas in which they exist indicate a systematic lack of information on prevention services both between neighboring localities and between different actors, within the same locality. With regard to data collection on families with children from the 30 communities under the same project, most social workers had not even started collecting data on vulnerable families (although the legislation requiring this is in force since 2015), they did not have information on families with children and could not even get some within a few weeks. The role of the DGASPCs in unblocking this situation was most often limited. Periodic diagnosis of this problem can help identify bottlenecks, lead to a better information at local level and legislative changes that would streamline activities at local level in supporting families with children. 9 The local services aimed at preventing child separation are only partially functional and insufficiently coordinated between them. The research conducted under the SIPOCA 2 project indicated difficulties in implementing the current legislation aimed at identifying the risks and vulnerabilities of families with children. Also, local actors had only partial information on the existing services - even if this was very scarce. The DGASPCs should coordinate this prevention activity, but their involvement in monitoring and guiding the activity at local level is most often extremely limited. There is a need for actions aimed at improving the implementation of the legislation in the field of prevention, including through better coordination and monitoring by the DGASPCs. Prevention services should be developed to meet local needs, especially in rural areas and in localities with marginalized neighborhoods. The research carried out under the SIPOCA 2 project indicates that most types of services aimed at preventing the separation of children from their families are almost non-existent in rural areas and are poor even in urban areas. During the regional consultation seminars under the SIPOCA 2 project, local authorities reported a number of problems: (I) the lack of information on the possibility of accessing European funds for the development of such services; (ii) the lack of information on how needs should be identified and on the types of services that should be developed to meet these needs; and (iii) the limited resources and capacity to make diagnoses at local level and to prepare service plans which will then be financed from different sources (local, county, national budget or European funds). Despite these limitations, during these events, but also during others involving the local authorities (for example, field research involving more than 300 social workers at local level), the local authorities have expressed their interest in taking actions to develop prevention services, if provided with methodological support in this regard. 2. General framework Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are systematic data collection, analysis and reporting activities that allow to track the progress made in achieving the results planned, to reach the goals set, to measure the degree to which the changes intended through certain interventions have actually occurred, as well as to identify the factors that have influenced these changes. The two activities are complementary and play an important role as management tools for a better planning and an efficient use of the resources, as tools to measure the progress made while indicating what goes well, what does not and why, and also as tools in the decision-making process concerning future actions. To this effect, in this project, the development of an instrument for the monitoring and evaluation of the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care in the community is aimed at three types of activities: (ii) supporting the application of this instrument during two rounds of monitoring; and (iii) supporting the ANDPDCA and the DGASPCs in generating public policy changes based on this information. The monitoring and evaluation instrument proposed in this report complies with the recommendations of the Council of Europe on the implementation of Rec(2005) 5 on the rights 10 of children living in residential institutions.5 In light of these recommendations, in 2019, Romania has its own minimum mandatory standards applicable to children in residential care, as well as accredited and licensed residential services and a procedure in this regard. Caring for institutionalized children is based on an individual care plan (PIP), but the purpose of the PIPis often formally established, and the stability of the caregiver or case manager is still not strictly ensured. Specialized staff or multidisciplinary teams are still too few, the ongoing training of the staff is poor, the mandatory standards are applied in most cases “as far as possible”, and the suspicions of abuse, violence, exploitation of children within the protection services, although regulated by procedures, are not yet monitored with priority or resolved firmly and quickly. At the same time, Romania still has a monitoring system that is only partially functional (through the CMTIS),6 which is neither independent nor ensuring the participation of children in the monitoring and evaluation processes. Also, it does not yet have a functional mechanism of reports and complaints, although Law no. 9/2018 established an independent structure to this effect, i.e. the Children’s Ombudsman, structure under the coordination of the Ombudsman. As for the youth leaving the protection system, although there is legislation providing priority access for this group to different types of services, in fact, there are no individual post- institutionalization support plans and no mechanism to monitor their situation regarding housing, employment or independent living. Only in some counties and for a very small number of young people leaving the protection system, services have been developed for this purpose by both the DGASPCs and by NGOs. The monitoring and evaluation instrument proposed in this report is aimed at measuring the changes and at identifying the factors that influenced these changes according to the four strategic directions of action for the deinstitutionalization of children deprived of parental care that have been established by the ANPDCA7 and are transposed into the “National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of the Children’s Rights 2014-2020”,8 namely: (i) closure of the placement centers, because every child must grow up in a family (ii) development of alternative services to placement center care, especially family-type ones, both numerically and in terms of quality (iii) strengthening case management to ensure the quality and adequacy of the protection services (iv) development of community-based prevention and support services to reduce the number of entries in the system and stimulate family reintegration. As we have already mentioned, the current project under which this Output # 1 is prepared comes as a continuation of the SIPOCA 2 project focused on increasing the capacity of the public authorities to prepare the deinstitutionalization process, precisely according to the four previous strategic directions. Consequently, the M&E instrument of the deinstitutionalization process proposed in this report will be designed based on the instrumentation developed, tested and used (including by representatives of the DGASPCs and SPASs) in the previous project. Moreover, for the development of data collection instruments we consulted various sources, of which we mention: 5 Council of Europe (2005); Gudbrandsson (2008). 6 CMTIS = Child Monitoring and Tracking Information System. 7 Currently, the ANDPDCA. 8 GD no. 1113/2014. 11 • UNICEF - the child protection pack and the indicator manual for caring for children in the special protection system • Save the Children - child protection outcome indicators • Lumos - relevant indicators for the development of new services • World Vision - indicators for measuring the wellbeing of the child. The system of indicators proposed within the M&E instrument is aimed at measuring changes at child level and at the level of the special protection system with all its components. But achieving tangible change for children requires a long-term, intense effort. For this reason, the proposed indicator system contains two main types of indicators: process and outcome indicators. The input and impact indicators are only marginally used. The output indicators are meant to monitor the evolution of the implementation of the deinstitutionalization plans and of the establishment of new services, and the outcome indicators are meant to measure the success that the activities implemented within the deinstitutionalization program have had in terms of achieving the proposed objectives. The monitoring and evaluation of children’s progress is, most often, based on objective (factual) measurable indicators. These indicators are necessary, but not sufficient. How children themselves perceive or assess the quality of their lives is equally important. Monitoring through subjective indicators is generally considered “weak” or “questionable”, as opinions can change radically over time. Moreover, children’s ability to assess the quality of their lives has often been called into question. The starting point was the premise that, on the one hand, adults are well aware of what is good for the child and that, on the other hand, they have experienced childhood and “can see things from children’s perspective” when defining the criteria of wellbeing and quality of life in childhood. However, these premises do not consider the fact that our societies are constantly changing and that our subjective perceptions about the “quality of life” may differ from generation to generation. Therefore, the real and active participation of children and young people in the monitoring process is essential. Thus, the data collection toolkit also includes the “I too want to be heard!” form, which must be filled in by children and expresses their opinions. Monitoring should be an ongoing activity. And, in fact, this is done by the DGASPCs, but with a main focus on the administrative aspects related to resources (budgets, staff etc.) and to the activities provided for in the annual plans. These aspects are not subject to the monitoring referred to in this report. This is why the monitoring and evaluation instrument for ensuring the transition from institutional to community-based care focuses on process and outcome indicators that reflect the changes produced by the deinstitutionalization process. In line with the UNICEF recommendations9 related to the monitoring of child protection programs, the rounds of collection of new data should take place every six months for process indicators and once a year for outcome indicators. The two rounds of monitoring provided for in this project will be carried out annually, but the proposed M&E instrument can be continuously updated, and a six-month interim report is recommended to be used by the DGASPCs, to make any real-time adjustments. 9 UNICEF (2015: 168-170). 12 The overall view: Children, communities and services of prevention and support for families and children, institutions, alternative services in the protection system and case management Case Management S Family P S Famil r y P Family Family Family e PFam r PFam v PFam e AMP v CTF/AP AMP Family AMP Family Family Family PFam Family PFam SPrev CTF/AP 13 3. The Monitoring Report The Monitoring Report will be prepared by consolidating the data collected using the M&E instrument proposed in this report. The report will include two parts, a quantitative and a qualitative one. The quantitative part, regarding the data, will be produced automatically. DGASPC representatives introduce the data and ensure the quality of the data and the updates, but the quantitative part of the reports (tables and graphs) will be produced automatically at both county and national level. Therefore, for each dimension to be monitored, this report presents both the data collection instrument and the statistics that will be calculated automatically and will be included in the Monitoring Report. The qualitative part is supposed to show how the data are understood and used in order to substantiate the priority steps that must be taken to ensure progress as concerns the development of a good child protection system. DGASPCs, at county level, and the ANDPDCA, at national level, are responsible for preparing the qualitative part of the report. More specifically, the qualitative part should briefly analyze the data, evaluate the results in relation to the efforts and resources invested/available and, in particular, present the conclusions and steps decided by the decision-makers for the future. For example, the report may answer the following series of questions: What were the main types of interventions provided? And what were the main results? What remains to be solved? What are the lessons learned? What are the most important successes achieved? What about the main mistakes or failures? What are the next steps (taken by the DGASPCs)? The principles of a good child protection system (1) The system must be child-centered: anyone involved in child protection should place the child at the center of her/his activities and recognize that young people and children have rights, including the right to participate in making decisions regarding them, depending on their age and degree of maturity. (2) The family is usually the best place for children and young people to grow up, but sometimes difficult decisions have to be made to maintain the balance between a child’s right to be with her/his natural family and her/his right to protection from abuse and neglect. (3) Supporting families and children involves working directly with them and, therefore, the quality of the relationship between the child and the family, on the one hand, and professionals, on the other hand, has a direct impact on the effectiveness of the support provided. (4) Early support is best recommended for children: it minimizes the duration of negative experiences and ensures better outcomes for the benefit of children. (5) The needs and the situation of children differ from case to case, so the system must offer equally varied answers. (6) Good professional practice involves knowing the latest theories and researches. (7) Insecurity and risk are part of the activities aimed at protecting the child: risk management can only reduce risks, not eliminate them. (8) The success of child protection systems, both locally and nationally, is measured by how effective the actual support that children benefit from is. Source: Munro (2011: 23). 14 The national monitoring report will be prepared by aggregating the reports drawn up and undertaken by the county DGASPCs. Thus, based on the statistical data, as well as on the assessments and measures provided by the county DGASPC, the ANDPDCA can identify: (i) the main services that need to be further developed and the counties in which they will be created; (ii) the main needs related to the availability of certain specialists and in which counties with priority; (iii) the main needs for vocational training and how they will be addressed by the counties; (iv) the main rules and regulations that must be developed or amended to facilitate the deinstitutionalization process and the development of a good protection system. County and national monitoring reports should be produced annually, preferably with an intermediate form every six months. All reports must be publicly disseminated. To this end, the project envisages the development of a platform for collecting and reporting data on the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based care. The statistics generated for the reporting (the quantitative part of the monitoring report) will be disaggregated to be useful for substantiating management and programming decisions. Data10 disaggregation helps to: (i) identify possible disparities in the placement of children between different types of services (for example, teenagers or children with disabilities or groups of siblings are mainly protected in institutions); (ii) identify the groups of children most exposed to the risk of family separation, which helps to target prevention programs; (iii) monitor changes at system level in time, especially within a process such as deinstitutionalization, which focuses mainly on groups of children specific for institutions. Disaggregation categories may differ from one indicator to another but, in general, the monitoring report will use the following categories: • Gender (M/F) • Age11 (0-3, 4-6, 7-10, 11-14, 15-17, 18+) • Ethnicity (Romanian, Hungarian, Roma, other) • Child’s parents (both parents alive and known, only one parent alive and known, no living or known parent, unknown) • Disability (child with disability) • PIP deliverable (family reintegration, adoption, socio-professional integration, other) • Special protection services (residential - CP, CTF, AP, CPRU, CM, AZ/N, family-type - AMP, PFam). The monitoring report (county and national) will be organized based on the following structure: 1. The 12 key indicators of the special protection system 2. Children in the special protection system 3. Flows to and from the special protection system 4. Special child protection services 5. Case management 6. Prevention services in rural communities 10Adapted according to UNICEF (2009: 6-7). 11 The collection instruments register the date of birth of the child, the age being automatically calculated by reference to the round of monitoring. 15 The 12 key indicators of the Special Child Protection System (SPSC), according to UNICEF, are the following: 1. Children who entered Number of children (0-17 years old) who entered the SPSC the SPSC in the last 12 months per 100,000 children 2. Children in the SPSC Number of children (0-17 years old) in the SPSC (at a certain date) per 100,000 children 3. Children leaving a The share of children between the ages of 0-14 who left the residential protection residential institutions through transfer to a family-type facility through facility or (re)integration into a family, during the last 12 (re)integration into a months (total number of children between the ages of 0-14 family cared for in a residential institution) 4. The ratio between The share of children (0-17 years old) in the SPS who are children in residential cared for (at a certain time) in any non-family-type institutions and those institution (total number of children in the SPSC, regardless in family-type of the institution in which they are placed) institutions 5. Children deceased Number of deaths of children in the SPS during the last 12 while being in the months per 100,000 children in the SPSC SPSC 6. The relationship of The share of children in the SPSC who have been visited or children in the SPSC have visited their parents, guardians or an adult family with their parents and member during the last 3 months (total number of children family in the SPSC) 7. The existence of an The share of children in the SPSC who have an individual individual care plan protection plan (total number of children in the SPSC) 8. Evaluation system for The share of children in the SPSC who entered the system entering the SPSC based on the decision of an assessment system (total number of children in the SPSC)12 9. Placement review The share of children in the SPSC whose placement has been reviewed during the last 12 months (total number of children in the SPSC) 10. Children in residential The share of school-age children in a residential institution institutions who attending a mass school (total number of school-age attend mass schools children placed in residential institutions) 11. Qualification of the Percentage of teaching and personal care staff who work personal care staff directly with children in residential institutions and who have minimum qualifications in child care and development (total number of staff working in residential institutions for children) 12. Adoption Rate of adopted children per 100,000 children Source: UNICEF (2009: 5). Note: Of the 12 indicators, the first four are considered as priorities. The children in the special protection system will represent a chapter reflecting the results of the deinstitutionalization process at children level, according to the groups of indicators below 12 Percentage of children placed in formal care through an established assessment system (gatekeeping) 16 and the types of protection services in which they are placed at the time of the round of monitoring. ... family-type Residential institutions and... institutions Indicators: CP CTF AP CPRU CM AZ/N AMP PFam Total Number x x x x x x x x x Characteristics x x x x x x x x x Wellbeing x x x x x x x x x Children’s voice x x x x x x The flows to and from the special protection system will present data on the entries and exits from the system, but also from each type of protection services (from the ones in the table above), depending on the entry/exit methods, registered during the last 12 months (or between the rounds of monitoring). The child special protection services will represent a chapter that will describe (i) the stage of closure of the institutions and (ii) the stage of development of the alternative services regarding both their number and territorial distribution, as well as their quality. ... family-type Residential institutions and... institutions Indicators: CP CTF AP CPRU CM AZ/N AMP PFam Total Number x x x x x x x x x Stage of the x closure process Territorial distribution - x x x x x x x x x concentration and maps The evolution of the level of x x x x x quality during the last 12 months The period spent by children in the x x x x x x x x x institution/system The Case Management chapter will consider: • The MC network - size and characteristics • The quality of the case management • Entries in and exits from the case management 17 The chapter Prevention services in rural communities will refer to: • The existing prevention services (social, educational, medical), by types (centers, intervention/activity, specialists) at UAT level • The analysis of the “white areas” without access to social prevention services at county level • Maps at UAT and county level by service type. 18 4. The M&E instrument In order to track the changes occurred at the level of the four strategic directions of action for deinstitutionalization, the monitoring instrument covers both the special child protection services and the community-based services for preventing the separation of children from their families. Accordingly, data collection tools are organized as follows: CHILDREN IN THE SPECIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM (i) Residential • monitoring the stage of the process of institutions deinstitutionalization of children in placement centers (CP) • monitoring the development of small-sized services: family- type homes (CTF), apartments (AP) • monitoring other residential institutions: emergency placement centers (CPRU), maternal centers (CM), day or night shelters (AZ/N) (ii) Family-type • monitoring the development of family-type institutions: institutions family placements (PFam) and foster care (AMP) (iii) Case management • case management (MC) consolidation monitoring (iv) The special • monitoring the impact on the SPSC, with a focus on protection system children’s wellbeing and voice CHILDREN FROM THE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY (v) Prevention services • monitoring the development of services aimed at preventing the separation of children from their families at local level, in the rural areas The M&E instrument comprises, in accordance with the Terms of Reference: (a) data collection tools (b) the logical conditions to ensure data validation and the technical specifications to enable the calculation of the relevant monitoring indicators, and (c) templates for reports/maps that will be made based on the data collected at national, county and local level. The data collection instruments have been designed to be used in Excel format (or another IT app that allows data recording in database format). Therefore, pre-formatted Excel files that correspond to the data collection instruments are attached to this report, which contain the logical conditions to ensure data validation and allow the automatic calculation of the indicators and statistics that will be part of the monitoring reports. This report shows the first version of the instrument for monitoring the stage of the transition from institutional to community-based child care. This first version of the instrument was discussed with DGASPC representatives during a consultation workshop organized in collaboration with the ANDPDCA and the World Bank, on December 17, 2019, in Bucharest. The version of the instrument in this report incorporates all the comments and observations during 19 the consultation workshop. In January 2020, the data collection tool package is expected to be tested in two counties.13 Subsequently, the monitoring instrument will be used to develop a platform that will ensure both the collection of information and the presentation of data to the general public, in an interactive manner. Data collection tool package, identification and the responsible entities Data collection tools Unique identification codes Departments responsible for (Calculated automatically) reporting The Register of Cod_Serv = The Residential Service for Placement Centers |_X__|_X__|__2_|__2_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Children, within the DGASPC. (CP) (service code - TN) The designated person may be the head of the CP or of the complex that XX = CodJUD (county code - TN) and the center is a part of, as well as a MC YYYY = Cod_CP (CP code - TN) in Annex who monitors the situation of the 2.1 protected children (or part of the children) in the selected CP. The Register of CTF - Cod_Serv = The Residential Service for Family-type Homes |_X__|_X__|__2_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Children, within the DGASPC. (CTF) and Apartments AP - Cod_Serv = The designated person may be the (AP) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__1_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| head of the CTF/AP or of the complex to which it belongs, as well as a MC XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. who monitors the situation of the protected children (or part of the children) in the selected CTF/AP. The Register of other CPRU - Cod_Serv = The Residential Service for residential institutions |_X__|_X__|__2_|__3_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Children, within the DGASPC. (RezAlt = CPRU, CM, CM - Cod_Serv = The designated person may be the AZ/N) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__4_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| head of the institution or of the complex that the department is a part AZ/N - Cod_Serv = of, as well as a MC who monitors the |_X__|_X__|__2_|__5_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| situation of the protected children (or part of the children) in the selected XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. institution. The Register of Cod_Serv = The AMP Department or the Professional Foster |_X__|_X__|__1_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Case Management Department Carers (AMP) within the DGASPC XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. The Register of Cod_Serv = The Case Management Family-type |_X__|_X__|__1_|__1_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Department or the Family Placements (PFam) Placement Department (or XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. similar) within the DGASPC The Register of Case Cod_Serv = The Case Management Managers (MC) |_X__|_X__|__3_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Department within the DGASPC 13In each of the counties: at least one placement center, a lot of alternative services and 3 rural communities will be selected. 20 XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. The Register of Cod_Kid = CNP (personal identification The Case Management Children in the special number - TN) Department within the DGASPC protection system If the child has no CNP, please fill in: & - Children’s wellbeing Cod_Kid = |_X__|_X__|__0_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| - Children’s voice XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. The Register of Cod_Serv = SIRSUP The DGASPC specialists in Prevention services in charge of the relationship with (single UAT code, see Annex 3) local communities the communities, in (SPrev) collaboration with the SPAS representatives from each UAT The data collection tools are presented in the following chapters of the report. 21 RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR CHILDREN This chapter covers the residential institutions managed by the DGASPCs, namely: (1) Placement centers for children (CP), hereinafter referred to as centers, residential centers or institutions for children; (2) Small-sized residential services including: family-type homes (CTF) and apartments (AP) and (3) Other residential services for children, namely: emergency placement centers (CPRU), maternal centers (CM) and day/night shelters (AZ/N). 1. Child placement centers 1.1. The Register of Placement Centers (CP) The M&E instrument for deinstitutionalization considers all the placement centers regardless of the stage of their closure process. Therefore, the first round of monitoring must use the list of the 147 CPs that were operational in February 2018, identified in the SIPOCA 2 project. This list is available in Annex 2.1 and contains: the single center code (cod_CP), county, locality and the name of the center. JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| Cod_Serv = |_X__|_X__|__2_|__2_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| For each CP, a single code is calculated, where XX = CodJUD and YYYY = Cod_CP in Annex 2.1. DATE. Date when the CP Register was completed: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Round of monitoring: |__1_| OMR. The person who actually completed the CP Register: The CP Register will preferably be completed by a specialist of the Children’s Residential Service, within the DGASPC. The designated person may be the head of the CP or of the complex that the center is a part of, as well as a MC who monitors the situation of the protected children (or part of the children) in the selected CP. 1. Last name: 2. First name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: Cod_CP (in Annex 2.1) ... LCP1. Name of the CP: ... LCP2. The complex including the CP ... If yes, please write down the name of the complex in clear lettering. If not, write 0 (zero). LCP3. The type of CP, according to the 1. Traditional CP “traditional” and “modular” categories in Annex 2. Traditional CP with improvements 22 2.2 3. Partially modular CP 4. Modular CP, compliant with the definition LCP4a. The stage of the closure process of the 1. CP declared by the DGASPC as being in the CP in February 2018, see Annex 2.3 process of closing (ongoing process) 2. CP for the closure of which the DGASPC undertook discussions, negotiations, actions (process at an early stage) 3. CP intended to be closed sometime in the future, without the DGASPC having done anything concrete in this regard 4. CP that the DGASPC (and the CJ) does not intend to close either at present or in the future LCP4b. The current stage of the closure process 0. Dissolved/closed CPs of the CP (at the date of the round of 1. CP declared by the DGASPC as being in the monitoring) process of closing (ongoing process) 2. CP for the closure of which the DGASPC undertook discussions, negotiations, actions (process at an early stage) 3. CP intended to be closed sometime in the future, without the DGASPC having done anything concrete in this regard 4. CP that the DGASPC (and the CJ) does not intend to close either at present or in the future 5. Newly established CPs CLOSE. CPs in the process of If LCP4a=1 or 2 closing/restructuring Fill in automatically Only for CPs with zero or low probability of being closed (If LCP4b= 3 or 4 or 5) LCP5a. Is the CP one of the centers where investments have been made, either with ROP 1. Yes 0. No or MMJS funds, bound by a clause to keep the service running until 2019/2020? LCP5b. Does the CP already have low capacity 1. Yes 0. No and is “a natural closure process” expected? LCP5c. Does the CP provide specialized services (e.g., for children/young people with severe disabilities or juvenile offenders, or with 1. Yes 0. No behavioral disorders) or is it located in areas that ensure children’s access to certain services (special school, high school etc.)? 23 Only for CPs in the process of closing/restructuring (If LCP4b=1 or 2) LCP6a. Has the individual CP closure plan been 0. No and it will not be accomplished accomplished? 1. No, but there is an intention to accomplish it 2. Yes, ongoing process 3. Yes, ended process 0. No and it will not be accomplished LCP6b. Has the multidisciplinary evaluation of all the children in CP been accomplished? 1. No, but there is an intention to accomplish it 2. Yes, ongoing process (Only the evaluations based on a methodology 3. Yes, ended process recognized by the ANDPDCA are taken into consideration)14 0. Not yet known LCP6c. The main source of funding used or intended to be used to close the CP? 1. NGOs and other sources 2. CJ, own resources (Only the main source will be encircled) 3. European funds (POR, POCU) 0. No, there is no individual plan to close the CP or LN1. Is there a nominal list of children in CP that one is not completed, or the multidisciplinary was prepared for the purposes of evaluation of children has not started or is not closure/restructuring? completed 1. Yes, there is a nominal list of the children in CP If LN1 = 0 (There is no nominal list), SKIP to question LN5 below If LN1 = 1 (There is a nominal list), Complete the questions below starting with LN2 LN2. How many children/young people are on ... children/young people the nominal list? LN3. And what is the number of children/young people for which each of the following solutions has been included in the plans for the future... a. (Re)integration into the child’s natural family ... children/young people b. Adoption ... children/young people c. Socio-professional integration ... children/young people d. Integration into the extended family, without a ... children/young people protection measure e. Placement with relatives up to the 4th degree ... children/young people f. Placement with other families/persons ... children/young people g. Placement with the AMP ... children/young people h. Placement in CTF/AP ... children/young people i. Exceptional placement in another residential service ... children/young people j. Other alternative measures ... children/young people LN4. What is the number of children/young people on the nominal list that are part of groups of siblings? 14 For example, the World Bank Output #2 (July 2017) and Output #5 (July 2018). 24 a. Total number of children in groups of siblings, of ... children/young people which: b. ... with the same solution in the plans for the future? ... children/young people c. ... with different solutions in the plans for the future? ... children/young people LN5. The number of children/young people for whom the preparation for relocation to a new living environment... a. The preparation stage has not started yet ... children/young people b. The preparation for relocation is ongoing ... children/young people c. The preparation for relocation was finalized ... children/young people FOR ALL THE CPs LCP7. What is the capacity of the CP? ... Total number of persons that it can accommodate LCP8. The CP is operational, i.e. it hosts children 1. Yes 0. No at this time (at the time of the monitoring round)? If LCP8=1 (CP operational) LCP9. Total number of beneficiaries of a special protection measure at present? ... Total number of beneficiaries (The children actually present + temporarily absent by being away to school, in hospital, other reasons, are counted) LCP10. The CP accommodates... 1. Only girls 2. Only boys 3. Girls and boys LCP11. The beneficiaries also include... a. children between the ages of 0-3? 1. Yes 0. No b. young people over 18 years old? 1. Yes 0. No c. groups of siblings? 1. Yes 0. No d. children with disabilities (with a disability certificate)? 1. Yes 0. No e. bedridden children/young people? 1. Yes 0. No f. children/young people with SEN (with school 1. Yes 0. No guidance)? g. children/young people having broken the law? 1. Yes 0. No h. teenagers (over 11 years old) with behavioral 1. Yes 0. No disorders? i. underage mothers? 1. Yes 0. No j. couples of beneficiaries? 1. Yes 0. No k. cases of children having fled the institution during the 1. Yes 0. No 25 last 12 months? l. cases of children/young people involved in 1. Yes 0. No prostitution, begging, neighborhood gangs etc., during the last 12 months? LCP12. Is the CP accredited? 1. Yes 0. No LCP13. Is the CP licensed? 1. Yes 0. No LCP14. Does the CP have all the necessary 0. No 1. Yes, partially 2. Yes, all of them authorizations according to the law? (Sanitary Veterinary Directorate, Health Directorate, Environment etc.) Staff HR1. Total number of staff actually working in the CP, ... Total of which: (full time or part time) a. staff actually carrying out training/education activities (educators, specialized educators, teachers etc.) ... teaching staff b. personal care workers who actually work with ... personal care workers children (nurses, caretakers and supervisors) c. social worker, psychologist, doctor and other ... specialists different specialists d. other types (driving, maintenance etc.) ... employees HR2. Staff characteristics: a. number of women, regardless of the type of staff ... female employees b. teaching or personal care staff with minimum qualifications in child care and development ... teaching or personal care staff Only the qualifications granted by a nationally accredited and recognized body, which are appropriate to the tasks performed within the service, are considered. c. staff transferred from closed/restructured CPs or ... employees from CPs in the process of closing Quality of care AIND2. Is the Children’s Council established and 1. Yes 0. No operational within the CP? A14. Is the monitoring of the quality of the care that 0. No children/young people receive in the CP ensured by a 1. Yes, by the DGASPC (and not by the case manager from the DGASPC, outside the CP and, head, social worker or other employee if applicable, outside the complex that it is part of? of the CP/complex) RMM0. Approximately, what is the average monthly ... Lei/child/month cost per child living in this CP? -1. I cannot give an estimate Consider: overheads (gas, electricity, maintenance etc.) + food expenses + expenses with the education, personal care and supervision staff + management expenses (administrative and management staff) + expenses for specialized services, personal development and social inclusion (psychological, social, legal etc.) + pocket money for 26 children and young people. The inflows and outflows of children from this CP between two consecutive rounds of monitoring For the first round of monitoring, the reference used is February 1, 2018 * The ages calculated at the time of entry, respectively at the time of exit. Number RMFT1. Total number of children in this CP, in February 2018 RMF1. Total number of entries in this CP, of which: ! RMF1=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children between the ages of 0-3 b. Children between the ages of 4-6 c. Children between the ages of 7-10 d. Children between the ages of 11-14 e. Children between the ages of 15-17 f. Young people over 18 years old RMF2. Entries in this CP by methods (number of children): ! RMF2=RMF1 1. From a family 2. Placement with relatives/other persons 3. Transfer from other services (public or OPA) a. AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP in the process of closing/restructuring d. CP that is not in the process of closing/restructuring e. CPRU f. other services for children (CM, AZ/N etc.) 4. Other situations (from sanitary facilities etc.) RMF3. Total number of exits from this CP, of which: ! RMF3=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children between the ages of 0-3 b. Children between the ages of 4-6 c. Children between the ages of 7-10 d. Children between the ages of 11-14 e. Children between the ages of 15-17 f. Young people over 18 years old RMF4. Exits from this CP by methods (number of children): ! RMF4=RMF3 10. Reintegrated into the family 11. Adoption 12. Placement with relatives/other persons 20. Transfer to other services (public or OPA) a. AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP in the process of closing/restructuring d. CP that is not in the process of closing/restructuring 27 e. other services for children f. institutions for adults 40. Deaths 50. Turning 18 (situations other than those above) 70. Other methods RMFT2. Total number of children in this CP, at the current round of monitoring RMFT2 = RMFT1 + RMF1 - RMF3 1.2. CP: Statistics for the Monitoring Report The statistics for the Monitoring Report are organized according to the following topics: 1. Stage of the center closure process 2. The territorial dimension of the CP closure process 3. Entries and exits from the CP during the last 12 months 4. Characteristics of the beneficiaries in CP 5. The wellbeing of children in CP 6. The voice of the children in CP 1. Stage of the center closing process Aggregated data from the CP Register (section 1.1) Figure: The distribution of the placement centers in Romania depending on the stage of the closure process, at the time of the round of monitoring (number of centers) Note: Model based on the 2018 data. To the categories in the figure, the CPs established and dissolved are added. Table: The distribution of the placement centers in Romania depending on the type of CP and the stage of the closure process, at the time of the round of monitoring (number of centers) Modular CPs, Traditional Partially compliant Traditional CPs with modular with the CPs improvements CPs definition Total 28 0. Dissolved/closed CPs 1. CP declared by the DGASPC as being in the process of closing (ongoing process) 2. CP for the closure of which the DGASPC undertook discussions, negotiations, actions (at an early stage) 3. CP intended to be closed sometime in the future, without the DGASPC having done anything concrete in this regard 4. CP that the DGASPC (and the CJ) does not intend to close either at present or in the future 5. Newly established CPs Total Table: The distribution of the placement centers in Romania with a low probability of being closed depending on the type of CP and reasons, at the time of the round of monitoring (number of centers) Modular CPs, Traditional Partially compliant Traditional CPs with modular with the CPs improvements CPs definition Total Centers where investments have been made, either with ROP or MMJS funds, bound by a clause to keep the service running until 2019/2020 Centers with an already low capacity, for which the DGASPCs envisages “a natural closure process” Centers providing specialized services (e.g., for children/young people with severe disabilities or juvenile offenders, or with behavioral disorders) or located in areas that ensure children’s access to certain services (special school, high school etc.)? Other reasons Total 29 Only for the CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Table: The placement centers in Romania in the process of closing/restructuring (number of centers) CP declared by CP for the closure of the DGASPC as which the DGASPC being in the undertook discussions, process of Total negotiations, actions closing (at an early stage) (ongoing process) Total N Has the multidisciplinary No and it will not be evaluation of all the accomplished children in the CP been No, but there is an accomplished? intention to accomplish it Only the evaluations when starting the actual based on a methodology closing process recognized by the ANDPDCA are taken into Yes, ongoing process consideration Yes, ended process Has the individual CP No and it will not be closure plan been accomplished accomplished? No, but there is an intention to accomplish it when starting the actual closing process Yes, ongoing process Yes, ended process The main source of European funds (POR, funding intended to be POCU) used to close the CP? CJ, own resources NGOs or other sources Not known yet A nominal list of children Yes in CP that was prepared for the purposes of No closure/restructuring? 30 Table: Children and young people in the placement centers in Romania in the process of closing/restructuring (number of children/young people) CP declared by CP for the closure of the DGASPC as which the DGASPC being in the undertook discussions, process of Total negotiations, actions closing (at an early stage) (ongoing process) Total N The number of a. The preparation stage children/young people has not started yet for whom the preparation b. The preparation for for relocation to a new relocation is ongoing living environment c. The preparation for relocation was finalized Table: The children and young people in the placement centers in Romania in the process of closing/restructuring that have prepared, ever since the beginning of the process, a nominal list of all the children in CP, in compliance with the methodology for the individual closure plans drafted and endorsed by the ANDPDCA 15 (number of children/young people) Children’s distribution depending on the solutions set out in the plans for the future, LN3 and LN4 indicators for the groups of siblings. For all the CPs Figure: CP distribution depending on their capacity, as declared by the DGASPC (number of CPs) CPs in the process of closing/restructuring v. CPs with a low probability of closing Figure: CP distribution depending on the average monthly cost per child (number of CPs) Categories of Lei/child/month - to be decided CPs in the process of closing/restructuring v. CPs with a low probability of closing CPs in the CP with small process of chances of closing/restru being closed cturing Staff Total number of staff actually working in the CP (full time or part time), of which: - teaching or personal care staff - teaching or personal care staff with minimum qualifications in child care and development - social worker, psychologist, doctor and other different specialists 15 See, the World Bank Output #2 (July 2017) and Output #5 (July 2018). 31 - female employees - staff transferred from closed/restructured CPs or from CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Quality of care Licensed CPs CPs where the Children’s Council is operational The monitoring of the quality of the care that children/young people receive in the CP is ensured by a case manager from the DGASPC, outside the CP 2. The territorial dimension of the process of closing the CP Aggregated data from the CP Register (section 1.1) Number of Number of Number of Total Number of children in children in CPs with Total number CPs in the CPs with CPs in the small JUD number of of process of small process of chances of CPs children closing/ chances of closing/ being in CP restructuring being restructuring closed closed ... Maps: CP distribution at county level Maps: Distribution of children in CPs at county level 3. Entries and exits from the CPs during the last 12 months (between 2 consecutive rounds of monitoring) (Preferably, there will be an intermediate round, at 6 months) Opening/closing of CPs Aggregated data from the CP Register (section 1.1) Number Total number of CPs at the previous round of monitoring Closed CP Total number of CPs, of which: The CP from which one or more beneficiaries was/were transferred to another CP (undergoing closing/restructuring or not) CP established/open Total number of CPs, of which: The CP that has accepted one or several children transferred from a CP closed or in the process of closing/restructuring The CP that has accepted one or several employees from a CP closed or in the process of closing/restructuring Total number of CPs at the current round of monitoring 32 Child flows to and between CPs Aggregated data from the CP Register (section 1.1) Number Total number of children in CP at the previous round of monitoring CP entries Total number of children, of which: Children between the ages of 0-3 Children between the ages of 4-6 Children between the ages of 7-10 Children between the ages of 11-14 Children between the ages of 15-17 Young people over 18 years old Children transferred from CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Children transferred from CPs that are not in the process of closing/restructuring Exits from the CP Total number of children, of which: Children between the ages of 0-3 Children between the ages of 4-6 Children between the ages of 7-10 Children between the ages of 11-14 Children between the ages of 15-17 Young people over 18 years old Reintegration into the family or with relatives up to the 4th degree Adoption Socio-professional integration when turning 18 years old Deaths Children transferred to CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Children transferred to CPs that are not in the process of closing/restructuring Total number of children in CP at the current round of monitoring 4. Characteristics of the beneficiaries in CP At CP level Aggregated data from the CP Register (section 1.1) Number of CPs Total number of CPs (at the current round of monitoring) Number of CPs whose beneficiaries include: Only girls Only boys Girls and boys Children between the ages of 0-3 Young people over 18 years old 33 Groups of siblings Children with disabilities (with a disability certificate) Children/young people with SEN (with school guidance) Bedridden children/young people Children/young people having broken the law Teenagers (over 11 years old) with behavioral disorders Underage mothers Couples of beneficiaries Cases of children having fled the institution during the last 12 months Cases of children/young people involved, in prostitution, begging, neighborhood gangs etc., during the last 12 months Children/young people transferred from CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Children/young people transferred from CPs that are not in the process of closing/restructuring At the level of children in CP Aggregated data from the Register of children in the special protection system (section 7.1) Number of Percentage children/young people in CP Total number of children in CP (at the current round of monitoring), 100 of which: Gender male female Age 0-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years 11-14 years 15-17 years over 18 years old Ethnicity Romanian Hungarian Roma Other Undeclared/Unknown Children having an Individual Care Plan (PIP), of which: PIP for family reintegration purposes PIP for adoption purposes PIP for social and professional integration purposes PIP for other purposes Children who have identified a family (with name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration, of which: No living/identified parent 34 Only the mother has been identified Only the father has been identified Both parents have been identified and they are separated Both parents have been identified and they still live together Children with disabilities (with a disability certificate)- total Severe disability Accentuated disability Medium or mild disability Bedridden children/young people Children/young people with SEN (with school guidance) Children/young people having broken the law Teenagers (over 11 years old) with behavioral disorders Underage mothers Children with all other types of special needs Children with siblings in the same CP The period spent in the current CP less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years more than 10 years The average period spent by a child in the current CP (months) The maximum period spent by a child in the current CP (months) Figure: Distribution of children taken care of in CP by gender and age (total %) Figure: Distribution of children taken care of in CP by disability and age (total %) Figure: The share of children who have identified a family (with name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration in each vulnerable group Figure: The share of children who have identified a family (with name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration in each age group and out of the total number of children in CP 5. The wellbeing of children in CP Aggregated data from the Register of children in the special protection system (section 7.1) Number of Percentage children/ young people in CP Total number of children in CP (at the current round of monitoring), of which: 100 The relationship with the family Children who had at least one visit/meeting with the brothers/sisters during the reference period Children who have been visited by or have visited their parents, guardians or an adult family member, of which: 35 - at least once every 3 months - rarer, but at least once during the reference period Children who, at least once during the reference period, have been the victim in a case of violence/abuse or suspected abuse within the service, at school, in the community Children who have made, at least once during the reference period, a complaint/report regarding an aspect related to the social service in which they are placed Children who have participated in independent living activities The education of children in CP The child is 0-2 years old The child is 3+ years old and does not go to kindergarten/school The child is 3+ years old and goes to kindergarten/school, of which: - in a mass education unit - in a special education unit Of the children who go to school Students who have had a low school attendance during the reference period Students who have had poor school performance during the reference period Students who have been repeaters at least once since going to school Students with a history of being sanctioned at school Students at risk of dropping out or leaving school early Figure: The share of children who have been in contact with the family at least once every 3 months (SCK8 = 1) in each vulnerable group Figure: The share of children who have been in contact with the family at least once every 3 months (SCK8 = 1) in each age group and out of the total number of children in CP Figure: The share of children who have been in contact with the family at least once every 3 months (SCK8 = 1) depending on the PIP deliverable Figure: The share of children not attending kindergarten/school in each age group and out of the total number of children in CP Figure: The share of children attending a mass kindergarten/school in each age group and out of the total number of children in CP Figure: The share of children at risk of dropping out or leaving school early in each vulnerable group 6. The voice of children in CP Analysis by each CP separately and by types of CP - which are in the process of closing/restructuring and which are not being closed Aggregated data from the Database concerning Children’s Voice (section 7.2) Child distribution per age groups 11-14, 15-17, 18+, disability, other types of beneficiaries with special needs and... 36 1. Quality of care = VK1-VK4 Summative index with values ranging from 0 to 8, where 8 = the child always feels safe, well taken care of, important and listened to. Values above 3 indicate that such a state persists most of the time. 2. Independent living = The child has specific responsibilities 3. The perceived quality of life = VK6 Scale, where 1 - the worst life possible and 8 - the best life possible 4. Overall level of happiness = VK8, where 1 - completely unhappy, and 5 - extremely happy 5. Lack of affection = VK7 b+e+f+g+i Summative index, with values ranging from 0 to 20, where values above 15 = most of the time, the child feels sad, alone, tired, deprived of rest and unhappy about herself/himself See the Excel that comprises: - data collection database format - statistics for the monitoring report that can be made based on the data collected at national, county and local level 37 2. Small-sized residential services 2.1. The Register of Family-type Homes (CTF) and Apartments (AP) JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| If YES RezMic. Type of small-sized residential service Cod_Serv. Fill in the single code 20. Family-type home (CTF) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| 21. Apartment (AP) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__1_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| For each CTF/ AP, a single code is calculated, where XX = CodJUD and YYYY = No. (see below). DATE. Date when the CTF/AP Register was completed: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Round of monitoring: |__1_| OMR. The person who actually completed the CTF/AP Register The CTF/AP Register will preferably be completed by a specialist of the Children’s Residential Service, within the DGASPC. The designated person may be the head of the CTF/AP or of the complex to which it belongs, as well as a MC who monitors the situation of the protected children (or part of the children) in the selected CTF/AP. 1. Last name: 2. First name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: No. ... LCTF1. CTF/ AP name: ... If the CTF/AP is part of a complex and does not have a name, write CTF/AP 1, 2, ..., n LCTF2. The complex including the CTF/AP ... If yes, please write down the name of the complex in clear lettering. If not, write 0 (zero). LCTF3. Date when the CTF/AP was established ... LCTF4. CTF/AP location 1. urban 2. rural If urban SIRSUP: LCTF41a. Town/Municipality: LCTF41b. Street/Village: If rural SIRSUP: LCTF42a. Commune: LCTF42b. Village: SIRINF: LCTF5. What is the capacity of the CTF/AP? ... Total number of persons that it can accommodate 38 LCTF6. The CTF/AP is operational, i.e. it hosts children 1. Yes 0. No at this time (on the date of the round of monitoring)? If LCTF6=1 (CTF/AP operational) LCTF7. Total number of beneficiaries of a special protection measure at present? ... Total number of beneficiaries (The children actually present + temporarily absent by being away to school, in hospital, other reasons, are counted) LCTF8. Is the capacity of the CTF/AP exceeded by the 1. Yes 0. No current number of beneficiaries? LCTF9. Total number of places available (vacant) ... Total number of places available (Write zero if there are no places available) LCTF10. The CTF/AP accommodates... 1. Only girls 2. Only boys 3. Girls and boys LCTF11. The beneficiaries also include... a. children between the ages of 0-3? 1. Yes 0. No b. young people over 18 years old? 1. Yes 0. No c. groups of siblings? 1. Yes 0. No d. children with disabilities (with a disability certificate)? 1. Yes 0. No e. bedridden children/young people? 1. Yes 0. No f. children/young people with SEN (with school guidance)? 1. Yes 0. No g. children/young people having broken the law? 1. Yes 0. No h. teenagers (over 11 years old) with behavioral disorders? 1. Yes 0. No i. underage mothers? 1. Yes 0. No j. couples of beneficiaries? 1. Yes 0. No k. cases of children having fled the institution during the last 1. Yes 0. No 12 months? l. cases of children/young people involved in prostitution, 1. Yes 0. No begging, neighborhood gangs etc., during the last 12 months? m. children/young people transferred from CPs in the process 1. Yes 0. No of closing/restructuring n. children/young people transferred from CPs that are not in 1. Yes 0. No the process of closing/restructuring LCTF12. Is the CTF/AP accredited? 1. Yes 0. No LCTF13. Is the CTF/AP licensed? 1. Yes 0. No LCTF14. Does the CTF/AP have all the necessary 0. No 1. Yes, partially 2. Yes, all of authorizations according to the law? them (Sanitary Veterinary Directorate, Health Directorate, Environment etc.) 39 The caring environment LCTF15. The CTF/AP is part of a “nest”/a community 0. No, individual institution of beneficiaries of social services (together with other 1. Yes, it is part of a community of residential services for children or adults and/or with beneficiaries of social services a special school and/or other social services) C2. The CTF/AP is at risk of spatial isolation, i.e. it is SIMULATANEOUSLY more than 1.5 km away or more than a 15 minute-walk from: (1) the nearest school, 1. Yes 0. No (2) the nearest hospital/doctor and (3) the town hall/town center? If the CTF/AP is far from only one or two of the reference points (school, doctor and town hall/center), you should write 0. No. C3. Does the CTF/AP have exterior access ramps? 0. No, and such are not necessary 1. No, although such are necessary 2. Yes, but insufficient 3. Yes, sufficient C4. Does the CTF/AP have interior access ramps (or 0. No, and such are not necessary lifts, similar platforms or devices)? 1. No, although such are necessary 2. Yes, but insufficient 3. Yes, sufficient Staff HR1. Total number of staff actually working in the ... Total CTF/ AP, of which: (full time or part time) a. staff actually carrying out training/education ... teaching staff activities (educators, specialized educators, teachers etc.) b. personal care workers who actually work with ... personal care workers children (nurses, caretakers and supervisors) c. social worker, psychologist, doctor and other ... specialists different specialists d. other types (driving, maintenance etc.) ... employees HR2. Staff characteristics: a. number of women, regardless of the type of staff ... female employees b. teaching or personal care staff with minimum qualifications in child care and development ... teaching or personal care staff Only the qualifications granted by a nationally accredited and recognized body, which are appropriate to the tasks performed within the service, are considered. c. staff transferred from closed/restructured CPs or ... employees from CPs in the process of closing Quality of care AIND1. Are there any activities aimed at developing -7. There are no beneficiaries of over 14 40 the independent living skills of children and young years old people above the age of 14 conducted in the CTF/AP? 0. No 1. Yes, and some of them take part in them 2. Yes, and all of them take part in them We refer to activities in which children participate, such as selecting the menu, preparing and serving food, cleaning the CTF/AP, washing and ironing clothes, using the stove or the washing machine or the children going for the daily shopping alone, when needed, receiving their own money and knowing how to use it, ask for change, receipt etc. AIND2. Is the Children’s Council established and 1. Yes 0. No operational within the CTF/AP? A14. Is the monitoring of the quality of the care that 0. No children/young people receive in the CTF/AP ensured 1. Yes, by the DGASPC (and not by the by a case manager from the DGASPC, outside the head, social worker or other employee CTF/AP and, if applicable, outside the complex of of the CTF/AP/complex) which the CTF/AP is part? RMM0. Approximately, what is the average monthly ... Lei/child/month cost per child living in this CTF/AP? -1. I cannot estimate Consider: overheads (gas, electricity, maintenance etc.) + food expenses + expenses with the education, personal care and supervision staff + management expenses (administrative and management staff) + expenses for specialized services, personal development and social inclusion (psychological, social, legal etc.) + pocket money for children and young people. For the next round of monitoring (RMon = 2) All the information above still valid will be kept. Modifications will be made where necessary. Moreover, the items below on service quality will be completed. LCTF20. The situation compared to the 0. The CTF/AP existing at the previous round and at previous round of monitoring present 1. CTF/AP established/open between the two rounds 2. CTF/AP closed/suspended between the two rounds Between the two rounds of monitoring: D7. Did the CTF/AP benefit from consolidation, 1. Yes 0. No extension, capital repairs or modernization works? These include building consolidations, roof repairs, installation of new windows, heating plant, changing the sanitary installation, extensions etc. It does not include the annual works of sanitation, painting, current repairs etc. RMIZ1. Did the children/young people in CTF/AP report having been subject to discrimination or abuse from neighbors or members of the 1. Yes 0. No community outside the CTF/AP and, if applicable, outside the complex of which the CTF/AP is part? RMIZ2. Did the neighbors make complaints (written or verbal, including by telephone) against the 1. Yes 0. No beneficiaries in the CTF/AP? 41 RML1a. Have any cases of suspected abuse been 1. Yes 0. No registered in the Special Incident Register? RML1a. Have any cases of suspected abuse been 1. Yes 0. No reported to the police or prosecutor's office? RML2. Were there any CTF/AP employees who, following child abuse, have been dismissed or 1. Yes 0. No moved to another service or incurred disciplinary or criminal liability? HR6. Total number of staff actually working in the ... Total CTF/AP and who received additional training? The inflows and outflows of children from this CTF/AP between the two rounds of monitoring * The ages calculated at the time of entry, respectively at the time of exit. Number RMFT1. Total number of children in this CTF/AP at the previous round of monitoring RMF1. Total number of entries in this CTF/AP, of which: ! RMF1=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children between the ages of 0-3 b. Children between the ages of 4-6 c. Children between the ages of 7-10 d. Children between the ages of 11-14 e. Children between the ages of 15-17 f. Young people over 18 years old RMF2. Entries in this CTF/AP by methods (number of children): ! RMF2=RMF1 1. From a family 2. Placement with relatives/other persons 3. Transfer from other services (public or OPA) a. AMP b. Other CTF/AP c. CP in the process of closing/restructuring d. CP that is not in the process of closing/restructuring e. CPRU f. other services for children (CM, AZ/N etc.) 4. Other situations (from sanitary facilities etc.) RMF3. Total number of exits from this CTF/AP, of which: ! RMF3=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children between the ages of 0-3 b. Children between the ages of 4-6 c. Children between the ages of 7-10 d. Children between the ages of 11-14 e. Children between the ages of 15-17 f. Young people over 18 years old RMF4. Exits from this CTF/AP by means (number of children): 42 ! RMF4=RMF3 10. Reintegrated in the family 11. Adoption 12. Placement with relatives/other persons 20. Transfer to other services (public or OPA) a. AMP b. other CTF/AP c. CP in the process of closing/restructuring d. CP that is not in the process of closing/restructuring e. other services for children f. institutions for adults 40. Deaths 50. Turning 18 (situations other than those above) 70. Other methods RMFT2. Total number of children in this CTF/AP, at the current round of monitoring RMFT2 = RMFT1 + RMF1 - RMF3 2.2. CTF/AP: Statistics for the Monitoring Report The statistics for the Monitoring Report are organized according to the following topics: 1. The characteristics of the CTF/AP network 2. The territorial distribution of the CTF/AP network 3. The evolution of the CTF/AP service quality during the last 12 months 4. Entries and exits from the CTF/AP during the last 12 months 5. Characteristics of the beneficiaries in CTF/AP 6. The wellbeing of children in CTF/AP 7. The voice of children in CTF/AP 1. The characteristics of the CTF/AP network Aggregated data from the CTF/AP Register (section 2.1) Newly established Total (in 2018 and to this day) CTF AP CTF AP Number Number Number Number CTF/AP total (for the current round of monitoring), of which: Non-operational Operational with places available Operational 100% occupancy Operational with exceeded capacity 43 CTF/AP capacity Total number of places, of which: Number of places occupied Number of places available The residential environment urban rural The caring environment Individual CTF/AP CTF/AP part of a “nest” CTF/AP with a risk of spatial isolation CTF/AP lacking accessibility or with insufficient accessibility for children/young persons with motor disabilities Staff Total number of staff actually working in the CTF/AP (full time or part time), of which: - teaching or personal care staff - teaching or personal care staff with minimum qualifications in child care and development - social worker, psychologist, doctor and other different specialists - female employees - staff transferred from closed/restructured CPs or from CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Quality of care Licensed CTF/AP CTF/AP conducting activities aimed at developing independent living skills attended by a part of the children and young people above the age of 14 CTF/AP conducting activities aimed at developing independent living skills attended by all the children and young people above the age of 14 CTFs/APs where the Children’s Council is operational The monitoring of the quality of the care that children/young people receive in the CTF/AP is ensured by a case manager from the DGASPC, outside the CTF/AP Figure: The distribution of small-sized residential services depending on their capacity , as declared by the DGASPC (number of CTF/AP) 140 125 120 104 100 80 61 60 48 44 40 3230 20 23 18 20 21 15 20 12 11 13 9 13 11 14 2 5 6 1 0 0 44 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18-32 CTF AP Total number of and newly established CTF/AP Note: Model based on the 2018 data. Figure: The distribution of small-sized residential services depending on the total number of employees (number of CTF/AP) Eventually, by types of staff HR3a, b and c/ total number of and newly established CTF/AP Figure: The distribution of small-sized residential services depending on the average monthly cost per child (number of CTF/AP) Categories of Lei/child/month - to be decided/ total number of and newly established CTF/AP 45 2. The territorial distribution of the CTF/AP network Aggregated data from the CTF/AP Register (section 2.1) Number of Number of Number of Number of children in children in UAT CTFs in the APs within operational CTFs operational APs UAT the UAT within the UAT within the UAT Total Urban ... Rural ... Figure: The CTF/AP distribution by county and residential environment (%) Total number of and newly established CTF/AP 17 19 19 19 20 20 25 28 30 32 32 34 37 38 39 39 39 40 41 42 43 43 45 45 47 48 49 49 51 56 58 58 61 69 71 36 Urban Rural Note: Model based on the 2018 data. Maps: The CTF/AP distribution at county level& administrative-territorial unit Maps: Distribution of children in CTF/AP at county level& administrative-territorial unit 3. The evolution of the quality of the services provided by the CTF/AP during the last 12 months (between 2 consecutive rounds of monitoring) Aggregated data from the CTF/AP Register (section 2.1) CTF AP Number Percentage Number Percentage Service total (for the current round of monitoring) 100 100 The CTF/AP has benefited from consolidation, extension works, capital repairs or modernization works The CTFs/APs in which the children reported having been subject to discrimination or abuse by neighbors or community members 46 CTF AP Number Percentage Number Percentage The CTFs/APs with beneficiaries against whom neighbors have made complaints (written or verbal, including by telephone) The CTFs/APs in which cases of suspected abuse were registered in the Special Incident Register The CTFs/APs that have reported cases of suspected abuse to the police or the prosecutor’s office The CTFs/APs with employees who, following child abuse, have been dismissed or moved to another service or incurred disciplinary or criminal liability The CTFs/APs with employees who have received training Newly established CTFs/APs with employees who benefited from training Figure: The distribution of small-sized residential services depending on the total number of employees having benefited from training (number of CTFs/APs) Eventually, total number of and newly established CTFs/Aps 4. Entries and exits from the CTF/AP services during the last 12 months (between 2 consecutive rounds of monitoring) (Preferably, there will be an intermediate round, at 6 months) Opening/closing of CTFs/APs Aggregated data from the CTF/AP Register (section 2.1) CTF AP Number Number Total number of CTFs/APs at the previous round of monitoring CTF/AP Total number of CTF/AP, of which: closed/suspended The CTF/AP from which one or more beneficiaries was/were transferred to a CP (undergoing closing/restructuring or not) CTF/AP Total number of CTFs/APs, of which: established/open The CTFs/APs that have accepted one or several children transferred from a CP that is not in the process of closing/restructuring The CTFs/APs that have accepted one or several children transferred from a CP that is in the process of closing/restructuring The CTFs/APs that have accepted one or several employees from a CP closed or in the process of closing/restructuring Total number of CTFs/APs at the current round of monitoring Child flows in the CTF/AP Aggregated data from the CTF/AP Register (section 2.1) 47 CTF AP Number Number Total number of children in CTF/AP at the previous round of monitoring Entries in the CTF/AP Total number of children, of which: Children between the ages of 0-3 Children between the ages of 4-6 Children between the ages of 7-10 Children between the ages of 11-14 Children between the ages of 15-17 Young people over 18 years old Children transferred from CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Children transferred from CPs that are not in the process of closing/restructuring Exits from the CTF/AP Total number of children, of which: Children between the ages of 0-3 Children between the ages of 4-6 Children between the ages of 7-10 Children between the ages of 11-14 Children between the ages of 15-17 Young people over 18 years old Reintegration into the family or with relatives up to the 4th degree Adoption Socio-professional integration when turning 18 years old Deaths Children transferred to CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Children transferred to CPs that are not in the process of closing/restructuring Total number of children in CTF/AP at the current round of monitoring 5. Characteristics of the beneficiaries in the CTF/AP At CTF/AP level Aggregated data from the CTF/AP Register (section 2.1) Newly established Total (in 2018 and to this day) CTF AP CTF AP Number Number Number Number Total number of CTFs/APs (at the current round of monitoring) Number of CTFs/APs whose beneficiaries include: Only girls Only boys Girls and boys Children between the ages of 0-3 48 Young people over 18 years old Groups of siblings Children with disabilities (with a disability certificate) Children/young people with SEN (with school guidance) Bedridden children/young people Children/young people having broken the law Teenagers (over 11 years old) with behavioral disorders Underage mothers Couples of beneficiaries Cases of children having fled the institution during the last 12 months Cases of children/young people involved, in prostitution, begging, neighborhood gangs etc., during the last 12 months Children/young people transferred from CPs in the process of closing/restructuring Children/young people transferred from CPs that are not in the process of closing/restructuring At the level of children in CTF/AP Aggregated data from the Register of children in the special protection system (section 7.1) Newly established Total (in 2018 and to this day) CTF AP CTF AP Number Number Number Number Total number of children in CTF/AP (for the current round of monitoring), of which: Gender male female Age 0-3 years old 4-6 years old 7-10 years old 11-14 years old 15-17 years old over 18 years old Ethnicity Romanian Hungarian Roma Other Undeclared/Unknown Children having an Individual Care Plan (PIP), of which: PIP for family reintegration purposes PIP for adoption purposes PIP for social and professional integration purposes 49 Newly established Total (in 2018 and to this day) CTF AP CTF AP Number Number Number Number PIP for other purposes Children who have identified a family (with name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration, of which: No living/identified parent Only the mother has been identified Only the father has been identified Both parents have been identified and they are separated Both parents have been identified and they still live together Children with disabilities (with disability certificate)- total Severe disability Accentuated disability Medium or mild disability Bedridden children/young people Children/young people with SEN (with school guidance) Children/young people having broken the law Teenagers (over 11 years old) with behavioral disorders Underage mothers Children with all other types of special needs Children with siblings in the same CTF/AP The period spent in the current CTF/AP (years) less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years more than 10 years The average period spent by a child in the current CTF/AP (months) The maximum period spent by a child in the current CTF/AP (months) Figure: Distribution of children taken care of in CTF/AP by gender and age (total %) Figure: Distribution of children taken care of in CTF/AP by disability and age (total %) Figure: The share of children who have identified a family (with name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration in each vulnerable group Figure: The share of children who have identified a family (with name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration in each age group and out of the total number of children in CP 6. The wellbeing of children in CTF/AP 50 Aggregated data from the Register of children in the special protection system (section 7.1) Newly established Total (in 2018 and to this day) CTF AP CTF AP Number Number Number Number Total number of children in CTF/AP (for the current round of monitoring), of which: The relationship with the family Children who had at least one visit/meeting with the brothers/sisters during the reference period Children who have been visited by or have visited their parents, guardians or an adult family member, of which: - at least once every 3 months - rarer, but at least once during the reference period Children who, at least once during the reference period, have been the victim in a case of violence/abuse or suspected abuse within the service, at school, in the community Children who have made, at least once during the reference period, a complaint/report regarding an aspect related to the social service in which they are placed Children who have participated in independent living activities The education of children in CTF/AP The child is 0-2 years old The child is 3+ years old and does not go to kindergarten/school The child is 3+ years old and goes to kindergarten/school, of which: - in a mass education unit - in a special education unit Of the children who go to school Students who have had a low school attendance during the reference period Students who have had poor school performance during the reference period Students who have been repeaters at least once since going to school Students with a history of being sanctioned at school Students at risk of dropping out or leaving school early Figure: The share of children who have been in contact with the family at least once every 3 months (SCK8 = 1) in each vulnerable group Figure: The share of children who have been in contact with the family at least once every 3 months (SCK8 = 1) in each age group and out of the total number of children in CTF/AP Figure: The share of children who have been in contact with the family at least once every 3 months (SCK8 = 1) depending on the deliverable of the PIP Figure: The share of children not attending kindergarten/school in each age group and out of the total number of children in CTF/AP 51 Figure: The share of children attending a mass kindergarten/school in each age group and out of the total number of children in CTF/AP Figure: The share of children at a risk to drop out of school or leave the school system early in each vulnerable group 7. The voice of children in CTF/AP Analysis by each CTF/AP separately and aggregated by total number of and newly established CTFs and APs Aggregated data from the Database concerning Children’s Voice (section 7.2) Child distribution per age groups 11-14, 15-17, 18+, disability, other types of beneficiaries with special needs and... 1. Quality of care = VK1-VK4 Summative index with values ranging from 0 to 8, where 8 = the child always feels safe, well taken care of, important and listened to. Values above 3 indicate that such a state persists most of the time. 2. Independent living = The child has specific responsibilities 3. The perceived quality of life = VK6 Scale, where 1 - the worst life possible and 8 - the best life possible 4. Overall level of happiness = VK8, where 1 - completely unhappy, and 5 - extremely happy 5. Lack of affection = VK7 b+e+f+g+i Summative index, with values ranging from 0 to 20, where values above 15 = most of the time, the child feels sad, alone, tired, deprived of rest and unhappy about herself/himself See the Excel that comprises: - data collection database format - statistics for the monitoring report that can be made based on the data collected at national, county and local level 52 3. Other residential services for children 3.1. Register for other residential services (RezAlt = CPRU, CM, AZ/N) JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| If YES RezAlt. Type of residential service Cod_Serv. Fill in the code 23. Emergency Placement Centres (CPRU) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__3_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| 24. Foster Care Centres (CM) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__4_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| 25. Day/Night Shelters (AZ/N) |_X__|_X__|__2_|__5_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| A code is generated for each service, where XX = County Code and YYYY = No. (see below). DATE. Date when the RezAlt Register is filled in: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR. The person who actually filled in the RezAlt Register: It is recommended that the RezAlt Register should be filled in by a specialist of the Child Residential Care Service of DGASPC. The person appointed for such purposes may be the head of the social service or of the centre delivering the service. 1. Last name: 2. First name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: No. ... LSA1. Service: ... LSA2. Centre delivering the service ... If YES, indicate the name of the centre If NO, indicate 0 (zero). LCTF4. Service location 1. urban 2. rural If Urban SIRSUP: LCTF41a. City/Municipality LCTF41b. Street/Village: If Rural SIRSUP: LCTF42a. Commune: LCTF42b. Village: SIRINF: LSA3. What is the capacity of the service? ... Total places 53 LSA4. Is the service operational, i.e. is the service 1. Yes 0. No currently hosting children (on the monitoring round date)? If LSA4=1 (operational service) LSA5. Total number of current beneficiaries? ... Total beneficiaries (Indicate the number of children actually present + temporarily absent - they went to school, hospital, other reasons) LCTF8. Does the current number of beneficiaries 1. Yes 0. No exceed the capacity of the service? LCTF9. Total number of places available (vacant) ... Total places available (Mention zero if there are no places available) LCTF11. Among beneficiaries, are there... a. children aged 0-3 years old? 1. Yes 0. No b. young people aged 18+? 1. Yes 0. No c. groups of siblings? 1. Yes 0. No d. children with disabilities (with a disability certificate)? 1. Yes 0. No e. bedridden children/young people? 1. Yes 0. No f. SEN children/young people (with school guidance)? 1. Yes 0. No g. children/young people in conflict with the law? 1. Yes 0. No h. adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders? 1. Yes 0. No i. teenage mothers? 1. Yes 0. No j. couples of beneficiaries? 1. Yes 0. No k. cases of runaway children from the institution in the past 12 1. Yes 0. No months? l. cases of children/young people involved in prostitution, 1. Yes 0. No begging, gangs etc. in the past 12 months? m. children/young people transferred from Cps undergoing a 1. Yes 0. No closure or restructuring process n. children/young people transferred from Cps which are not 1. Yes 0. No undergoing a closure or restructuring process LCTF12. Is the service accredited? 1. Yes 0. No LCTF13. Is the service licensed? 1. Yes 0. No LCTF14. Does the service hold all permits pursuant to 0. No 1. Yes, partly 2. Yes, all law? (DSV, DS, Environment etc.) 54 Care environment LCTF15. The service is part of a “cluster”/ a 0. No, individual institution community of beneficiaries of social services 1. Yes, it is part of a community of (together with other residential services for children beneficiaries of social services or adults and/or a special school and/or other social services) C2. The service is at risk of spatial isolation, more specifically it is located at a distance exceeding 1.5 km or 15-minute walk AT THE SAME TIME from: (1) 1. Yes 0. No the nearest school, (2) the nearest hospital/physician and (3) the town hall/locality centre? If the service is only remote from one or two of the reference points (school, physician and town hall/locality centre), score 0. No. C3. Is the service equipped with outdoor access 0. No, there is no need ramps? 1. No, although they are necessary 2. Yes, but insufficient 3. Yes, sufficient C4. Is the service equipped with indoor ramps (or lifts, 0. No, there is no need platforms or other similar devices)? 1. No, although they are necessary 2. Yes, but insufficient 3. Yes, sufficient Staff HR1. Total staff currently working in the RezAlt, of ... Total which: (full-time or part-time) a. staff effectively undertaking training/educational ... teaching staff activities (educators, specialist educators, teachers etc.) b. carers working effectively with children (nurses, ... carers caregivers and supervisors) c. social worker, psychologist, physician and various ... professionals other types of professionals d. other types of staff (management, administrative ... employees etc.) HR2. Staff features: a. number of women, regardless the type of staff ... female employees b. teaching staff or carers with minimal qualifications in child care and development ... teaching staff or carers Only consider qualifications granted by an accredited body which is recognized at national level and are adequate for the position held in that service. c. staff from closed/restructured CPs or from CPs ... employees undergoing a closure process 55 Quality of care RMM0. What is the approximate average monthly ... RON/child/month cost per child living in this service? -1. Cannot estimate Consider: overheads (gas, power, maintenance etc.) + food costs + teaching staff, carers and supervisors costs + management costs (administrative and management staff) + costs for specialist services, personal development and social inclusion (psychological, social, legal etc.) + pocket money for children and youngsters. For the following monitoring round (RMon = 2) Keep all the information above which remained valid. Amend where necessary. Additionally, fill in the items below on the quality of services. LSA20. Situation compared to the 0. Existing RezAlt in the previous and current previous monitoring round. rounds. 1. RezAlt set up/opened between the two rounds 2. RezAlt closed/suspended between the two rounds Between the two monitoring rounds: D7. Did the service benefit from consolidation, 1. Yes 0. No extension, extensive repair or modernization works? Include building consolidation, roof repairs, new windows, heating boiler, change of sanitary installation, extension works etc. Do not include annual cleaning, painting, current repair works etc. RMIZ1. Did the children/young people in RezAlt report having suffered any discrimination or abuse by the neighbours or community members outside 1. Yes 0. No the service and, where applicable, outside the group the service belongs to? RMIZ2. Did the neighbours file any complaints (either written or verbal, including by phone) 1. Yes 0. No against the RezAlt beneficiaries? RML1a. Were any cases of abuse suspicion reported 1. Yes 0. No in the Special Incidents Register? RML1a. Were the Police, or Prosecutor’s Office 1. Yes 0. No notified on any abuse suspicions? RML2. Were there employees of this RezAlt who, due to child abuse reasons, were fired or 1. Yes 0. No transferred to another service or suffered disciplinary or criminal liability consequences? HR6. Total staff currently working in this RezAlt, ... Total who benefitted from additional training? 56 Child inflows and outflows in this RezAlt between the two monitoring rounds * Age calculated at entry and exit moments, respectively. Number RMFT1. Total number of children in this RezAlt, in the previous monitoring round RMF1. Total inflows in this RezAlt, of which: Caution! RMF1=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children aged 0-3 years old b. Children aged 4-6 years old c. Children aged 7-10 years old d. Children aged 11-14 years old e. Children aged 15-17 years old f. Young people aged 18+ RMF2. Inflows in this RezAlt by type (number of children): Caution! RMF2=RMF1 1. From a family 2. Placement with relatives/others 3. Transfer from other services (public or OPA): a. AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process d. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process e. CPRU f. other services for children (CM, AZ/N etc.) 4. Other situations (from healthcare units etc.) RMF3. Total outflows from this RezAlt, of which: Caution! RMF3=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children aged 0-3 years old b. Children aged 4-6 years old c. Children aged 7-10 years old d. Children aged 11-14 years old e. Children aged 15-17 years old f. Young people aged 18+ RMF4. Outflows from this RezAlt by type (number of children): Caution! RMF4=RMF3 10. Reintegrated in the family 11. Adoption 12. Placement with relatives/others 20. Transfer to other services (public or OPA): a. AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process d. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process e. other services for children f. institutions for adults 40. Death 50. They turned 18 years old (cases not included in those above) 57 70. Other methods RMFT2. Total number of children in this RezAlt in the current monitoring round RMFT2 = RMFT1 + RMF1 - RMF3 3.2. RezAlt: Statistics for the monitoring report The statistics for the monitoring report are organized by the following topics: 1. Features of the network for other residential services (RezAlt) 2. Territorial distribution of the RezAlt network 3. Inflows and outflows from RezAlt in the past 12 months 4. Features of beneficiaries in the RezAlt 5. Child welfare in the RezAlt 1. Features of the network for other residential services (RezAlt) Aggregated data from the RezAlt Register (section 3.1) Number Percentage Total RezAlt (current monitoring round), of which: 100 Non-operational Operational with available places Operational 100% occupied Operational and overcrowded RezAlt capacity Total number of places, of which: Number of places occupied Number of places available Area of residence urban rural Care environment Individual RezAlt RezAlts which are part of a “cluster” RezAlt at risk of spatial isolation RezAlt with no accommodations or with insufficient accommodations for children with motor disabilities Staff Total staff currently working in the RezAlt (full-time or part-time), of which: - teaching staff or carers - teaching staff or carers with minimal qualifications in child care and development - social worker, psychologist, physician and various other types of professionals - women - staff from closed/restructured CPs or from CPs undergoing a closure process Quality of care 58 Licensed RezAlt Figure: RezAlt distribution by capacity declared by DGASPC (number of CPRU, CM, AZ/N) Figure: RezAlt distribution by total number of employees (number of CPRU, CM, AZ/N) Possibly, by type of personnel HR3a, b and c Figure: RezAlt distribution by average monthly cost per child (number of CPRU, CM, AZ/N) Categories RON/child/month - to be determined 2. Territorial distribution of the RezAlt network Aggregated data from the RezAlt Register (section 3.1) Number of Number of Number of Number of children in Number of children in Number of children in UAT CPRU in operational AZ/N in operational CM in UAT operational UAT CPRUs in UAT AZ/Ns in CMs in UAT UAT UAT Total Urban ... Rural ... Figure: RezAlt distribution by county and area of residence (%) Maps: RezAlt distribution per county & administrative territorial unit Maps: Distribution of children in RezAlt per county & administrative territorial unit 3. Inflows and outflows from other residential services (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) in the past 12 months (between 2 consecutive monitoring rounds) (Preferably, there will be an intermediary round, at 6 months) RezAlt opening/closure Aggregated data from the RezAlt Register (section 3.1) Number Percentage Total RezAlt in the previous monitoring round 100 Closed/suspended Total RezAlt, of which: RezAlt Service where one or several beneficiaries was/were transferred to a CP (undergoing a closure/restructuring process or not) Set-up/opened RezAlt Total RezAlt, of which: RezAlt which took over the care of one or several children transferred from a CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process RezAlt which took over the care of one or several 59 children transferred from a CP which is undergoing a closure/restructuring process RezAlt which took over the care of one or several children transferred from a closed CP or from a CP which is undergoing a closure/restructuring process Total RezAlt in the previous monitoring round Children flows in RezAlt Aggregated data from the RezAlt Register (section 3.1) Number of children Percentage in RezAlt Total children in the RezAlt, in the previous monitoring round 100 Inflows in the RezAlt Total children, of which: Children aged 0-3 years old Children aged 4-6 years old Children aged 7-10 years old Children aged 11-14 years old Children aged 15-17 years old Young people aged 18+ Children transferred from CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process Outflows from the Total children, of which: RezAlt Children aged 0-3 years old Children aged 4-6 years old Children aged 7-10 years old Children aged 11-14 years old Children aged 15-17 years old Young people aged 18+ Reintegration in their family or with relatives up to the fourth degree Adoption Social and professional integration at 18+ years old Death Children transferred to CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process Total children in RezAlt in the current monitoring round 4. Features of the beneficiaries in RezAlt At RezAlt level 60 Aggregated data from the RezAlt Register (section 3.1) RezAlt Percentage number Total RezAlt (previous monitoring round) 100 Number of RezAlt whose beneficiaries are: Girls only Boys only Both girls and boys Children aged 0-3 years old Young people aged 18+ Groups of siblings Children with disabilities (with disability certificate) SEN children/young people (with school guidance) Bedridden children/young people Children/young people in conflict with the law Adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders Teenage mothers Couples of beneficiaries Cases of runaway children from the institution in the past 12 months Cases of children/young people involved in prostitution, begging, gangs etc. in the past 12 months Children/young people transferred from CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children/young people transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process At the level of children in RezAlt Aggregated data from the Register of children in the child care system (section 7.1) Number of children Percentage in RezAlt Total RezAlt (previous monitoring round), of which: 100 Gender male female Age 0-3 years old 4-6 years old 7-10 years old 11-14 years old 15-17 years old 18+ years old Ethnic group Romanian Hungarian 61 Number of children Percentage in RezAlt Roma Other Undeclared/Unknown Children with an Individual Care Plan (PIP), of which: PIP for family reintegration purposes PIP for adoption purposes PIP for social and professional integration purposes PIP for other purposes Children who have an identified family (with name and address) for a possible reintegration/integration, of which: No parent alive/identified Only the mother identified Only the father identified Both parents are identified, and they are separated Both parents are identified, and they still live together Children with disabilities (with disability certificate) - total Severe disability Marked disability Moderate or mild disability Bedridden children/young people SEN children/young people (with school guidance) Children/young people in conflict with the law Adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders Teenage mothers Children with any other special needs Children with siblings in the same RezAlt Period spent in the same RezAlt (years) less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years Average period spent by a child in the current RezAlt (months) Longest period spent by a child in the current RezAlt (months) Figure: Distribution of children in the RezAlt, by gender and age (% total) Figure: Distribution of children in the RezAlt, by disability and age (% total) Figure: Share of children who have an identified family (with name and address) for a possible reintegration/integration in each vulnerable group Figure: Share of children who have an identified family (with name and address) for a possible reintegration/integration, in each age group and in total children in the RezAlt 62 5. Child welfare in the RezAlt Aggregated data from the Register of children in the child care system (section 7.1) Number of children Percentage in RezAlt Total RezAlt (current monitoring round), of which: 100 Family links Children who had at least one visit/meeting with siblings during the reference period Children who were visited by parents, guardians or an adult member of the family, or who visited them, of which: - at least once every 3 months - less frequently, but at least once during the reference period Children who were victims in a case of violence/abuse of abuse suspicion within the service, at school, in the community, at least once during the reference period Children who filed a complaint/notification regarding any aspect related to the social service they were placed in, at least once during the reference period Children who participated in independent life activities Child education in the RezAlt The child is aged 0-2 years old The child is aged 3+ years old and does not attend kindergarten/school The child is aged 3+ years old and attends kindergarten/school, of which: - in a mainstream education institution - in a special education institution Of the children who attend school Students who had low school attendance in the reference period Students who had poor school performance in the reference period Students who repeated at least one year Students who have a history of sanctions in school Students at risk of school dropout or early school leaving Figure: Share of children who kept in touch with their family at least once every 3 months (SCK8=1) in each group age and in total children in the RezAlt Figure: Share of children who do not attend kindergarten/school in each group age and in total children in the RezAlt Figure: Share of children who attend kindergarten/school in each group age and in total children in the RezAlt Figure: Share of children at risk of school dropout or early school leaving in each vulnerable group 63 FAMILY-TYPE SERVICES This chapter examines the family-type services developed by DGASPCs, more specifically: (A) Professional foster care (AMP) network; (B) Network of family placement with relatives and with other families or persons (PFam) 4. Professional foster care 4.1. Professional Foster Carers (AMP) Register JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| Cod_Serv = |_X__|_X__|__1_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| A code is generated for each AMP, where XX = County Code and YYYY = No. (see below). DATE. Date when the AMP Register is filled in: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR. The person who actually filled in the AMP Register: It is recommended that the AMP Register should be filled in by a specialist of the AMP Service or of the Case Management Service of DGASPC 1. Last name: 2. First name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: No. ... LAMP1a. AMP last name ... LAMP1b. AMP first name ... LAMP14. This AMP is employed... 1. DGASPC 2. OPA LAMP15. Was this AMP employed under the Team 1. Yes 0. No Up project? LAMP2. AMP gender 1. M 2. F LAMP3. Date of birth: day/month/year ... 0. No school LAMP4. Education attainment level 1. Primary education (I-IV) 2. Lower secondary education (V-VIII) 4. Vocational, first step of high school (IX-X) 5. High school (IX-XII) 64 6. Post-secondary education, foreman school 7. Faculty (including MA and PhD) LAMP5. AMP residence: 1. urban 2. rural If Urban SIRSUP: LAMP51a. City/Municipality LAMP51b. Street/Village: If Rural SIRSUP: LAMP52a. Commune: LAMP52b. Village: SIRINF: LAMP6. Date of (first) attestation as AMP: Month Year LAMP7. Date of (most recent) re-attestation as AMP: Month Year LAPM9. Have they ever cared (since the first attestation in the first monitoring round) children from the following vulnerable categories? (Including the child or children in their care at the time of monitoring) a. children with disabilities (with disability certificate)? 1. Yes 0. No b. children with SEN (school guidance)? 1. Yes 0. No c. adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders? 1. Yes 0. No d. teenage mothers? 1. Yes 0. No e. groups of siblings? 1. Yes 0. No LAMP10. Has this AMP ever (since the first attestation in the first monitoring round) ...? a. refused to take a child under their care 1. Yes 0. No b. taken a child from a CP 1. Yes 0. No c. taken a child from a CTF/AP 1. Yes 0. No d. taken a child from another residential service - RezAlt 1. Yes 0. No e. provided care for a child who was transferred to a 1. Yes 0. No residential service: CP, CTF/AP or RezAlt (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) f. taken a child under their care as an emergency case 1. Yes 0. No g. had his/her attestation suspended 1. Yes 0. No h. been subject to disciplinary investigation or disciplinary 1. Yes 0. No sanction LAMP11. Number of children under care currently ... children in placement (on the monitoring round date)? (If no children, mention 0) LAMP12. MC of this AMP a. Last name and first name: c. MC code according to MC Register: 65 For the following monitoring round (RMon = 2) Keep all the information above which remained valid. Amend where necessary. Additionally, fill in the items below on the quality of services. LAMP20. Situation compared to the 0. Existing AMP in the previous and current rounds previous monitoring round 1. AMP registered between the two rounds 2. AMP removed from the register between the two rounds Between the two monitoring rounds: If LAMP20=2 (removed from register) LAMP21. Did she/he take the child or any of the children they 1. Yes 0. No had under care in family placement? LAMP22. Did she/he adopt the child or any of the children 1. Yes 0. No they had under care? LAMP23. Did she/he become a professional personal 1. Yes 0. No assistant for persons with disabilities? If LAMP20=1 (registered) LAMP24. Is this AMP re-employed, i.e. had she/he been previously employed by DGASPC and returned after a period 1. Yes 0. No of voluntary interruption? LAMP25. Is this AMP a former employee of a closed/restructured CP or of a CP undergoing a 1. Yes 0. No closure/restructuring process? LAMP26. Did she/he take over the care of one or several children transferred from a residential service...? a. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process 1. Yes 0. No b. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring 1. Yes 0. No process c. CTF/AP 1. Yes 0. No d. RezAlt (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) 1. Yes 0. No For all active AMP on the monitoring round date If LAMP20=0 or 1 (existing or registered) LAMP27. How many home visits did the case manager pay to the AMP she/he is monitoring? ... visits (Mention 0 if the MC did not pay any visit) LAMP28. Was there any complaint/petition/charge against this AMP (regardless the source), including child abuse, neglect, exploitation cases/suspicions involving AMP family 1. Yes 0. No members, relatives, neighbours or members of the community? 66 LAMP29. Has she/he benefitted from additional training? 1. Yes 0. No If YES LAMP30. Was this training related to strengthening AMP’s capacity to work with/provide care for...? a. children with disabilities (with disability certificate) 1. Yes 0. No b. children with SEN (school guidance) 1. Yes 0. No c. adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders 1. Yes 0. No d. teenage mothers 1. Yes 0. No e. groups of siblings 1. Yes 0. No f. life skills development and sexuality 1. Yes 0. No g. AMP-child relationship management to reduce child dependence on 1. Yes 0. No the person raising the child and providing childcare LAMP31. Total number of additional training hours she/he ... hours benefitted from during the reference period? LAMP32. Has AMP benefitted from... a. psychological counselling? 1. Yes 0. No b. AMP support groups? 1. Yes 0. No Child inflows and outflows in this AMP between the two monitoring rounds * Age calculated at entry and exit moments, respectively. Number RMFT1. Total number of children in this AMP, in the previous monitoring round RMF1. Total inflows in this AMP, of which: Caution! RMF1=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children aged 0-3 years old b. Children aged 4-6 years old c. Children aged 7-10 years old d. Children aged 11-14 years old e. Children aged 15-17 years old f. Young people aged 18+ RMF2. Inflows in this AMP by type (number of children): Caution! RMF2=RMF1 1. From a family 2. Placement with relatives/others 3. Transfer from other services (public or OPA): a. another AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process d. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process e. CPRU f. other services for children (CM, AZ/N etc.) 4. Other situations (from healthcare units etc.) 67 Number RMF3. Total outflows from this AMP, of which: Caution! RMF3=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children aged 0-3 years old b. Children aged 4-6 years old c. Children aged 7-10 years old d. Children aged 11-14 years old e. Children aged 15-17 years old f. Young people aged 18+ RMF4. Outflows from this AMP by type (number of children): Caution! RMF4=RMF3 10. Reintegrated in the family 11. Adoption 12. Placement with relatives/others 20. Transfer to other services (public or OPA): a. another AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process d. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process e. other services for children f. institutions for adults 40. Death 50. They turned 18 years old (cases not included in those above) 70. Other methods RMFT2. Total number of children in this CP in the current monitoring round RMFT2 = RMFT1 + RMF1 - RMF3 68 4.2. AMP: Statistics for the monitoring report The statistics for the monitoring report are organized by the following topics: 1. Features of the AMP network 2. Territorial distribution of the AMP network 3. Evolution of quality of AMP services in the past 12 months 4. Inflows and outflows from AMP in the past 12 months 5. Features of children in AMP 6. Child welfare in AMP 7. Voice of children in AMP 1. Features of professional foster carers network Aggregated data from the AMP Register (section 4.1) Number Percentage Total AMP (current monitoring round) 100 Gender male female Age <30 years old 30-39 years old 40-49 years old 50-59 years old 60-69 years old over 70 years old Education attainment level no school primary education (I-IV) lower secondary education (V-VIII) vocational, first step of high school (IX-X) high school (IX-XII) post-secondary education, foreman school faculty (including MA and PhD) Area of residence urban rural Total experience as AMP 0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 18+ years Number of children under care currently 69 Number Percentage 0 children 1 child 2 children 3 children more than 3 children Total AMP who ever cared (since the first attestation in the first monitoring round) children from vulnerable groups, of which? a. children with disabilities (with disability certificate) b. children with SEN (school guidance) c. adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders d. teenage mothers e. groups of siblings AMP who has ever (since the first monitoring round) ... a. refused to take a child under their care b. taken a child from a CP c. taken a child from a CTF/AP d. taken a child from another residential service - RezAlt e. provided care for a child who was transferred to a residential service: CP, CTF/AP or RezAlt (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) f. taken a child under their care as an emergency case g. had his/her attestation suspended h. been subject to disciplinary investigation or disciplinary sanction Figure: Distribution of foster carers by age group and education attainment level (AMP number) Note: Model based on 2018 data. 3500 3000 Faculty (including Facultate MA, PhD) (inclusiv master, doctorat) 2500 Post-secondary education, Școală postliceală, foreman school școală maiștri 2000 Liceuschool High (IX-XII) (IX-XII) 1500 Vocational, first Profesională, step prima of high treaptă school de liceu (IX(IX-X) -X) 1000 Lower (V-VIII) education (V-VIII) secondary Gimnazial 500 Primary education (I-IV) Primar (I-IV) 0 21-30 30-39yo ani 30-39 21-30yo 40-49yo ani 40-49 ani 50-59 yo 50-59 ani 60-69 60-69 yo ani 70-81yo 70-81 ani 70 2. Territorial distribution of the AMP network Aggregated data from the AMP Register (section 4.1) Number Number of Number Number of Commune of AMP children Village of AMP children UAT with AMP in the with AMP in name** in the with AMP in concentration UAT the UAT village** the village** Total Urban ... Rural ... Notes: *Communes with concentration of AMP placements are those with 15+ AMP - there are 76 such communes at national level. **Only for rural localities. Figure: AMP distribution by county and area of residence (%) 17 19 19 19 20 20 25 28 30 32 32 34 37 38 39 39 39 40 41 42 43 43 45 45 47 48 49 49 51 56 58 58 61 69 71 36 Urban Rural Note: Model based on 2018 data. Maps: AMP distribution per county & administrative territorial unit Maps: Distribution of children in AMP per county & administrative territorial unit 3. Evolution of quality of foster care services in the past 12 months (between two consecutive monitoring rounds) Aggregated data from the AMP Register (section 4.1) Number Percentage Total AMP (current monitoring round) 100 Number of AMP who benefitted from home visits by MC during the reference period 0 visits 1 visit 2 visits 3 visits more than 3 visits 71 Number Percentage AMP who were filed one or several complaints/petitions/charges, including child abuse, neglect, exploitation cases/suspicions involving AMP family members, relatives, neighbours or members of the community Total AMP who benefitted from additional training during the reference period, of which trained to work with/provide care for...: a. children with disabilities (with disability certificate) b. children with SEN (school guidance) c. adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders d. teenage mothers e. groups of siblings f. life skills development and sexuality g. AMP-child relationship management to reduce child dependence on the person raising the child and providing childcare AMP who benefitted from... - psychological counselling - AMP support groups 4. Inflows and outflows from the foster care service in the past 12 months (between 2 consecutive monitoring rounds) (Preferably, there will be an intermediary round, at 6 months) AMP flows Aggregated data from the AMP Register (section 4.1) Number Total AMP in the previous monitoring round AMP removed from register (as Total AMP, of which: AMP) AMP who took the child or any of the children they had under care in family placement (Therefore, this AMP became PFam) AMP who adopted the child or any of the children they had under care (Therefore, this AMP became a parent) AMP who became a professional personal assistant for persons with disabilities Registered AMP Total AMP, of which: Re-employed AMP AMP who was employed in a closed CP or in a CP which is undergoing a closure/restructuring process AMP which took over the care of one or several children transferred from a CP which is undergoing a closure/restructuring process AMP who took over the care of one or several children transferred from other residential services Total AMP in the current monitoring round Children flows with AMP Aggregated data from the AMP Register (section 4.1) 72 Number Total children in professional foster care, in the previous monitoring round Inflows with AMP Total children, of which: Children aged 0-3 years old Children aged 4-6 years old Children aged 7-10 years old Children aged 11-14 years old Children aged 15-17 years old Young people aged 18+ Children transferred from CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process Outflows from AMP Total children, of which: Children aged 0-3 years old Children aged 4-6 years old Children aged 7-10 years old Children aged 11-14 years old Children aged 15-17 years old Young people aged 18+ Reintegration in their family or with relatives up to the fourth degree Adoption Social and professional integration at 18+ years old Death Children transferred to CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process Total children in professional foster care, in the current monitoring round 5. Features of children in professional foster care Aggregated data from the Register of children in the child care system (section 7.1) Number of Percentage children/young people in AMP Total children in AMP (current monitoring round), of which: 100 Gender male female Age 0-3 years old 4-6 years old 7-10 years old 11-14 years old 73 Number of Percentage children/young people in AMP 15-17 years old 18+ years old Ethnic group Romanian Hungarian Roma Other Undeclared/Unknown Children with an Individual Care Plan (PIP), of which: PIP for family reintegration purposes PIP for adoption purposes PIP for social and professional integration purposes PIP for other purposes Children who have an identified family (with name and address) for a possible reintegration/integration, of which: No parent alive/identified Only the mother identified Only the father identified Both parents are identified, and they are separated Both parents are identified, and they still live together Children with disabilities (with disability certificate) - total Severe disability Marked disability Moderate or mild disability Bedridden children/young people SEN children/young people (with school guidance) Children/young people in conflict with the law Adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders Teenage mothers Children with any other special needs Children with siblings in the same AMP Period spent in the current AMP less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years Average period spent by a child in the current AMP (months) Longest period spent by a child in the current AMP (months) Figure: Distribution of children in foster care, by gender and age (% total) Figure: Distribution of children in foster care, by disability and age (% total) Figure: Share of children who have an identified family (with name and address) for a possible reintegration/integration in each vulnerable group 74 Figure: Share of children who have an identified family (with name and address) for a possible reintegration/integration, in each age group and in total children in foster care 6. Welfare of children in foster care Aggregated data from the Register of children in the child care system (section 7.1) Number of Percentage children/ young people in AMP Total children in AMP (current monitoring round), of which: 100 Family links Children who had at least one visit/meeting with siblings during the reference period Children who were visited by parents, guardians or an adult member of the family, or who visited them, of which: - at least once every 3 months - less frequently, but at least once during the reference period Children who were victims in a case of violence/abuse of abuse suspicion within the service, at school, in the community, at least once during the reference period Children who filed a complaint/notification regarding any aspect related to the social service they were placed in, at least once during the reference period Children who participated in independent life activities Child education in AMP The child is aged 0-2 years old The child is aged 3+ years old and does not attend kindergarten/school The child is aged 3+ years old and attends kindergarten/school, of which: - in a mainstream education institution - in a special education institution Of the children who attend school Students who had low school attendance in the reference period Students who had poor school performance in the reference period Students who repeated at least one year Students who have a history of sanctions in school Students at risk of school dropout or early school leaving Figure: Share of children who kept in touch with their family at least once every 3 months (SCK8=1) in each vulnerable group Figure: Share of children who kept in touch with their family at least once every 3 months (SCK8=1) in each group age and in total children in foster care Figure: Share of children who kept in touch with their family at least once every 3 months (SCK8=1), depending on PIP goals Figure: Share of children who do not attend kindergarten/school in each group age and in total children in foster care 75 Figure: Share of children who attend kindergarten/school in each group age and in total children in foster care Figure: Share of children at risk of school dropout or early school leaving in each vulnerable group 7. Voice of children in AMP Aggregated analysis of all children in foster care Aggregated date from the Child Voice database (section 7.2) Child distribution by age group 11-14, 15-17, 18+ years old, disability, other types of beneficiaries with special needs and... 1. Quality of care = Summative index VK1-VK4 ranging from 0 to 8, where 8 = the child always feels safe, well cared for, important and listened. Values exceeding 3 indicate such feelings most of the time. 2. Independent life = The child has specific responsibilities 3. Perceived quality of life = Scale VK6, where 1 - the worst possible life and 8 - the best possible life 4. Overall happiness = VK8, where 1 - very unhappy and 5 - very happy 5. Lack of affection = Summative index VK7 b+e+f+g+i ranging from 0 to 20, where the values exceeding 15 = most days the child feels sad, lonely, tired, restless and unhappy with himself/herself See excel which includes: - database format for data collection - statistics for the monitoring report which may be developed based on data collected at national, county and local levels 76 5. Family placements In Romania, family-type placement (PFam) services are differentiated as: • Placements with relatives up to the fourth degree • Placements with other families or persons, namely relatives, other than up to and including the fourth degree, kin, acquaintances or friends of the family or of the extended family of the child, with which the latter has built an attachment or together with which they enjoyed a family life. • Mixed placements which are placements with several children, among which some are placed with relatives and others with other families/persons. 5.1. Family Placement (PFam) Register JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| Cod_Serv = |_X__|_X__|__1_|__1_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| A code is generated for each PFam, where XX = County Code and YYYY = No. (see below). DATE. Date when the PFam Register is filled in: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR. The person who actually filled in the PFam Register: It is recommended that the PFam Register should be filled in by a specialist of the Case Management Service or of the PFam Service (or similar) of DGASPC 1. Last name: 2. First name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: No. ... LPF0. Type of family placement (PFam) 1. PFam with relatives up to the fourth degree 2. PFam with other families or persons, namely relatives, other than up to and including the fourth degree, kin, acquaintances or friends of the family or of the extended family of the child, with which the latter has built an attachment or together with which they enjoyed a family life 3. Mixed PFam which includes several children, among which some are placed with relatives and others with other families/persons LPF1. Type of family placement by the 1. PFam with a single person (not married, divorced, person raising the child and providing separated, widow) - woman childcare 77 2. PFam with a single person (not married, divorced, separated, widower) - man 3. Placement with a person who is married or in a partnership 4. Placement with a couple (family) LPF2. The carer or one of the carers in the family was previously... a. AMP 1. Yes 0. No b. Employed in a closed/restructured CP or in a CP which is undergoing a closure/restructuring 1. Yes 0. No process LPF3. Age of the person with whom the child/children is/are placed ... years old (In case of placement with a couple/family, indicate the age of the youngest person) 0. No school LPF4. Education attainment level of the person with whom the child/children 1. Primary education (I-IV) is/are placed 2. Lower secondary education (V-VIII) 4. Vocational, first step of high school (IX-X) (In case of placement with a couple/family, indicate the highest education attainment level) 5. High school (IX-XII) 6. Post-secondary education, foreman school 7. Faculty (including MA and PhD) LPF5. PFam residence: 1. urban 2. rural If Urban SIRSUP: LPF51a. City/Municipality LAMP51b. Street/Village: If Rural SIRSUP: LPF52a. Commune: LAMP52b. Village: SIRINF: LPF6. Number of children under family ... children in placement placement currently LPF8. MC or social worker of this Pfam or a. Last name and first name: of the child/children/a child cared for in c. Cod_MC according to MC Register: this Pfam For the following monitoring round (RMon = 2) Keep all the information above which remained valid. Amend where necessary. Additionally, fill in the items below on the quality of services. LPF20. Situation compared to the previous 0. Existing PFam in the previous and current rounds monitoring round 1. PFam registered between the two rounds 2. PFam removed from the register between the two rounds 78 Between the two monitoring rounds: If LPF20=2 (removed from register) LPF22. Was the child or any of the children they had in placement transferred to a residential service? a. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process 1. Yes 0. No b. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring 1. Yes 0. No process c. CTF/AP 1. Yes 0. No d. RezAlt (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) 1. Yes 0. No If LPF20=1 (registered) LPF23. Did she/he take over the care of one or several children transferred from a residential service? a. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process 1. Yes 0. No b. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring 1. Yes 0. No process c. CTF/AP 1. Yes 0. No d. RezAlt (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) 1. Yes 0. No For all active PFam on the monitoring round date If LPF20=0 or 1 (existing or registered) LPF24. How many home visits did the case manager in charge with monitoring the child/children/a child cared by this PFam ... visits pay to the PFam she/he is monitoring? (Mention 0 if the MC did not pay any visit) LPF25. Was there any complaint/petition/charge against this PFam (regardless the source), including cases/suspicions of sexual abuse or “indecent” proposals, child physical or 1. Yes 0. No emotional abuse, neglect, exploitation involving PFam family members, relatives, neighbours or members of the community? LPF26. Were there any changes in the criminal record of the persons who live with the child or was (were) there (one or 1. Yes 0. No several) Police interventions in the placement family? LPF27. Were there cases of communicable diseases in the 1. Yes 0. No placement family or in their community? LPF28. Was there any risk that the family might give up the 1. Yes 0. No placement of the child/children? LPF29. Has the PFam benefitted from training? 1. Yes 0. No LPF30. Has the PFam benefitted from... a. psychological counselling? 1. Yes 0. No b. PFam support groups? 1. Yes 0. No 79 Child inflows and outflows in this PFam between the two monitoring rounds * Age calculated at entry and exit moments, respectively. Number RMFT1. Total number of children in this PFam, in the previous monitoring round RMF1. Total inflows in this PFam, of which: Caution! RMF1=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children aged 0-3 years old b. Children aged 4-6 years old c. Children aged 7-10 years old d. Children aged 11-14 years old e. Children aged 15-17 years old f. Young people aged 18+ RMF2. Inflows in this PFam by type (number of children): Caution! RMF2=RMF1 1. From a family 2. Other Placement with relatives/other persons 3. Transfer from other services (public or OPA): a. AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process d. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process e. CPRU f. other services for children (CM, AZ/N etc.) 4. Other situations (from healthcare units etc.) RMF3. Total outflows from this PFam, of which: Caution! RMF3=a+b+c+d+e+f a. Children aged 0-3 years old b. Children aged 4-6 years old c. Children aged 7-10 years old d. Children aged 11-14 years old e. Children aged 15-17 years old f. Young people aged 18+ RMF4. Outflows from this PFam by type (number of children): Caution! RMF4=RMF3 10. Reintegrated in the family 11. Adoption 12. Other Placement with relatives/other persons 20. Transfer to other services (public or OPA): a. AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP undergoing a closure/restructuring process d. CP which is not undergoing a closure/restructuring process e. other services for children f. institutions for adults 40. Death 50. They turned 18 years old (cases not included in those above) 70. Other methods 80 RMFT2. Total number of children in this PFam in the current monitoring round RMFT2 = RMFT1 + RMF1 - RMF3 5.2. PFam: Statistics for the monitoring report The statistics for the monitoring report are organized by the following topics: 1. Features of the PFam network 2. Territorial distribution of the PFam network 3. Increase in the quality of PFam services in the past 12 months 4. Inflows and outflows from PFam in the past 12 months 5. Features of children in PFam 6. Child welfare in PFam 7. Voice of children in PFam 1. Features of the family placement network Aggregated data from the PFam Register (section 5.1) Table: Distribution of family placements, of children under care and of placement persons, by type pf placement Placements Children in Placement persons placement Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Total 100 100 100 With relatives up to the fourth degree With other persons/families Mixed Total PFam with relatives PFam with other Mixed up to the fourth persons PFam degree Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Total 100 100 100 Type of family placement by the person raising the child and providing childcare: placement with an unmarried/divorced/widowed person (woman) placement with an unmarried/divorced/widowed person (man) placement with a person who is married/in a partnership 81 Total PFam with relatives PFam with other Mixed up to the fourth persons PFam degree Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number placement with a family Area of residence urban rural Number of children under care currently 1 child 2 children 3 children more than 3 children Figure: Distribution of family placements by age group and education attainment level (PFam number) 2. Territorial distribution of the PFam network Aggregated data from the PFam Register (section 5.1) Numbe Number of Number Number of r of Commune children of PFam children PFam UAT with PFam Village name** with PFam in the with PFam in the concentration in the UAT in the UAT village village** ** Total Urban ... Rural ... Notes: *Communes with concentration of family placements are those with 10+ PFAM - there are 78 such communes at national level. **Only for rural localities. Figure: PFam distribution by county and area of residence (%) Maps: PFam distribution per county & administrative territorial unit Maps: Distribution of children in family placements per county & administrative territorial unit 3. Evolution of quality of family placements in the past 12 months (between two consecutive monitoring rounds) Aggregated data from the PFam Register (section 5.1) Number Percentage Total PFam (current monitoring round) 100 Number of PFam where children benefitted from home visits by MC during the reference period 82 Number Percentage 0 visits 1 visit 2 visits 3 visits more than 3 visits PFam who were filed one or several complaints/petitions/charges, including child abuse, neglect, exploitation cases/suspicions involving PFam family members, relatives, neighbours or members of the community PFam who registered situations of children at risk PFam at risk of interrupting the placement PFam who benefitted from additional training during the reference period PFam who benefitted from... - psychological counselling - AMP support groups 4. Inflows and outflows from family placements in the past 12 months (between 2 consecutive monitoring rounds) (Preferably, there will be an intermediary round, at 6 months) PFam flows Aggregated data from the PFam Register (section 5.1) Number Total PFam in the previous monitoring round PFam removed from register Total of which: PFam where the child or any of the children they had in their care was/were transferred to a CP (undergoing a closure/restructuring process or not) PFam registered Total of which: PFam which took over the care of one or several children transferred from a CP (undergoing a closure/restructuring process or not) PFam which took over the care of one or several children transferred from a CP (undergoing a closure/restructuring process) PFam who was employed in a closed CP or in a CP which is undergoing a closure/restructuring process Total PFam (current monitoring round) Children flows with PFam Aggregated data from the PFam Register (section 5.1) Number Total children in the family placements, in the previous monitoring round Inflows in PFam Total children, of which: Children aged 0-3 years old Children aged 4-6 years old Children aged 7-10 years old 83 Number Children aged 11-14 years old Children aged 15-17 years old Young people aged 18+ Children transferred from CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process Outflows from PFam Total children, of which: Children aged 0-3 years old Children aged 4-6 years old Children aged 7-10 years old Children aged 11-14 years old Children aged 15-17 years old Young people aged 18+ Reintegration in their family or with relatives up to the fourth degree Adoption Social and professional integration at 18+ years old Death Children transferred to CPs undergoing a closure/restructuring process Children transferred from CPs which are not undergoing a closure/restructuring process Total children in the family placements, in the previous monitoring round 5. Features of children in family placements Aggregated data from the Register of children in the child care system (section 7.1) Total placements PFam with relatives up PFam with other Mixed to the fourth degree persons PFam Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Total children in PFam (current monitoring round), of which: 100 100 100 Gender male female Age 0-3 years old 4-6 years old 7-10 years old 11-14 years old 15-17 years old 18+ years old Ethnic group Romanian 84 Total placements PFam with relatives up PFam with other Mixed to the fourth degree persons PFam Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Hungarian Roma Other Undeclared/Unknown Children with an Individual Care Plan, of which: PIP for family reintegration purposes PIP for adoption purposes PIP for social and professional integration purposes PIP for other purposes Children who have... No parent alive/identified Only the mother identified Only the father identified Both parents are identified, and they are separated Both parents are identified, and they still live together Children with disabilities (with disability certificate) - total Severe disability Marked disability Moderate or mild disability Bedridden children/young people SEN children/young people (with school guidance) Children/young people in conflict with the law Adolescents (aged 11+) with conduct disorders Teenage mothers Children with any other special needs Children with siblings in the same PFam Types of relatives Relatives second degree - grandparents Relatives second degree - siblings Relatives third degree 85 Total placements PFam with relatives up PFam with other Mixed to the fourth degree persons PFam Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Relatives fourth degree Other relatives Not related Children in placement with a person Children in placement with a family The PFam measure was adopted with the consent of the child’s parents Reason to apply PFam: 1. the need for a legal representative for a child whose parents/single parent left abroad 2. the need for a legal representative for a child whose parents/single parent are/is deceased/disappeared/forf eited parental rights/underage/others 3. the placement family/person does not have the necessary economic means to provide child care (poverty) 4. others Period spent in current family placement (years) less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years Average period spent by a child in the current PFam (months) Longest period spent by a child in the current PFam (months) Figure: Distribution of children provided care in the PFam, by gender and age (% total) Figure: Distribution of children provided care in the PFam, by disability and age (% total) 6. Child welfare in family placements 86 Aggregated data from the Register of children in the child care system (section 7.1) Number of Percentage children/ young people in PFam Total children in PFam (current monitoring round), of which: 100 Links with siblings Children who had at least one visit/meeting with siblings during the reference period Children who were victims in a case of violence/abuse of abuse suspicion within the service, at school, in the community, at least once during the reference period Children who filed a complaint/notification regarding any aspect related to the social service they were placed in, at least once during the reference period PFam children education The child is aged 0-2 years old The child is aged 3+ years old and does not attend kindergarten/school The child is aged 3+ years old and attends kindergarten/school, of which: - in a mainstream education institution - in a special education institution Of the children who attend school Students who had low school attendance in the reference period Students who had poor school performance in the reference period Students who repeated at least one year Students who have a history of sanctions in school Students at risk of school dropout or early school leaving Figure: Share of children who do not attend kindergarten/school in each group age and in total children in the PFam Figure: Share of children who attend kindergarten/school in each group age and in total children in the PFam Figure: Share of children at risk of school dropout or early school leaving in each vulnerable group and in total children in PFam 7. Voice of children in family placements Aggregated analysis at PFam level and by types with relatives, with other persons Aggregated date from the Voice of Children database (section 7.2) Child distribution by age group 11-14, 15-17, 18+ years old, disability, other types of beneficiaries with special needs and... 87 1. Quality of care = Summative index VK1-VK4 ranging from 0 to 8, where 8 = the child always feels safe, well cared for, important and listened. Values exceeding 3 indicate such feelings most of the time. 2. Independent life = The child has specific responsibilities 3. Perceived quality of life = Scale VK6, where 1 - the worst possible life and 8 - the best possible life 4. Overall happiness = VK8, where 1 - very unhappy and 5 - very happy 5. Lack of affection = Summative index VK7 b+e+f+g+i ranging from 0 to 20, where the values exceeding 15 = most days the child feels sad, lonely, tired, restless and unhappy with himself/herself 88 CASE MANAGEMENT 6. Case Management Assumption: Deinstitutionalization of children cannot become effective without a strongly developed case management, which must be applied in a uniform and systematic manner. According to our understanding, MC are the “guardians of quality” within the protection system, meaning that you shall be responsible for making sure that the services provided to children are adequate to their needs for protection, are of good quality and timely. 6.1. Case Managers’ (MC) Register JUD. County: CodJUD. (See Annex 1) |___|___| Cod_Serv = |_X__|_X__|__3_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| A unique code shall be calculated for each MC, where XX=CodJUD (county code) and YYYY = No. (See below). DATE. Date when the MC Register was filled in: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR Person actually filling the MC Register: Preferably, the MC Register should be filled in by the experts of the Case Management Unit within DGASPC 1. Last name: 2. First name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: No ... LMC1a. MC last name ... LMC1b. MC first name: ... LMC2. MC gender 1. M 2. F LMC3. Date of birth: day/month/year ... LMC4. Higher education 0. No 1. Yes, graduate of social care studies 2. Yes, graduate of sociology or psychology studies 4. Yes, graduate of medical school 5. Yes, other line of specialization 89 If LMC4=5 LMC4a. Specialization ... LMC4b. Has the person graduated post- 1. Da 0. No graduate studies in social care? LMC10. Seniority within the child protection services ... years LMC0. The expert fulfills the legal criteria as... 2. Case Manager (MC) 1. Case Officer (RC) 0. The expert does not fulfil the criteria To be filled in automatically LMC5. MC is an employee of... 1. DGAPSC own staff 2. a DGASPC unit (CP, CTF etc.) 3. of one OPA 4. Of one social care practice/social care partnership (SCAS) 5. Other situation, namely... If LMC5=1 LMC51. Department/unit ... If LMC5=2 LMC52. DGASPC unit ... If LMC5=3 LMC53. OPA ... If LMC5=4 LMC54. Social care practice/SCAS ... If LMC5=5 LMC55. Other ... LMC6. Position within the institution ... LMC7. Does the expert work as a case manager and, at 1. No, the MC represents only the the same time, does he/she represent the social service children, not the service where the where the children/young people under monitoring are children are placed placed? 0. Yes, the MC represents simultaneously the children and the service where the children are For example, a case manager who also acts as a head of placed centre/CTF/consortium etc. for the same children, is a case manager representing at the same time the children themselves and the social service. Instead, a social care worker/head of CP/CTF etc. who, at the same time, acts as a case manager for children from other residential services or from AMP or from family placements, is a case manager who does not simultaneously represent the children and the social service, as well. LMC8. Total number of active cases currently (by the date of the monitoring round) ... children/young people Please take into consideration only children who benefit from a special protection measure. The active cases are deemed the ones that the MC is working with until the post-service monitoring period; the referred cases and the cases where the MC partially or fully delegates his/her tasks are not deemed active cases. 90 If the MC has no active cases, please fill in zero. LMC9. Among the cases currently active, how many has ... children since they entered this MC been responsible for, starting from the moment the system the child entered the system (since the placement was determined) and how many have been taken over from ... cases taken over from other MCs other case managers? LMC10. Among the active cases, how many children/young people ...? a. have a case officer who is different from the MC ... children/young people b. MC is also ... children/young people C. have no case officer ... children/young people LMC11. Which is the number of indirect beneficiaries - ... Indirect beneficiaries - parents of active cases of children who currently benefit parents from a special protection measure? a. Do you have a list (including names and addresses) of the parents in active cases involving 1. Yes 0. No children who currently benefit from a special protection measure? LMC12. Which is the number of indirect beneficiaries - ... Indirect beneficiaries - grandparents, aunts and other relatives up to and grandparents, aunts and other including fourth degree of active cases of children who relatives up to and including fourth currently benefit from a special protection measure? degree a. Do you have a list (including names and addresses) of the grandparents, aunts and other relatives up to and including fourth degree of active cases of 1. Yes 0. No children who currently benefit from a special protection measure? LMC13. Among the active cases, how many children/young people have a family already identified (including names and addresses) for a possible ... children/young people reintegration/integration (work is being done together with the family or some reintegration chances still exist)? LMC14. Among the active cases, how many children/young people are placed: a. in a CP currently undergoing a ... children/young people restructuring/closing down process b. in a CP which does not undergo a closing down ... children/young people process c. in a CTF/AP ... children/young people d. in another residential service (CPRU, CM, AZ/N) ... children/young people e. with an AMP ... children/young people f. in a PFam ... children/young people 91 g. in other services ... children/young people LMC15. In how many localities (administrative territorial ... Administrative Territorial units) are the services situated (where the children/young Unit people on the active cases list are placed)? For the following monitoring round (RMon = 2) Please keep all information above which are still valid. Please amend where applicable. Also, please fill in the items below on quality of services. LMC20. Situation compared to the 0. MC was the same during the previous monitoring previous monitoring round round 1. MC was appointed in-between the two rounds 2. MC was deregistered between the two rounds Between the two monitoring rounds If LMC20=1 (registered MC) LAMP21. Has he/she taken over for monitoring purposes one or more children from one CP...? a. CP currently undergoing a restructuring/closing 1. Yes 0. No down process b. CP which does not undergo a closing down process 1. Yes 0. No Only for MC who manage active cases by the date of the monitoring round If LMC20=0 or 1 (current MC or registered MC) LMC23. Among the active cases, how many children/young people (no matter their age) has he/she had a one-to-one discussion/played with/interacted with as part of their day- to-day environment (in CP, CTF, at AMP premises etc.), ensuring the confidentiality of that meeting (without allowing ... children/young people the participation of the representatives of the social service where the child is currently placed with)? (Please fill in zero if the MC did not perform any visit) LMC24. Has he/she benefited from additional training? 1. Yes 0. No If YES LMC24a. How many hours of training has he/she benefited ... hours from? LMC25. Has he/she supervised? 1. Yes 0. No Inflows and outflows of children from this MC between the two monitoring rounds *Ages calculated at the moment of entry/exit, respectively. Number RMFT1. Total number of active cases with this MC, during the previous monitoring 92 round RMF1. Total number of inflows for this MC, among which: 1. New cases for the protection system 2. Cases taken over from other MCs 3. Children/young people from a CP currently undergoing a restructuring/closing process RMF3. Total number of outflows for this MC, among which: 10. Reintegrated in their family 11. Adoption 12. Placement with relatives/other persons 20. Transfer to other services (public services or OPA): a. another AMP b. CTF/AP c. CP currently undergoing a restructuring/closing down process d. CP which does not undergo a restructuring/closing down process e. other services for children f. institutions for adults 40. Death 50. Reached the age of 18+ years old (situations not described above) 70. Others RMFT2. Total number of active cases with this MC, during the current monitoring round RMFT2 = RMFT1 + RMF1 - RMF3 6.2. MC: Statistics for the monitoring report Statistics for the monitoring report are grouped against the following subjects: 1. Features of the case managers network 2. Territorial distribution of the MC network 3. Quality of MC services provided for children 4. Developments in the quality of MC services over the last 12 months 5. Inflows and outflows in MC services over the last 12 months 6. Features of children with a MC 7. Case managers and the Voice of Children 1. Features of the case managers network Aggregate data from the MC Register (section 6.1) Number Percentage Total 100 Gender Male Female 93 Number Percentage Age <30 years old 30-39 years old 40-49 years old 50-59 years old 60-69 years old Education No higher education graduated of social care studies graduate of sociology or psychology studies graduate of medical school Other specialization Case manager/case officer fulfilling the standards (education and seniority) - Social care graduate and 2+ years of seniority - Social sciences graduate and 3+ years of seniority - other higher education studies, post-graduate studies in social care and 5+ years of seniority - Baccalaureate graduate and 2+ years of seniority (Case Officer - RC) - he/she does not fulfill the conditions either for MC or for RC Seniority within the child protection services 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 16 years MC type (provision of services) MC representing the children alone, not the service MC representing the children and the service as well Number of active cases involving children who benefit from a special protection measure 0 -30 cases 31 -50 cases 51 -80 cases 81+ Average no. of cases involving a protection measure (children/MC ratio) Maximum no. of cases involving a protection measure 2. Territorial distribution of the MC network Aggregate data from the MC Register (section 6.1) 94 Maps: Distribution of counties depending on the MC number (size of the MC network) Maps: Distribution of counties depending on the children/MC ratio 3. Quality of case management provided for children Aggregate data from the MC Register (section 6.1) Number Percentage Total children/young people with a MC (total number of active cases for the 100 current monitoring round) Children/young people with the same MC since their entry in the system Children/young people with one or more MC changes Children/young people who have no case officer Children/young people for whom MC is also the case officer Children/young people who have a different case officer than the case manager Total children/young people who have an already identified family (name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration Total number of indirect beneficiaries of children/young people who are active cases for the MC - Parents - Grandparents, aunts and other relatives up to and including fourth degree Total MC (during the current monitoring round), among which: MC who have all active cases placed in a CP MC who have all the active cases in residential services (CP, CTF or AP) MC who have all the active cases in family-type services (AMP or family placements) MC who have active cases from residential services as well as form family-type services MC who have children/young people from a CP currently undergoing a closing down/restructuring process Number of MC who have active cases of children/young people places in services located in: - one administrative territorial unit (UAT) - 2 UATs - 3 UATs - 4 UATs - 5 or more UATs Aggregated data from the Register of children included in the special protection system (section 7.1) Note: These indicators may be determined at MC level as well as at aggregated level of all MC in the county. Number Percentage Total children/young people with a MC, among whom 100 Placed in a CP currently undergoing a restructuring/closing down process Placed in a CP which does not undergo a restructuring/closing down process Placed in CTF/AP Placed in AMP Placed in PFam 95 Number Percentage Children/young people from CPs currently undergoing a restructuring/closing process MC representing the children alone, not the service MC representing the children and the service as well Children/young people who... (during the monitoring round): Do not have an Individual Care Plan (PIP) Have a PIP already drafted, of whom: - aim to become reintegrated in their family - aim to become adopted - aim to become integrated from the social and professional perspective - other aims Do not have a Specific Intervention Programme (PIS/PS) Have a PIS/PS already drafted Total children/young people who have an already identified family (name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration Period spent by the child/young person in placement with the current MC (years) Less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years Average period spent by the child with the current MC (years) Maximum period spent by the child with the current MC (years) 4. Developments in the case management quality over the past 12 months (between 2 consecutive monitoring rounds) Aggregate data from the MC Register (section 6.1) Number Percentage Total MC (during the current monitoring round), among whom: 100 Total MC who benefited from additional training/upskilling during the period of reference Total MC who benefited from supervision during the period of reference Aggregated data from the Register of children included in the special protection system (section 7.1) Note: These indicators may be determined at MC level as well as at aggregated level of all MC in the county. Number Percentage Total children/young people with a MC, among whom 100 Total number of children/young people whose case manager was changed, among whom: Placed in a CP currently undergoing a restructuring/closing down process Placed in a CP which does not undergo a restructuring/closing down process Placed in CTF/AP Placed in AMP 96 Number Percentage Placed in PFam Children/young people who benefited from required services and interventions Yes, in full Yes, partially No Children/young people whose families benefit from adequate services and interventions aimed to prepare their reintegration Children/young people who benefited from... - at least a one-to-one meeting with the MC, while ensuring confidentiality - mediation of meetings with various professionals, support - at least one visit of the MC/another expert to the family home - at least one visit/meeting between the child and his/her siblings within the system - at least one visit home during the holiday or week-ends - at least one letter sent to the family in order to remind them of the child and in order to initiate a visit/event Children/young people in relation to whom the MC have performed at least one: - a re-assessment of the situation - a review of the PIP/PIS/PS - post-services monitoring plan - review of the manner for delivery of services (progress recorded, achievement of goals) Children/young people in relation to whom: - the MC was changed - the protection measure was changed - the placement services were changed 5. Inflows and outflows in case management over the past 12 months (between 2 consecutive monitoring rounds) (Preferably, there should be an intermediate round, once a semester) MC flows Aggregate data from the MC Register (section 6.1) Number Total MC during the previous monitoring round Deregistered MC Total MC, among whom: Newly appointed MC Total MC, among whom: MC who has taken over for monitoring purposes one or more children from one CP currently in a restructuring/closing down process Total MC during the current monitoring round Children flows with MC Aggregate data from the MC Register (section 6.1) 97 Number Total children/young people with a MC (total number of active cases for the previous monitoring round) Inflows for a new MC Total number of children, among whom: New cases for the protection system Cases taken over from other MCs Children/young people from a CP currently undergoing a restructuring/closing down process Outflows from a MC Total number of children, among whom: (Not necessarily from within the Reintegration in the family or with other relatives up to system) and including fourth degree Adoption Social and professional integration when reaching the age of 18 years old + Deaths Children/young people transferred from CPs currently undergoing a restructuring/closing down process Children/young people transferred to CPs which are now undergoing a restructuring/closing down process Total children/young people with a MC (total number of active cases for the current monitoring round) 6. Features of children with a MC Aggregated data from the Register of children included in the special protection system (section 7.1) Number of Percentage children/ young people with a MC Total children/young people with a MC (during the current 100 monitoring round), among whom: Gender Male Female Age 0-3 years old 4-6 years old 7-10 years old 11-14 years old 15-17 years old More than 18 years old Ethnic group Romanian Hungarian Roma Other 98 Number of Percentage children/ young people with a MC Undeclared/NA Children benefiting from an Individual Care Plan (PIP), among whom: PIP for family reintegration purposes PIP for adoption purposes PIP for social and professional integration purposes PIP for other purposes Children who already have a family identified (name and address) for a potential reintegration/integration, among whom: No parent alive/identified Only the mother has been identified Only the father has been identified Both parents have been identified and they are separated Both parents have been identified and they still live together Children with disabilities (with a disability certificate) - total number Serious disability Marked disability Moderate or mild disability Children/young people immobilized in bed Children/young people with SEN (school-based counselling) Children/young people win conflict with the law Teenagers (11+ years old) with behavioral disorders Underage mothers Children with any other special needs Children with siblings allocated to the same MC 7. Case managers and the Voice of Children In order to verify potential distortions when applying the “I want to be heard, too!” questionnaire, the following indicators must be calculated: For each MC Number Percentage Total active cases with ages above 11+ years old 100 Total number of “I want to be heard, too!” questionnaires filled in, among which: Children benefiting from quality care (4+ ratings) Happy children (4+ ratings) Children lacking affection (15+ ratings) Aggregated data for all MC in the county Number Percentage Total active cases with ages above 11+ years old 100 99 Total number of “I want to be heard, too!” surveys filled in, among which: Children benefiting from quality care (4+ ratings) Happy children (4+ ratings) Children lacking affection (15+ ratings) Number of MC who have more than 80% of the children/young people under monitoring Children benefiting from quality care (4+ ratings) Happy children (4+ ratings) Children lacking affection (15+ ratings) Aggregated data from the Voice of Children database (section 7.2) 1. Quality of care provided = summative index VK1-VK4 with values ranging from 0 la 8, where 8 means that the child always feels safe, well-cared for, important and being listened to. Values above 3 indicate that such a condition is achieved most of the time. 4. Overall happiness level = VK8, which ranges from 1 - very unhappy to 5 - very happy 5. Lack of affection = summative index VK7 b+e+f+g+i with values ranging from 0 la 20, where values above 15 mean that, most of the days, the child feels that he/she is sad, alone, tired, not well-rested and unsatisfied with himself/herself IMPACT ON CHILDREN 7. The wellbeing of children in the special protection system 7.1. Register of children included in the special protection system (KIDS) JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| Cod_Kid = CNP If the child does not have a CNP, then fill in as follows: Cod_Kid = |_X__|_X__|__0_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| where XX = CountyCode and YYY = Reference no. (see below) DATE. Date when the KIDS Register was filled in: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR. Person who effectively filled in the KIDS Register: 100 Preferably the KIDS Register will be filled in by the specialists of the Case Management Service within DGASPC 1. Family Name: 2. First Name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: Reference no. (To be filled in only if the child does not have a CNP) LK1a. Family name of the child ... LK1b. Last name of the child ... LK2. Gender 1. M 2. F LK3. Date of birth: day/month/year ... a. Age of the child (at the time of the RMon) Filled in automatically LK4. There is an identified family (name and address) 1. Yes 0. No for a possible reintegration/integration of the child? If the answer is YES (there is an identified family) LK5. The identified family includes ... 0. Neither parent alive/identified 1. Yes, only the mother identified a. Parents (mother, father or both)? 2. Yes, only the father identified 3. Yes, both parents, separated 4. Yes, both parents, still living together ... 0. The address is not identified, the aa. Main address where the parent/parents parent/parents move frequently, are identified for reintegration live abroad etc., although steps have been taken in this regard b. Brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts and 1. Yes 0. No other relatives up to the 4th degree? bb. Main address where relatives identified for ... reintegration live 0. No address of a relative is identified 1. Romanian 2. Hungarian LK12. Ethnic group of the child 3. Roma 4. Other 0. Unstated/unknown LK6. Date when the child entered the system for the first time ... month ... year (If the first entry was achieved through an emergency placement, the date of the placement shall be mentioned here) a. total period of time spent in the system Filled in automatically (months) LK7. Number of services the child has gone through ... protection services since entering the system and until he/she has been 101 placed in the current protection service? (Transfers between 2 services with a different Cod_Serv code shall be counted) LK8. Date when the child was placed in the current ... month ... year social service? a. total period of time spent in the current social Filled in automatically service (months) LK9. How many MC did the child have since entering the protection system? ... MC (The current MC shall also be counted) LK10. Does the child have a designated MC? 1. Yes 0. No a. The date when the child was assigned to the ... month ... year current MC? b. total period of time in which the child was Filled in automatically monitored by the current MC (months) c. The unique code of the current MC, in the MC |_X__|_X__|__3_|__0_||_Y__|_Y__|_Y__|_Y__| Register 10. AMP 11. PFam 20. CTF 21. AP LK11. The service where the child is placed at the time 22. CP of this monitoring round is ... 23. CPRU 24. CM 25. AZ/N 1. Other services a. Unique code of the current service, according Cod_Serv = ... to the corresponding Register If LK11=1 (Other services) a. Cod_Serv = CodJUD and b. Service name ... If LK11=11 (PFam) c. Was the PFam measure taken with the 1. Yes 0. No parents' consent? 1. the need for a legal representative for the child with parents/parent abroad 2. the need for a legal d. Which was the main reason for establishing representative for the child with the family placement measure? deceased/missing/deprived of ONLY ONE ANSWER parental rights/ minor parents/parent 3. the family/ placement person does not have the necessary economic resources to care for the 102 child (the family/person is poor) 4. other reasons 0. Unrelated 1. 2nd degree relatives - Grandparents 2. 2nd degree relatives - e. The degree of kinship with the care giver Brother/sister 3. 3rd degree relatives 4. 4th degree relatives 5. Other relatives LK20. Does the child have an Individual Care Plan (PIP)? 1. Yes 0. No If the answer is YES 1. Reintegration into the family 2. Adoption a. Which is the objective of the PIP? 3. Socio-professional integration 4. Other objective LK21. Does the child have PIS, PS? 1. Yes 0. No LK22. Which of the vulnerable groups below does the child belong to? 01. Child with disabilities (with a disability certificate) - total 1. Yes 0. No 02. Severe disability 1. Yes 0. No 03. Accentuated disability 1. Yes 0. No 04. Medium or mild disability 1. Yes 0. No 05. Bedridden children/young people 1. Yes 0. No 06. Children with Special Education Needs SEN (school-related) 1. Yes 0. No 07. Children/young people in conflict with the law 1. Yes 0. No 08. Adolescents (11+ years old) with behavioral problems 1. Yes 0. No 09. Minor mothers 1. Yes 0. No 10. Children with any other special needs 1. Yes 0. No 11. Brother/sister of one or more children in the special 1. Yes 0. No protection system (wherever the siblings are placed) 12. Brother/sister of another child/other children in the same 1. Yes 0. No social service 13. Brother/sister of another child/other children assigned to the 1. Yes 0. No same MC 1. Yes 0. No LK23. Is the child enrolled in kindergarten/school? -7. The child is 0-2 years old 103 For the next monitoring round (RMon = 2) All the above information which is still valid shall be kept. Changes shall be made where appropriate. In addition, the indicators below shall be collected in order to measure the changes in the wellbeing of children in the special protection system. LK30. Current situation compared to the 0. Case existing both at the previous and at the previous monitoring round current round 1. Case registered between the 2 rounds 2. Case de-registered between the 2 rounds Between the 2 monitoring rounds: If LK30=2 (exit from the system) 10. Reintegration into the family LK31. Method by which the child/young person exit the special protection system? 11. Adoption 20. Transfer to institutions for adults (public or OPA) 40. Death 50. Turned 18 years old (other situations than the above) 70. Other methods If LK30=1 (entry into the system) LK32. The main causes for the child/young person's entry into the special protection system? 1. Neglect, abuse, child exploitation, parents deprived of parental rights 1. Yes 0. No 2. Child abandonment (at maternity, hospital, other institutions etc.) 1. Yes 0. No 3. Disability 1. Yes 0. No 4. Social causes: going abroad (for work) 1. Yes 0. No 5. Social causes: disorganized families, minor mothers/parents 1. Yes 0. No 6. Social causes: alcohol or other substance abuse, promiscuous or 1. Yes 0. No criminal behavior 7. Social causes: disability and/or mental health problems of the parents 1. Yes 0. No 8. Social causes: poverty, poor housing 1. Yes 0. No 9. Unfortunate events: the death or institutionalization of the parent (s) 1. Yes 0. No LK33. How did the child enter 1. emergency entrance, by order of DGASPC director the system? 2. emergency entrance, by presidential ordinance16 16 Art. 94 para. 3 of Law no. 272/2004 establishes 2 cumulative conditions required for a court president’s order to be issued for the emergency placement of the child, namely the refusal or obstruction, by the natural persons who care for or ensure the protection of a child, in any manner, of the verifications carried out by DGASPC representatives and the existence of sound reasons that support the assumption of an imminent danger for the child, due to abuse and neglect. The court president’s order is a provisional measure, as a court judgment for the 104 3. by court sentence 4. by a CPC decision Only for the children who are in the system at the time of the monitoring round If LK30=0 or 1 (existing beneficiary or beneficiary registered in the reference period) SCK1. Did the child/young person have, in his/her living -7. The child does not have a environment (in CP, CTF, AMP etc.), at least a one-to-one MC confidential meeting with the MC (where the presence of the 0. No representatives of the social service where the child is placed 1. Yes, 1 or several meetings was not allowed)? SCK2. Once or several times, the MC or another DGASPC -7. The child does not have a specialist mediated the relationship between the child and MC different professionals, through support, conflict mediation 0. No etc.? 1. Yes, at least once SCK3. During the reference period, did the child benefit from 1. Yes, totally all the necessary services and interventions, appropriate to his 2. Yes, partially real situation and in real time, in accordance with PIP, PIS, PS etc.? 3. No 1. Yes, at least partially SCK4. During the reference period, did the family or the legal 0. No representative, as well as other important persons for the child, benefit from services and interventions appropriate to -7. There are no services and the real situation and in real time, in accordance with PIP, PIS, interventions established for PS etc.? the family or the family is not identified SCK5. For this child/young person, has the MC been able to -7. The child does not have a check the way in which the services/activities (progress, goals, MC problems encountered) are provided, within the limits set for 0. No each of them? 1. Yes, at least once SCK6. Once or several times, has the MC or other DGASPC -7. The child does not have a specialist visited the home and discussed face to face with MC or an identified family the parents, grandparents, aunts or extended family of this 0. No child? 1. Yes, at least once SCK7. Did the child have visits/meetings with his -7. The child does not have brothers/sisters? brothers/sisters, or they live together or close to each other 0. No 1. Yes, at least once SCK8. Has the child been visited by or has visited his parents, -7. The child does not have an tutor or an adult family member during the reference period? identified family or a tutor emergency placement determined through this order is subsequently required. Source: http://legeaz.net/spete- civil/plasament-in-regim-de-urgenta-950-2009 . 105 2. Yes, at least once every 3 months (that is at least 4 times a year) 1. Yes, rarely 0. No SCK9. Did a DGASPC representative send one or more -7. The child does not have an notifications to the child's parents or extended family to identified family remind them of the child and to initiate a family visit/event? 0. No 1. Yes, at least once SCK10. For this child/young person, the MC performed... a. a reassessment of the situation? 1. Yes, at least once 0. No b. a revision of the PIP or PIS or PS? 1. Yes, at least once 0. No c. post-services monitoring plan? 1. Yes, at least once 0. No SCK11. Was the case manager of the child replaced? 1. Yes, at least once 0. No SCK12. Was the protection measure for the child changed? 1. Yes, at least once 0. No SCK13. Was the placement service for the child changed? 1. Yes, at least once 0. No KAB1. Was the child a victim of violence/abuse or suspected 1. Yes, at least once 0. No abuse within the service, at school, in the community KAB2. Did the child make a complaint/referral regarding an issue related to the social service in which he/she is placed 1. Yes, at least once 0. No (including the relationship with care givers or colleagues)? KAI1. Has the child participated in independent living activities? We refer to activities such as preparing and serving food, cleaning, washing, ironing or folding clothes, using the stove or the washing 1. Yes 0. No machine or to children who go alone to do the daily shopping, when needed, receive their own money and know how to use them, ask for the change, a receipt etc. Only for children enrolled in kindergarten or school (If LK23=1) 17 During the reference period, between the 2 monitoring rounds: EDK1. What type of educational unit does the child 1. Mainstream 0. Special attend? 1. Primary (grades 1- 4) 2. Secondary (grades 5-8) 3. Vocational education, apprenticeship, complementary education EDK2. What education cycle and grade is the child 4. High school (grades 9-12) enrolled in? 5. Post-secondary-school and foremen's vocational education 6. Short-term university education/ college 17 Indicators from World Bank (2019) Early-Warning Mechanism in Education - MATE. 106 7. Master’s degree, doctorate Only if EDK2 = 1, 2 or 4 Grade ... EDK3. Which grade? EWM1. Did the student have a poor school attendance? 1. Yes 0. No (The student had skipped classes without any reasons in 5 or more days in a school month) EWM2. Did the student have poor school performance? 1. Yes 0. No (The student flunked one or more disciplines, in any school semester OR the student had an average grade below 6.5 in the mother tongue or in Mathematics or a general average grade below 6.5, in any school semester of the school year) 0. No EWM3. Did the student have to repeat one school year 1. Yes, once since he was enrolled? 2. Yes, several times EWM4. Does the student have a history of sanctions within the school? 1. Yes 0. No (History of sanctions = expelling, warning, transfer for disciplinary reasons, low grade for conduct or complaints made by other students and/or parents and/or teachers due to violence, bullying, theft, destruction of property etc. EWM5. Is the child at risk of dropping out or leaving 1. Yes 0. No school early? Filled in automatically 7.2. Voice of Children Instructions for filling in the questionnaire The questionnaire below shall be applied to all children aged 11 and over in the special protection system during a 1-year period. Eventually, the beneficiaries included in the Children's Register at county level can be divided into 12 groups, so that each month the questionnaire is filled in with one group. The questionnaire will be filled in independently by the children/young people, each child/young people filling in their own form. Ideally, the questionnaire would be available online, so that the children/young people can fill it whenever they want, when they feel safe and are sure that their answers only reach a psychologist/case manager, preferably from outside the service where they are placed. If the questionnaire is only available in paper format, then it should be filled in directly by the children, as part of a one-to-one meeting between the case manager and the child. The filling in of the questionnaire takes about 15 minutes, but the children/young people should be allowed to fill it in at their own pace, without inducing the feeling of a test or evaluation. Participation must be voluntary, the children/young people being informed in this regard. However, if one service registers a high rate of refusals, the reason for this behavior must be analyzed further and understood. Usually, children like to share their opinions in friendly environments and with people they trust. Before organizing the data collection, the case manager must get the consent of the legal representatives of the children, if applicable. Data privacy rules must be strictly observed. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring impartiality, so that the 107 application of this questionnaire does not turn into a new situation of stigmatization of certain children or young people, such as those with disabilities, SEN, Roma etc. It is very possible that some children may have difficulties in reading, understanding or in filling in the questionnaire. The case manager/psychologist should support them and not make remarks or refer to functional illiteracy. They could eventually inform the educators or caregivers that the respective children need support in order to develop basic skills (even in the case of older children). 108 The questionnaire "I want to be heard, too!" This questionnaire is intended to gather your opinions about how you feel and what your life looks like in .... [CP, CTF, AP, AMP, PFam] where you live. There are no right or wrong answers. All information will be treated as confidential, so we encourage you to be honest when answering the questions below. To all the questions below, please circle only one answer, the one you find most appropriate for you. JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| KID. Family name and first name of the child/young person: Cod_Kid = CNP All other information shall be uploaded from the Children's Register: gender, age, disability, other types of beneficiaries with special needs, type of service, actual service (Cod_Serv). KMC. MC of the child a. Family name and first name: c. Cod_MC according to the MC Register: RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR. Person who effectively filled in or who handed/took over the child/your person's questionnaire: It is preferable that the questionnaire is applied by a psychologist or case manager, for children who are 5-10 years old, or handed/taken over by a psychologist or case manager, for children who are 11 years old or older. 1. Family Name: 2. First Name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: Never Most of the time Always VK1. Do you feel ... safe? 0 1 2 VK2. Do you feel... well cared for? 0 1 2 Do you feel ... adults consider VK3. 0 1 2 you/him/her important? VK4. Do you feel ... you have a word to 0 1 2 say? VK5. Do you have ... specific responsibilities within 1. Yes 0. No the household you live in? We refer to activities such as selecting the menu, preparing and serving food, cleaning, washing and ironing clothes, using the stove or the washing machine or to children who go alone to do the daily shopping, when needed, receive their own money and know how to use them, ask for the change, receipt. VK6. Let's suppose this ladder is a representation of your life. The top of the ladder is the best possible life for you and the 109 bottom is the worst possible life for you. Please indicate on the ladder where do you feel you stand at the moment, by marking the corresponding circle next to the point that best describes where you stand. Some Most of VK7. How did you feel last week? One of the the Every Never day days days day A You were happy 0 1 2 3 4 B You were sad 0 1 2 3 4 C You liked school/kindergarten 0 1 2 3 4 D You had a lot of energy 0 1 2 3 4 You didn't have anyone to play E 0 1 2 3 4 with F You were tired 0 1 2 3 4 You didn't sleep well, you woke G up several times throughout the 0 1 2 3 4 night You spent time with your family H 0 1 2 3 4 and friends I You weren't happy with yourself 0 1 2 3 4 VK8. General level of happiness. Please indicate on the scale below, where 1 - very unhappy and 5 - very happy with your own life (friends, family, school), where you stand right now? 110 Data analysis Section 7.2. Voice of Children Distribution of children by age groups 11-14, 15-17, 18+, disability, other types of beneficiaries with special needs and ... 1. Quality of care = Summative index VK1-VK4 with values from 0 to 8, where 8 = the child always feels safe, well cared for, important and listened to. Values greater than 3 show that this is the situation most of the time. 2. Independent living = the child has specific responsibilities 3. Perceived quality of life = Scale VK6, where 1 – worst possible life and 8 – best possible life 4. General level of happiness = VK8, where 1 – very unhappy and 5 – very happy 5. Lack of affection = Summative index VK7 b+e+f+g+i with values from 0 to 20, where values greater than 15 = most of the days, the child feels sad, lonely, tired, restless and unhappy with himself. 111 PREVENTING THE SEPARATION OF THE CHILD FROM THEIR FAMILY 8. Community-based support and prevention services The previous project on deinstitutionalization has already shown the importance of mapping the prevention services in the community, not at commune level, but at the level of the functional micro-area. This way, the commune is no longer seen in isolation,18 but as an integral part of a functional network of communities that communicate with each other and between which people move in order to access different services, depending on proximity and availability of transport services/opportunities. Thus, the functional micro-area is defined as the area that includes the selected commune as well as the area which can be reached in about 30 minutes by some means of transport or possibly by car. Thus, a functional micro-area is made up of the neighboring villages of the reference commune, and there must be roads/ access pathways between the villages comprised in a functional micro-area, because otherwise the existence of a social service in the micro-area is not relevant to the population of the selected source community.19 In the previous project, the actual delineation of the functional micro-area for each source community was done in a 3-steps process. In the first step, the research team made up an exhaustive list of localities (territorial administrative units and the related villages) neighboring the commune selected in the study. In the second step, the exhaustive list of localities was discussed in the interview with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Town Hall Secretary of the source community in order to identify all the villages situated in the accessible area, at a distance of about 30 minutes from the commune.20 In step 3, the functional micro-area was mapped, and all data collected referred to: • the commune selected for the study • the rural micro-area including all neighboring villages which are accessible in about 30 minute • the urban micro-area including the neighboring cities and municipalities, including the villages which administratively belong to them. In this study, the data will be selected for each UAT (with the villages belonging to them) in the county/country and subsequently the functional micro-area (rural and urban) will be established by using a geographical location software. 18 For example, out of the 35 analyzed communes, 25 had an urban and rural functional micro-area. The other 10 communes were more isolated, 9 being near a city, but lacking rural micro-areas, while one had only rural micro- areas and no city within a 30 minutes distance. 19 This way, the 35 selected communes (with 172 villages) are connected to 151 communes (with 477 villages), in rural micro-areas, and 30 cities and municipalities (which have 83 component localities), in urban micro-areas. 20 Because the selection from the exhaustive list was made at village level, the number of villages included in the functional micro-areas is smaller than the total number of villages in the corresponding ATUs. 112 Particular attention should be paid to the communes with marginalized areas and to the "source" communities for the child protection system.21 SPrev Register JUD. County: CodJUD. (see Annex 1) |___|___| Cod_Serv = SIRSUP (unique UAT code, see Annex 3) DATE. Date when the SPrev Register was filled in: |___|___|: |___|___|: |___|___|___|___| RMon. Monitoring round: |__1_| OMR. Person who effectively filled in the SPrev Register: Preferably the SPrev Register will be filled in by DGASPC specialists who are in charge of the relationship with the communities, in collaboration with the SPAS representatives of each UAT 1. Family Name: 2. First Name: 3. Position: 4. Profession: Center-type social services Please write down 0 if the center/service/specialist does not exist If YES, the services exist Note/Select the SIRINF Number of where these services are centers located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, functioning regardless of the provider? at UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 7. Day-care centers for supporting the integration/reintegration of the child in the family 8. Day-care centers for the disabled child 9. Day-care centers for developing independent living skills 10. Centers for guidance, surveillance, and support of social reintegration of a child that has committed criminal acts and is not legally liable 11. Counselling Centers for the abused, neglected, and exploited child 12. Counselling and support day care centres for parents and children/pregnant women in difficult situations 21 World Bank: Teșliuc et al (coord., 2015) and Stănculescu et al (coord., 2016). "Source communities” (rural and urban) are areas at sub-locality level where a significantly larger number of children reach the public system. Sub- locality areas can refer to a neighborhood, but also to a street, to a group of houses and/or blocks, in urban areas, and to a whole village, a hamlet or just a group of houses in rural areas. 113 If YES, the services exist Note/Select the SIRINF Number of where these services are centers located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, functioning regardless of the provider? at UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 13. Protected dwellings 14. Institutions for adults (CITO, CRRN, CIA, medical-social unit, residential centre for palliative care services etc.) 15. Day/ Night Shelters 16. Centers for prevention, assessment and counselling against drug abuse 17. Rehabilitation centers for addictions 18. Therapeutic community type centers 19. Multifunctional centers/services 21. Integrated services community centers 72. Mobile teams 23. Others, namely: Intervention/action-type social services Please write down 0 if the centre/service/specialist does not exist If YES, the services exist Are there Note/Select the SIRINF such where these services are functional located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, services at regardless of the provider? UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 1. Public social assistance service (SPAS, DAS, DAC etc.) 1. Yes 0. No 14. Parental education services/activities 1. Yes 0. No 18. Psychological counselling services/activities 1. Yes 0. No 22. Speech therapy services 1. Yes 0. No 23. Physiotherapy services 1. Yes 0. No 24. Other recovery/rehabilitation services 1. Yes 0. No 25. Services/activities to prevent child abuse, neglect and 1. Yes 0. No exploitation 26. Counselling services/activities to prevent and fight against 1. Yes 0. No domestic violence 27. Assistance services/activities for the aggressors 1. Yes 0. No 28. Food-on-wheels or social cafeteria types of services 1. Yes 0. No 55. Social economy enterprise 1. Yes 0. No 71. Social dwelling services (National Housing Agency dwellings, 1. Yes 0. No social dwellings, necessity dwellings etc.) 114 If YES, the services exist Are there Note/Select the SIRINF such where these services are functional located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, services at regardless of the provider? UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 72. Support for renovation or home improvement 1. Yes 0. No 81. Legal assistance services 1. Yes 0. No Services/activities for early identification and adequate support 1. Yes 0. No for children whose parents work abroad (especially those with both parents abroad and/or experiencing psychological trauma due to long separation from their parents), as well as for the adults responsible for their care Services/activities to prevent juvenile delinquency, with the 1. Yes 0. No involvement of the education and social assistance sector Activities of prevention, recovery and social reintegration in the 1. Yes 0. No field of alcohol consumption and abuse, 22 both regarding adolescents and young people, as well as adults (parents). According to WHO, 7 other people (family, relatives and friends) are affected on average per person with alcohol problems. Prevention services/activities, especially those in the education 1. Yes 0. No and health sector, to reduce the consumption of harmful substances (e.g. ethnobotanicals) among children and young people Support for the victims of domestic violence 1. Yes 0. No Services/activities to reduce the risk of becoming a victim of 1. Yes 0. No human trafficking Activities carried out by the medical and social assistance 1. Yes 0. No services in the community for the early identification and monitoring of unwanted pregnancies and those at risk of child abandonment Free access to contraceptives 1. Yes 0. No Information, education and communication activities regarding 1. Yes 0. No family planning and its benefits Awareness-raising and social norms changing activities 1. Yes 0. No regarding the relations between parents/adults and children, young people's decision autonomy and young people's participation in the decisions influencing their lives Education units Please write down 0 if the centre/service/specialist does not exist 22Alcohol abuse refers to chronic consumption with medical, psychological and social effects on the individual, as well as to alcohol dependence (WHO, 2014). 115 If YES, the services exist Note/Select the SIRINF Number of where these services are centers located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, functioning regardless of the provider? at UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 51. Kindergarten 52. Primary school 53. Primary school with educational support services/ integrated special education services 54. Secondary school 55. Secondary school with educational support services/ integrated special education services 56. Special school 57. High School 58. Vocational High School Intervention/action-type education services Please write down 0 if the centre/service/specialist does not exist If YES, the services exist Are there Note/Select the SIRINF such where these services are functional located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, services at regardless of the provider? UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 19. School counselling and guidance services 1. Yes 0. No 20. Profession/Vocational counselling and guidance services 1. Yes 0. No 21. Support educational services 1. Yes 0. No 41. Afterschool services 1. Yes 0. No 42. Second chance 1. Yes 0. No 51. Employment skills assessment services 1. Yes 0. No 52. Labour marker counselling and mediation services 1. Yes 0. No 53. Support in finding a job, including accompaniment 1. Yes 0. No 54. Vocational training services/activities for adults 1. Yes 0. No 61. School sports club, football team and other similar activities 1. Yes 0. No 62. Children Club activities, folk group, other relevant leisure 1. Yes 0. No activities 30. Others, namely: Medical units Please write down 0 if the centre/service/specialist does not exist Number of If YES, the services exist 116 centers Note/Select the SIRINF functioning where these services are at UAT level located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, regardless of the provider? VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 22. Permanent medical centre 73. Hospital, polyclinic 75. School medical office 76. School dental office If there is a hospital 73a. Does the hospital have maternity or pediatric departments? 1. Yes 0. No 73b. Does the hospital have a social worker or psychologist who works with mothers at risk of abandoning their children? 1. Yes 0. No Intervention/action-type medical services Please write down 0 if the centre/service/specialist does not exist If YES, the services exist Are there Note/Select the SIRINF such where these services are functional located Are there such functional services at commune (UAT) level, services at regardless of the provider? UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 15. Family planning services 1. Yes 0. No 16. Sex education services for young people 1. Yes 0. No 29. Social ambulance 1. Yes 0. No 30. Others, namely: Types of specialists Please write down 0 if the centre/service/specialist does not exist If YES, the services exist Note/Select the SIRINF where these services are Number of located Are there such specialists at commune (UAT) level, specialists regardless of their employer? at UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 2. Professional social worker 3. Person with social assistance duties 6. Family doctor 71. Medical nurses 4. Professional foster care giver 5. Health mediator 72. Speech therapist 117 If YES, the services exist Note/Select the SIRINF where these services are Number of located Are there such specialists at commune (UAT) level, specialists regardless of their employer? at UAT level VILLAGE1 VILLAGE2 73. Chiropractor 74. Psychologist 7. School mediator 51. School counsellor 52. Itinerant and support teacher 53. Speech-language teacher 54. Teacher for children with special needs (other than the speech-language teacher) 8. Community mediator or facilitator 9. Community Consultative Structure - SCC (or Community Consultative Council - CCC) -functional 10. Support groups for vulnerable children and families 11. Religious groups who support vulnerable children and families 12. Charity Groups 13. Child Protection NGOs 40. Other professionals Also see the Excel file, which includes: - a database format for data collection - statistics for the monitoring report, that can be generated based on the data collected at national, county and local level 118 Bibliography 1. World Bank (2017) Output #2 (July 2017): Operational Plan for the Closing of Residential Centers; Output #3 (November 2017) DIAGNOSTIC STUDY: Evaluation of a representative sample of children from placement centers and analysis of focus groups with various types of beneficiaries with a view to creating alternatives to the closed down placement centers. Reports prepared under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement between the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption, concluded on May 12, 2016, for the implementation of the project “Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based Care” – SIPOCA 2, funded through the European Social Fund under the Operational Program for Administrative Capacity 2. World Bank (2018) Output #4 (April 2018): Mapping prevention services within source communities and alternative services to residential care developed by the social care and child protection services; Output #5 (July 2018): Methodology on developing individual closure plans for placement centers in Romania; Output #6 (November 2018): Unified methodology for preparing plans to develop prevention services within the source communities in rural areas. Reports prepared under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement between the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption, concluded on May 12, 2016, for the implementation of the project “Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based Care” – SIPOCA 2, funded through the European Social Fund under the Operational Program for Administrative Capacity. 3. World Bank (2019) OUTPUT 1: A proposed Early Warning Mechanism (EWM) for early school leaving prevention and action plan for implementation. Administration Agreement SRSS/S2018/063 for developing an early warning system for the prevention of early school leaving in Romania. 4. Chiriacescu, D. (2019) Seminar on “Moving towards independent living and community-based care for adults and children with intellectual disabilities in Romania”. Thematic Discussion Paper - Romania. Persons with intellectual disabilities in Romania, Romania, 11 April 2019. European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=21178&langId=ro 5. European Commission (2013) Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support, Final Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/education/content/reducing-early-school-leaving-key-messages-and-policy- support_en 6. European Commission (2013) Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage, Recommendation no. 112/2013. Available at: https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gm2donrtgy/recomandarea-nr-112-2013-investitia- in-copii-ruperea-cercului-vicios-al-defavorizarii-2013-112-ue 7. European Commission (2017a) European Pillar of Social Rights, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary- union/european-pillar-social-rights_en 8. European Commission (2018) Education and Training Monitor 2018. Available at: ec.europa.eu/education/monitor 9. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2005)5 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Rights of Children Living in Residential Institutions, 16 March 2005, Rec(2005)5. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/43f5c53d4.html [accessed 22 December 2019] 10. European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care (2012) The Common European Guidelines on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care. Available at: https://deinstitutionalisationdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/guidelines-final-english.pdf 11. European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care (2012) Toolkit on the Use of European Funds for the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care. Available at: https://deinstitutionalisationdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/guidelines-final-english.pdf 119 12. Gudbrandsson, B (2008) Rights of Children in Institutions. Report on the implementation of the Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2005)5 on the rights of children living in residential institutions. Council of Europe, CDCS (2009) 9, August 2008. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168046ce31 13. Lumos (2019) Stars Institution: Stock and Flow Analysis. Available at https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/lumos-transforming-care/1/invite-only?return=66srxkla 14. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection. Interim Report: The Child’s Journey, Open Government Licence. Available at: www.education.gov.uk 15. Save the Children (2014) Child Protection. Outcome Indicators, Child Protection Initiative. Available at: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/sites/default/files/documents/150217_outcome_indicators_en glish_new_2.pdf 16. SOS-Kinderdorf International (2008) Children without parental care or at risk of losing it. Recommendations – background paper. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/20070417/libe/sos_children_en.pdf 17. Stănculescu, M.S., Grigoraș, V., Teșliuc, E. and Pop, V. (coord.) (2016) România: Copiii din sistemul de protecție a copilului. Bucharest: Alpha MDN. Available at: http://www.unicef.ro/wp- content/uploads/Copiii-din-sistemul-de-protectie-a-copilului_UNICEF_ANPDCA_BM_2016.pdf 18. Swinkels, R., Stănculescu, M.S., Anton, S., Koo, B., Man, T. and C. Moldovan (2014) The Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in Romania. Project Elaboration of Integration Strategies for Urban Poor and Disadvantaged Communities. Bucharest: World Bank. Available at: http://backend.elard.eu/uploads/wb- project-in-ro/atlas_24april_en.pdf 19. Teșliuc, E., Grigoraș, V. and M. S. Stănculescu (coord.) (2015) Studiu de fundamentare pentru strategia națională privind reducerea sărăciei și creșterea incluziunii sociale 2015-2020. Bucharest: World Bank. Available at: http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/images/Documente/Familie/2016/SF_BancaMondiala_RO_web.pdf 20. Teșliuc, E., Grigoraș, V. și M. S. Stănculescu (coord.) (2015) The Atlas of Urban Marginalized Areas in Romania. Bucharest: World Bank. Available at: http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/images/Documente/Minister/F6_Atlas_Rural_RO_23Mar2016.pdf 21. UNICEF (2009) Manual for the Measurement of Indicators for Children in Formal Care. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/protection/Formal_Care20Guide20FINAL.pdf 22. UNICEF (2010) At Home or in a Home?: Formal Care and Adoption of Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/protection/Web-Unicef-rapport-home-20110623v2.pdf 23. UNICEF (2015) CHILD PROTECTION RESOURCE PACK. How to Plan, Monitor and Evaluate Child Protection Programmes. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/CPR-WEB.pdf 24. Van Cappelle, F. and Bell, S. (2016) Cadrul de monitorizare a copiilor aflați în afara sistemului de educație: monitorizarea copiilor aflați în afara sistemului de educație și a copiilor cu risc de abandon școlar din România, UNICEF România, Buzău: Alpha MDN. Available at: http://www.unicef.ro/wp- content/uploads/Cadru-de-monitorizare-a-copiilor-aflati-in-afara-sistemului-de-educatie- Romania_2017.pdf 25. World Vision International (2013) Compendium of Indicators for Measuring Child Well-being. Available at: https://www.wvi.org/sites/default/files/Compendium_of_Indicators_for_Child_Well-being_0.pdf 120 ANNEXES 121 Annex 1. County codes Code County Code County 1 ALBA 22 IASI 2 ARAD 23 ILFOV 3 ARGES 24 MARAMURES 4 BACAU 25 MEHEDINTI 5 BIHOR 26 MURES 6 BISTRITA-NASAUD 27 NEAMT 7 BOTOSANI 28 OLT 9 BRAILA 29 PRAHOVA 8 BRASOV 31 SALAJ 10 BUZAU 30 SATU-MARE 51 CALARASI 41 Bucharest SECTOR 1 11 CARAS-SEVERIN 42 Bucharest SECTOR 2 12 CLUJ 43 Bucharest SECTOR 3 13 CONSTANTA 44 Bucharest SECTOR 4 14 COVASNA 45 Bucharest SECTOR 5 15 DIMBOVITA 46 Bucharest SECTOR 6 16 DOLJ 32 SIBIU 17 GALATI 33 SUCEAVA 52 GIURGIU 34 TELEORMAN 18 GORJ 35 TIMIS 19 HARGHITA 36 TULCEA 20 HUNEDOARA 37 VASLUI 21 IALOMITA 38 VILCEA 39 VRANCEA 122 Annex 2.1. Placement centers for children in Romania (as of February 2018) Code County Locality Name of placement center 101 ALBA Blaj Servicii comunitare pentru protecţia copilului Blaj - Centrul de plasament 201 ARAD Arad Centrul de recuperare şi reabilitare pentru copii cu dizabilităţi Arad 202 ARAD Arad Centrul de Plasament "Oituz" Arad 203 ARAD Arad Centrul de Criză Arad 204 ARAD Zădăreni Centrul de Plasament Zădăreni 301 ARGEŞ Câmpulung Centru de tip rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi - Complexul de Servicii Comunitare pentru Copii cu Dizabilităţi Câmpulung 302 ARGEŞ Câmpulung Centru de tip rezidenţial - Complexul de Servicii pentru Copilul în Dificultate Câmpulung 303 ARGEŞ Costeşti Centrul de tip rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi - Complex de Servicii pentru Copii cu Dizabilităţi Costeşti 304 ARGEŞ Piteşti Centru de tip rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi şi respite - care - Complex de Servicii pentru Copilul cu Handicap Trivale Piteşti 305 ARGEŞ Piteşti Centrul de tip rezidenţial - Complexul de Servicii Comunitare Pentru Copilul în Dificultate Sf. Constantin şi Elena Piteşti 306 ARGEŞ Piteşti Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi şi respite-care - Centrul de Copii "SF. Andrei", Piteşti 307 ARGEŞ Rucăr Centrul rezidenţial - Complex de Servicii pentru Copilul în Dificultate Rucăr 501 BIHOR Oradea Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu dizabilităţi nr.6 Oradea 502 BIHOR Oradea Centrul de Plasament Oradea - Modul Dalmaţienii 503 BIHOR Oradea Centrul de Plasament Nr.2 Oradea 504 BIHOR Popeşti Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu dizabilităţi Popeşti 601 BISTRIŢA Beclean Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru copii din cadrul NĂSĂUD CPC Beclean 602 BISTRIŢA Năsăud Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru copii din cadrul NĂSĂUD CPC Năsăud 603 BISTRIŢA Bistriţa Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru copilul cu 123 Code County Locality Name of placement center NĂSĂUD dizabilităţi din cadrul CPC Bistriţa 701 BOTOŞANI Botoşani Centrul de plasament Prietenia 702 BOTOŞANI Pomarla Centrul de plasament Dumbrava Minunată 703 * BOTOŞANI Trusesti Centru de plasament Sf. Nicolae 801 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de Plasament "Aurora" Codlea - Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea 802 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu handicap "Speranţa" - Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea 803 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de reabilitare şcolară "Albina" - Complex de Servicii Măgura Codlea 804 BRAŞOV Făgăraş Centrul de Plasament "Casa Maria" - Complex de Servicii Făgăraş 805 BRAŞOV Făgăraş Centrul de reabilitare Şcolară "Floare de Colţ" Făgăraş - Complex de Servicii Făgăraş 806 BRAŞOV Ghimbav Centrul "Sfântul STELIAN" Ghimbav 807 BRAŞOV Jibert Complex de servicii "Dacia" 808 BRAŞOV Rupea Centrul de Plasament "Casa Ioana" Rupea 810 BRAŞOV Săcele Centrul de plasament Ghiocelul - Complex de Reabilitare Şcolară Brădet 811 BRAŞOV Victoria Centrul de Plasament "Azur" Victoria - Complex de servicii Victoria 812 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de plasament Alice - Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea 1001 BUZĂU Beceni Centrul rezidenţial pentru recuperarea şi reabilitarea copilului cu tulburări de comportament nr. 5 Beceni 1002 BUZĂU Buzău Serviciul rezidenţial pentru copilul aflat în dificultate socială , din cadrul Complexului de servicii comunitare nr. 2, Buzău 1003 BUZĂU Buzău Centrul rezidenţial din cadrul Complexului de servicii pentru copilul cu handicap sever nr. 8, Buzău 1004 BUZĂU Buzău Centrul rezidenţial pentru copiii cu handicap nr. 9, Buzău 1101 CARAŞ SEVERIN Caransebeş Centrul "Bunavestire" Caransebeş fost Complexul de servicii sociale "Bunavestire" Caransebeş - Modulul Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu dizabilităţi 1102 CARAŞ SEVERIN Reşiţa Centrul "Speranţa" Reşiţa fost Centrul de Plasament "Speranţa" Reşiţa - Modulul Centrul de plasament 1103 CARAŞ SEVERIN Zăgujeni Centrul "Casa Noastra" Zăgujeni fost Centrul de Plasament "Casa Noastră" Zăgujeni - Modulul Centrul de plasament 124 Code County Locality Name of placement center 1201 CLUJ Cluj Napoca Complexul de servicii destinat protecţiei copilului nr. 2- Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi: centre de plasament 1202 CLUJ Cluj Napoca Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea copiilor cu handicap uşor şi mediu nr. 9 "Ţăndărică"- Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi 1203 CLUJ Cluj Napoca Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea copiilor cu handicap neuropsihic sever nr. 10 "Pinochio" - Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi: centre de plasament 1301 CONSTANŢA Agigea Centrul de Plasament "Delfinul" 1302 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Centrul de plasament "Antonio"-componenta modulată 1303 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Centrul de plasament "Ovidiu" 1304 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Complex de servicii comunitare "Cristina" 1305 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Complex de servicii comunitare "Orizont" 1306 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Centrul de plasament "Traian" 1307 CONSTANŢA Techirghiol Complex de servicii comunitare "Sparta Rotterdam"- Componenta modulată ( D) 1401 COVASNA Baraolt Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi Baraolt - funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii comunitare Baraolt 1402 COVASNA Olteni Centru de plasament nr. 6 Olteni 1403 COVASNA Tg. Secuiesc Centru de plasament "Borsnyay Kamilla" Tg Secuiesc 1501 DÂMBOVIŢA Găeşti Complexul de Servicii Sociale Găeşti, Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi 1601 DOLJ Craiova Centrul de plasament "Noricel" 1602 DOLJ Craiova Centrul de plasament "VIS DE COPIL" 1603 DOLJ Craiova Centrul de Plasament "PRICHINDEL" 1605 DOLJ Craiova Centru de plasament "Sf Apostol Andrei" 1702 GALAŢI Galaţi Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul cu cerinţe educative speciale Galata 1703 GALAŢI Galaţi Centrul de plasament nr.3 Galaţi 1704 GALAŢI Munteni Centrul de reabilitare şi reintegrare socială a copilului- Casa "David Austin" Munteni 1705 GALAŢI Tecuci Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul cu cerinţe educative speciale Tecuci 125 Code County Locality Name of placement center 1801 GORJ Tg. Cărbuneşti Centrul de Plasament destinat protecţiei rezidenţiale a copiilor - din cadrul CSC-CD Tg-Cărbuneşti 1802 GORJ Tg. Jiu Centrul de plasament destinat protecţiei rezidenţiale a copiilor cu dizabilităţi-din cadrul CSC-CNS Tg. Jiu (copii cu dizabilităţi) 1803 GORJ Tg. Jiu Centrul de plasament destinat protecţiei rezidenţiale a copiilor cu dizabilităţi -din cadrul CSC-CH Tg-Jiu (copii cu dizabilităţi) 1901 HARGHITA Bilbor Centru de plasament Bilbor 1902 HARGHITA Cristuru Centru de plasament pentru copii cu handicap sever Secuiesc Cristuru Secuiesc 1903 HARGHITA Ocland Centru de plasament Ocland 1904 HARGHITA Subcetate Centru de plasament Subcetate 1905 HARGHITA Topliţa Centru de plasament pentru copii cu handicap sever Topliţa 2001 HUNEDOARA Brad Centrul de plasament Brad 2002 HUNEDOARA Hunedoara Casa familială pt copilul cu dizabilităţi Hunedoara 2003 HUNEDOARA Hunedoara Centrul specializat pt copii cu dizabilităţi Hunedoara 2004 HUNEDOARA Lupeni Centrul de Plasament Lupeni 2101 IALOMIŢA Slobozia Centrul de Plasament nr. 2 Slobozia 2102 IALOMIŢA Slobozia Centrul de Plasament nr. 3 Slobozia 2103 IALOMIŢA Urziceni Complex de Servicii Urziceni (Serviciul Rezidenţial) 2201 IAŞI Horlesti Complex de Servicii Comunitare ''Bogdăneşti' 2202 IAŞI Iaşi Complex Servicii Comunitare Bucium 2204 IAŞI Iaşi Complex de servicii comunitare "Sf. Andrei" 2205 IAŞI Iaşi Centrul de recuperare pentru copilul cu handicap sever Galata - Casa Modulară SERA 2206 IAŞI Iaşi CP "Ion Holban" Iaşi 2207 IAŞI Iaşi CP "CA Rosetti" Iaşi 2208 IAŞI Paşcani Complexul de servicii" M. Sadoveanu" Paşcani 2209 IAŞI Paşcani Subunitatea Sf. Stelian 2210 IAŞI Paşcani Complex de servicii "Sf. Nicolae" Paşcani 2211 IAŞI Tg. Frumos Complex de servicii sociale Tg. Frumos Centrul "Sf. Spiridon" 126 Code County Locality Name of placement center 2301 ILFOV Periş Centrul de Plasament nr. 5 Periş 2302 ILFOV Periş Centrul de Plasament nr. 1 Periş 2303 ILFOV Periș Centrul de Plasament "Piticot" 2304 ILFOV Voluntari Centrul de Plasament nr. 6 Voluntari 2401 MARAMUREŞ Sighetu Centrul de plasament, asistenţă şi sprijin a tinerilor care Marmației părăsesc sistemul de protecţie 2501 MEHEDINŢI Dr. Tr. Severin Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi 0-7 ani (funcţionează în cadrul complexului de servicii sociale pentru copilul preşcolar) 2502 MEHEDINŢI Dr. Tr. Severin Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilități 2503 MEHEDINŢI Dr. Tr. Severin Centru de plasament "Sf. Nicodim " 2601 MUREŞ Sighișoara Complex de servicii pentru copilul cu deficienţe neuropsihiatrice Sighişoara - Serviciul Rezidenţial 2701 NEAMŢ Piatra Neamţ Modulul Casa "Traian" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ 2702 NEAMŢ Piatra Neamţ Modulul Casa "Floare de Colţ" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ 2703 NEAMŢ Piatra Neamţ Modul Casa "Călin" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Elena Doamna", Piatra Neamţ 2704 NEAMŢ Piatra Neamţ Modul Casa "Smărăndiţa" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Elena Doamna", Piatra Neamţ 2705 NEAMŢ Piatra Neamţ Centrul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi Piatra Neamţ 2706 NEAMŢ Roman Complex de servicii "Romaniţa", Roman 2707 NEAMŢ Piatra Neamţ Modulul Casa "DECEBAL" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ 2901 PRAHOVA Băicoi Complexul de Servicii Comunitare “Rază de Soare” Băicoi- Centru de plasament 2902 PRAHOVA Câmpina Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf. Filofteia» Câmpina, Centru de plasament 2903 PRAHOVA Câmpina Centrul de Plasament Câmpina - Centru de Plasament 2904 PRAHOVA Filipeştii de Centrul de Plasament Filipeştii de Târg - Centru de Târg plasament 2905 PRAHOVA Ploieşti Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf. Andrei» Ploieşti, Centru de plasament 2906 PRAHOVA Plopeni Centrul de Plasament Plopeni - Centru de plasament 127 Code County Locality Name of placement center 2907 PRAHOVA Sinaia Centrul de Plasament Sinaia - Centru de plasament 2908 PRAHOVA Vălenii de Complexul de Servicii Comunitare “Sf. Maria” Vălenii de Munte Munte, Centru de plasament 3001 SATU MARE Halmeu CPC ”Floare de colț” Halmeu 3002 SATU MARE Hurezu Mare CPC “Roua” Hurezu Mare 3101 SĂLAJ Cehu Silvaniei Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului de Servicii Sociale Cehu Silvaniei 3102 SĂLAJ Jibou Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului de Servicii Sociale Jibou 3103 SĂLAJ Șimleul Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului de Servicii Silvaniei Sociale Şimleu Silvaniei 3201 SIBIU Agîrbiciu Centrul de Plasament Agârbiciu 3202** SIBIU Cisnădie Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilități "Tavi Bucur" Cisnădie 3204 SIBIU Orlat Centrul de plasament Orlat 3205** SIBIU Sibiu Centrul de plasament Gulliver, Sibiu 3206 SIBIU Sibiu Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilități "Prichindelul" Sibiu - Complexul de servicii "Prichindel" Sibiu 3207 SIBIU Turnu Roşu Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi Turnu Roşu 3301 SUCEAVA Siret Servicii pentru copilul aflat în dificultate Siret - Centrul terapeutic modular pentru copilul cu nevoi speciale "Ama Deus" Siret 3302 SUCEAVA Solca Centrul de plasament "Mihail şi Gavril" Solca 3303 SUCEAVA Suceava Centrul de plasament "Speranţa" Suceava 3401 TELEORMAN Alexandria Centrul de recuperare pentru copilul cu nevoi speciale "Pinochio" din cadrul Complexului de servicii pentru copilul cu nevoi speciale 3501 TIMIŞ Găvojdia Centrul de plasament Găvojdia 3502 TIMIŞ Lugoj Centrul de plasament Logoj 3503 TIMIŞ Lugoj Serviciul de îngrijire de tip rezidențial pentru copilul cu dizabilități din cadrul Centrului de Recuperare și Reabilitare Neuropsihiatrică pentru Copilul cu Handicap Lugoj 3504 TIMIŞ Recaș Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilități Recaș 3505 TIMIŞ Timișoara Serviciul de îngrijire de tip rezidențial din cadrul Centrului de recuperare și reabilitare neuropsihiatrică pentru copii 128 Code County Locality Name of placement center Timișoara 3601 TULCEA Mahmudia Centrul de plasament Mahmudia 3603 TULCEA Tulcea Centrul de plasament pentru recuperarea şi reabilitarea copilului cu handicap sever Pelican 3604 TULCEA Tulcea Centrul de plasament Speranţa 3605 TULCEA Sulina Centrul de plasament Sulina 3606 TULCEA Topolog Centrul de plasament Sâmbăta Nouă 3607 TULCEA Somova Centrul de plasament Somova 3802 VÂLCEA Băbeni Casa "Pinocchio" Băbeni 3803 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul de Plasament "Andreea" 3804 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul de Plasament "Ana " 3805 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Serviciul de tip rezidenţial pentru recuperarea copilului cu dizabilităţi Rm. Vâlcea 3806 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul pentru Copilul cu Dizabilităţi Rm. Vâlcea 3807 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul pentru copilul abuzat, neglijat, exploatat 3808 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Serviciul de tip familial pentru deprinderi de viață și integrare socioprofesională a tinerilor din sistemul de protecție - componenta rezidențială 5101 CĂLĂRAŞI Călărași Serviciul rezidenţial în cadrul Centrului de Servicii Sociale pentru Copil şi Familie ”SERA” 5102 CĂLĂRAŞI Călărași Serviciul Rezidenţial (în cadrul Complexului de servicii comunitare pentru copilul cu handicap sever Călăraşi) 5103 CĂLĂRAŞI Oltenița Serviciul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu handicap sever - din cadrul C.S.C. Olteniţa Source: World Bank (2018) Output 4 of the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement for Provision of Technical Assistance on Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based Care. Note: (N=147). The city of Bucharest is not included. * CP created through the merger of Traian Rural Group Home and Decebal Rural Group Home. ** The placement centers: Centrul de plasament Gulliver, Sibiu and Centrul de plasament "Tavi Bucur" Cisnădie are not under the same complex of services anymore (Complex de Servicii Sibiu). Currently the two placement centers are autonomous institutions. Moreover, the one from Cisnădie was turned into a placement center for children with disabilities. 129 Annex 2.2. Types of placement centers for children in Romania based on the categories "classical" and “modulated” (January 2017) CP code County Locality Type 101 AB Blaj Classical with some improvements 201 AR Arad Modulated (all criteria are met) 202 AR Arad Modulated (all criteria are met) 203 AR Arad Classical with some improvements 204 AR Zadareni Modulated BUT without playrooms 301 AG Campulung Classical with some improvements 302 AG Campulung Classical centers 303 AG Costesti Classical with some improvements 304 AG Pitesti Classical with some improvements 305 AG Pitesti Classical with some improvements 306 AG Pitesti Classical with some improvements 307 AG Rucar Classical centers 401 BC Bacau Modulated BUT too large 501 BH Oradea Modulated (all criteria are met) 502 BH Oradea Modulated (all criteria are met) 503 BH Oradea Classical centers 504 BH Popesti Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 601 BN Beclean Modulated BUT too large 602 BN Nasaud Modulated BUT without playrooms 603 BN Bistrita Modulated BUT too large 701 BT Botosani Classical with some improvements 702 BT Pomarla Classical centers 703 BT Trusesti Modulated (all criteria are met) 704 BT Trusesti Modulated (all criteria are met) 801 BV Codlea Classical with some improvements 802 BV Codlea Classical with some improvements 803 BV Codlea Classical with some improvements 804 BV Fagaras Classical with some improvements 805 BV Fagaras Classical centers 806 BV Ghimbav Classical centers 807 BV Jibert Classical centers 808 BV Rupea Classical with some improvements 809 BV Sacele Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 810 BV Sacele Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 811 BV Victoria Modulated BUT without playrooms 812 BV Codlea Classical with some improvements 130 CP code County Locality Type 1001 BZ Beceni Classical with some improvements 1002 BZ Buzau Classical with some improvements 1003 BZ Buzau Modulated (all criteria are met) 1004 BZ Buzau Classical centers 1005 BZ Buzau Classical centers 1006 BZ Buzau Classical centers 1101 CS Caransebes Classical centers 1102 CS Resita Classical centers 1103 CS Zagujeni Classical with some improvements 1201 CJ Cluj Napoca Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 1202 CJ Cluj Napoca Modulated (all criteria are met) 1203 CJ Cluj Napoca Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 1204 CJ Huedin Classical with some improvements 1301 CT Agigea Modulated BUT too large 1302 CT Constanta Modulated BUT too large 1303 CT Constanta Classical with some improvements 1304 CT Constanta Classical with some improvements 1305 CT Constanta Classical with some improvements 1306 CT Constanta Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 1307 CT Techirghiol Modulated (all criteria are met) 1401 CV Baraolt Classical with some improvements 1402 CV Olteni Classical with some improvements 1403 CV Tg. Secuiesc Modulated (all criteria are met) 1501 DB Gaesti Classical centers 1601 DJ Craiova Classical with some improvements 1602 DJ Craiova Modulated (all criteria are met) 1603 DJ Craiova Classical with some improvements 1605 DJ Craiova Classical with some improvements 1701 GL Galati Classical with some improvements 1702 GL Galati Classical with some improvements 1703 GL Galati Classical centers 1704 GL Munteni Classical centers 1705 GL Tecuci Modulated (all criteria are met) 1706 GL Tecuci Modulated (all criteria are met) 1801 GJ Tg. Carbunesti Classical with some improvements 1802 GJ Tg. Jiu Classical centers 1803 GJ Tg. Jiu Classical with some improvements 1901 HR Bilbor Classical with some improvements 1902 HR Cristuru Sec. Classical centers 1903 HR Ocland Classical centers 1904 HR Subcetate Classical centers 1905 HR Toplita Classical centers 131 CP code County Locality Type 2001 HD Brad Modulated (all criteria are met) 2002 HD Hunedoara Modulated (all criteria are met) 2003 HD Hunedoara Modulated (all criteria are met) 2004 HD Lupeni Classical with some improvements 2101 IL Slobozia Classical centers 2102 IL Slobozia Classical centers 2103 IL Urziceni Classical centers 2201 IS Horlesti Classical with some improvements 2202 IS Iasi Modulated BUT too large 2203 IS Iasi Classical with some improvements 2204 IS Iasi Modulated BUT too large 2205 IS Iasi Modulated BUT too large 2206 IS Iasi Classical with some improvements 2207 IS Iasi Classical with some improvements 2208 IS Pascani Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 2209 IS Pascani Classical with some improvements 2210 IS Pascani Classical with some improvements 2211 IS Tg. Frumos Classical centers 2301 IF Peris Classical centers 2302 IF Peris Classical centers 2303 IF Peris Classical centers 2304 IF Voluntari Classical with some improvements 2401 MM Sighetu Marmatiei Modulated (all criteria are met) 2501 MH Dr. Tr. Severin Classical centers 2502 MH Dr. Tr. Severin Classical with some improvements 2503 MH Dr. Tr. Severin Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 2601 MS Sighisoara Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 2701 NT Piatra Neamt Modulated (all criteria are met) 2702 NT Piatra Neamt Modulated (all criteria are met) 2703 NT Piatra Neamt Modulated (all criteria are met) 2704 NT Piatra Neamt Modulated (all criteria are met) 2705 NT Piatra Neamt Modulated BUT too large 2706 NT Roman Classical centers 2707 NT Piatra Neamt Modulated (all criteria are met) 2901 PH Baicoi Modulated BUT without playrooms 2902 PH Campina Classical centers 2903 PH Campina Modulated (all criteria are met) 2904 PH Filipestii de Targ Classical with some improvements 2905 PH Ploiesti Classical with some improvements 2906 PH Plopeni Classical centers 2907 PH Sinaia Classical centers 2908 PH Valenii de Munte Classical centers 132 CP code County Locality Type 3001 SM Halmeu Modulated BUT too large 3002 SM Hurezu Mare Classical with some improvements 3101 SJ Cehu Silvaniei Classical with some improvements 3102 SJ Jibou Classical with some improvements 3103 SJ Simleul Silvaniei Classical with some improvements 3201 SB Agarbiciu Classical centers 3202 SB Cisnadie Classical centers 3203 SB Medias Classical centers 3204 SB Orlat Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 3205 SB Sibiu Modulated (all criteria are met) 3206 SB Sibiu Modulated (all criteria are met) 3207 SB Turnu Rosu Classical with some improvements 3301 SV Siret Modulated (all criteria are met) 3302 SV Solca Modulated (all criteria are met) 3303 SV Suceava Classical with some improvements 3401 TR Alexandria Modulated (all criteria are met) 3501 TM Gavojdia Modulated (all criteria are met) 3502 TM Lugoj Modulated (all criteria are met) 3503 TM Lugoj Classical centers 3504 TM Recas Modulated BUT without sanitary infrastructure 3505 TM Timisoara Modulated BUT too large 3601 TL Mahmudia Classical centers 3603 TL Tulcea Classical centers 3604 TL Tulcea Classical centers 3605 TL Sulina Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure 3606 TL Topolog Classical with some improvements 3607 TL Somova Classical with some improvements 3801 VL Babeni Classical with some improvements 3802 VL Babeni Classical centers 3803 VL Rm. Valcea Classical centers 3804 VL Rm. Valcea Classical centers 3805 VL Rm. Valcea Modulated BUT too large 3806 VL Rm. Valcea Classical centers 3807 VL Rm. Valcea Classical centers 3808 VL Rm. Valcea Modulated (all criteria are met) 3901 VN Focșani Classical with some improvements 4101 B S1 Sector 1 Classical centers 4102 B S1 Sector 1 Classical centers 4104 B S1 Sector 1 Classical centers 4201 B S2 Sector 2 Classical centers 4301 B S3 Sector 3 Classical centers 4302 B S3 Sector 3 Modulated BUT without playrooms 133 CP code County Locality Type 4401 B S4 Sector 4 Classical centers 4501 B S5 Sector 5 Classical centers 5101 CL Calarasi Classical with some improvements 5102 CL Calarasi Modulated BUT too large 5103 CL Oltenita Modulated BUT without meal-related infrastructure Note: (N=167) Source: World Bank (2017) Output 2 of the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement for Provision of Technical Assistance on Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based Care. 134 Annex 2.3. List of placement centers with relatively high chances of being closed down (in February 2018) Annex 2.3. Table 1: List of placement centers with relatively high chances of being closed down (in February 2018) CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken CP which the talks, DGASPC says negotiations, it is in the actions process of (process in closure the initial (process Code County Locality Name of residential center stage) underway) 302 ARGEŞ Câmpulung Centru de tip rezidenţial - 1 (b) Complexul de Servicii pentru Copilul în Dificultate Câmpulung 307 ARGEŞ Rucăr Centrul rezidenţial - Complex de 1 (b) Servicii pentru Copilul în Dificultate Rucăr 503 BIHOR Oradea Centrul de Plasament Nr.2 Oradea 1 601 BISTRIŢA Beclean Centrul de Plasament de tip 1 NĂSĂUD familial pentru copii din cadrul CPC Beclean 602 BISTRIŢA Năsăud Centrul de Plasament de tip 1 NĂSĂUD familial pentru copii din cadrul CPC Năsăud 702 BOTOŞANI Pomarla Centrul de plasament Dumbrava 1 Minunată 703 (*) BOTOŞANI Trusesti Centru de plasament Sf. Nicolae 1 (b) 801 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de Plasament "Aurora" 1 (b) Codlea - Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea 803 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de reabilitare şcolară 1 (a) "Albina" - Complex de Servicii Măgura Codlea 805 BRAŞOV Făgăraş Centrul de reabilitare Şcolară 1 (b) "Floare de Colţ" Făgăraş - Complex de Servicii Făgăraş 135 CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken CP which the talks, DGASPC says negotiations, it is in the actions process of (process in closure the initial (process Code County Locality Name of residential center stage) underway) 810 BRAŞOV Săcele Centrul de plasament Ghiocelul - 1 (a) Complex de Reabilitare Şcolară Brădet 811 BRAŞOV Victoria Centrul de Plasament "Azur" 1 (a) Victoria - Complex de servicii Victoria 812 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de plasament Alice - 1 (b) Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea 1001 BUZĂU Beceni Centrul rezidenţial pentru 1 (b) recuperarea şi reabilitarea copilului cu tulburări de comportament nr. 5 Beceni 1002 BUZĂU Buzău Serviciul rezidenţial pentru copilul 1 aflat în dificultate socială , din cadrul Complexului de servicii comunitare nr. 2, Buzău 1004 BUZĂU Buzău Centrul rezidenţial pentru copiii cu 1 (a) handicap nr. 9, Buzău 1301 CONSTANŢA Agigea Centrul de Plasament "Delfinul" 1 (a) 1303 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Centrul de plasament "Ovidiu" 1 (a) 1304 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Complex de servicii comunitare 1 (a) "Cristina" 1305 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Complex de servicii comunitare 1 (a) "Orizont" 1402 COVASNA Olteni Centru de plasament nr. 6 Olteni 1 (b) 1702 GALAŢI Galaţi Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul 1 (b) cu cerinţe educative speciale Galata 1703 GALAŢI Galaţi Centrul de plasament nr.3 Galaţi 1 (b) 1802 GORJ Tg. Jiu Centrul de plasament destinat 1 protecţiei rezidenţiale a copiilor cu dizabilităţi-din cadrul CSC-CNS Tg. 136 CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken CP which the talks, DGASPC says negotiations, it is in the actions process of (process in closure the initial (process Code County Locality Name of residential center stage) underway) Jiu (copii cu dizabilităţi) 1803 GORJ Tg. Jiu Centrul de plasament destinat 1 protecţiei rezidenţiale a copiilor cu dizabilităţi -din cadrul CSC-CH Tg- Jiu (copii cu dizabilităţi) 1901 HARGHITA Bilbor Centru de plasament Bilbor 1 (b) 1902 HARGHITA Cristuru Centru de plasament pentru copii 1 (b) Secuiesc cu handicap sever Cristuru Secuiesc 1904 HARGHITA Subcetate Centru de plasament Subcetate 1 (b) 1905 HARGHITA Topliţa Centru de plasament pentru copii 1 cu handicap sever Topliţa 2201 IAŞI Horlesti Complex de Servicii Comunitare 1 (a) ''Bogdăneşti' 2202 IAŞI Iaşi Complex Servicii Comunitare 1 (b) Bucium 2205 IAŞI Iaşi Centrul de recuperare pentru 1 copilul cu handicap sever Galata - Casa Modulară SERA 2206 IAŞI Iaşi CP "Ion Holban" Iaşi 1 2207 IAŞI Iaşi CP "CA Rosetti" Iaşi 1 (b) 2209 IAŞI Paşcani Subunitatea Sf. Stelian 1 (b) 2211 IAŞI Tg. Frumos Complex de servicii sociale Tg. 1 Frumos Centrul "Sf. Spiridon" 2401 MARAMUREŞ Sighetu Centrul de plasament, asistenţă şi 1 Marmației sprijin a tinerilor care părăsesc sistemul de protecţie 2503 MEHEDINŢI Dr. Tr. Centru de plasament "Sf. Nicodim 1 (b) Severin " 2703 NEAMŢ Piatra Modul Casa "Călin" funcţionează 1 137 CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken CP which the talks, DGASPC says negotiations, it is in the actions process of (process in closure the initial (process Code County Locality Name of residential center stage) underway) Neamţ în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Elena Doamna", Piatra Neamţ 2704 NEAMŢ Piatra Modul Casa "Smărăndiţa" 1 Neamţ funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Elena Doamna", Piatra Neamţ 2706 NEAMŢ Roman Complex de servicii "Romaniţa", 1 (a) Roman 2906 PRAHOVA Plopeni Centrul de Plasament Plopeni - 1 (a) Centru de plasament 2907 PRAHOVA Sinaia Centrul de Plasament Sinaia - 1 (a) Centru de plasament 2908 PRAHOVA Vălenii de Complexul de Servicii Comunitare 1 (b) Munte “Sf. Maria” Vălenii de Munte, Centru de plasament 3102 SĂLAJ Jibou Centru de Plasament din cadrul 1 (b) Complexului de Servicii Sociale Jibou 3204 SIBIU Orlat Centrul de plasament Orlat 1 3302 SUCEAVA Solca Centrul de plasament "Mihail şi 1 Gavril" Solca 3303 SUCEAVA Suceava Centrul de plasament "Speranţa" 1 (b) Suceava 3401 TELEORMAN Alexandria Centrul de recuperare pentru 1 copilul cu nevoi speciale "Pinochio" din cadrul Complexului de servicii pentru copilul cu nevoi speciale 3501 TIMIŞ Găvojdia Centrul de plasament Găvojdia 1 (a) 3502 TIMIŞ Lugoj Centrul de plasament Logoj 1 3503 TIMIŞ Lugoj Serviciul de îngrijire de tip 1 (a) rezidențial pentru copilul cu 138 CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken CP which the talks, DGASPC says negotiations, it is in the actions process of (process in closure the initial (process Code County Locality Name of residential center stage) underway) dizabilități din cadrul Centrului de Recuperare și Reabilitare Neuropsihiatrică pentru Copilul cu Handicap Lugoj 3505 TIMIŞ Timișoara Serviciul de îngrijire de tip 1 rezidențial din cadrul Centrului de recuperare și reabilitare neuropsihiatrică pentru copii Timișoara 3603 TULCEA Tulcea Centrul de plasament pentru 1 (b) recuperarea şi reabilitarea copilului cu handicap sever Pelican 3604 TULCEA Tulcea Centrul de plasament Speranţa 1 (a) 3803 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul de Plasament "Andreea" 1 (b) 3804 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul de Plasament "Ana" 1 (b) 3805 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Serviciul de tip rezidenţial pentru 1 recuperarea copilului cu dizabilităţi Rm. Vâlcea 3806 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul pentru Copilul cu 1 (b) Dizabilităţi Rm. Vâlcea 3807 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Centrul pentru copilul abuzat, 1 neglijat, exploatat Total 23 37 Source: World Bank (N=60). The city of Bucharest is not included. Notes: (*) CP created through the merger of Traian Rural Group Home and Decebal Rural Group Home. (a) The DGASPC says it will apply for ROP funding under the call launched in February 2018 to finance the closure of this CP. (b) The DGASPC says it will apply for ROP/OP HC funding under future calls to finance the closure of this CP. 139 Annex 2.3. Table 2: List of placement centers with small or zero chances of being closed down (in February 2018) CP whose closure is envisaged at CP that the some point DGASPC (and in the future, the CJ) does but the not want to DGASPC has close down done now or in the Code County Locality Name of residential center nothing yet future 101 ALBA Blaj Servicii comunitare pentru protecţia copilului 1 Blaj - Centrul de plasament 201 ARAD Arad Centrul de recuperare şi reabilitare pentru 1 copii cu dizabilităţi Arad 202 ARAD Arad Centrul de Plasament "Oituz" Arad 1 203 ARAD Arad Centrul de Criză Arad 1 204 ARAD Zădăreni Centrul de Plasament Zădăreni 1 301 ARGEŞ Câmpulung Centru de tip rezidenţial pentru copii cu 1 dizabilităţi - Complexul de Servicii Comunitare pentru Copii cu Dizabilităţi Câmpulung 303 ARGEŞ Costeşti Centrul de tip rezidenţial pentru copii cu 1 dizabilităţi - Complex de Servicii pentru Copii cu Dizabilităţi Costeşti 304 ARGEŞ Piteşti Centru de tip rezidenţial pentru copii cu 1 dizabilităţi şi respite - care - Complex de Servicii pentru Copilul cu Handicap Trivale Piteşti 305 ARGEŞ Piteşti Centrul de tip rezidenţial - Complexul de 1 Servicii Comunitare Pentru Copilul în Dificultate Sf. Constantin şi Elena Piteşti 306 ARGEŞ Piteşti Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi 1 şi respite-care - Centrul de Copii "SF. Andrei", Piteşti 501 BIHOR Oradea Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu 1 dizabilităţi nr.6 Oradea 502 BIHOR Oradea Centrul de Plasament Oradea - Modul 1 Dalmaţienii 504 BIHOR Popeşti Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu 1 dizabilităţi Popeşti 140 CP whose closure is envisaged at CP that the some point DGASPC (and in the future, the CJ) does but the not want to DGASPC has close down done now or in the Code County Locality Name of residential center nothing yet future 603 BISTRIŢA Bistriţa Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru 1 NĂSĂUD copilul cu dizabilităţi din cadrul CPC Bistriţa 701 BOTOŞANI Botoşani Centrul de plasament Prietenia 1 802 BRAŞOV Codlea Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 handicap "Speranţa" - Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea 804 BRAŞOV Făgăraş Centrul de Plasament "Casa Maria" - Complex 1 de Servicii Făgăraş 806 BRAŞOV Ghimbav Centrul "Sfântul STELIAN" Ghimbav 1 807 BRAŞOV Jibert Complex de servicii "Dacia" 1 808 BRAŞOV Rupea Centrul de Plasament "Casa Ioana" Rupea 1 1003 BUZĂU Buzău Centrul rezidenţial din cadrul Complexului de 1 servicii pentru copilul cu handicap sever nr. 8, Buzău 1101 CARAŞ Caransebeş Centrul "Bunavestire" Caransebeş fost 1 SEVERIN Complexul de servicii sociale "Bunavestire" Caransebeş - Modulul Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu dizabilităţi 1102 CARAŞ Reşiţa Centrul "Speranţa" Reşiţa fost Centrul de 1 SEVERIN Plasament "Speranţa" Reşiţa - Modulul Centrul de plasament 1103 CARAŞ Zăgujeni Centrul "Casa Noastra" Zăgujeni fost Centrul 1 SEVERIN de Plasament "Casa Noastră" Zăgujeni - Modulul Centrul de plasament 1201 CLUJ Cluj Complexul de servicii destinat protecţiei 1 Napoca copilului nr. 2-Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi: centre de plasament 1202 CLUJ Cluj Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea 1 Napoca copiilor cu handicap uşor şi mediu nr. 9 "Ţăndărică"- Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi 1203 CLUJ Cluj Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea 1 Napoca copiilor cu handicap neuropsihic sever nr. 10 141 CP whose closure is envisaged at CP that the some point DGASPC (and in the future, the CJ) does but the not want to DGASPC has close down done now or in the Code County Locality Name of residential center nothing yet future "Pinochio" - Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi: centre de plasament 1302 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Centrul de plasament "Antonio"-componenta 1 modulată 1306 CONSTANŢA Constanţa Centrul de plasament "Traian" 1 1307 CONSTANŢA Techirghiol Complex de servicii comunitare "Sparta 1 Rotterdam"- Componenta modulată ( D) 1401 COVASNA Baraolt Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi 1 Baraolt - funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii comunitare Baraolt 1403 COVASNA Tg. Centru de plasament "Borsnyay Kamilla" Tg 1 Secuiesc Secuiesc 1501 DÂMBOVIŢA Găeşti Complexul de Servicii Sociale Găeşti, Centrul 1 de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi 1601 DOLJ Craiova Centrul de plasament "Noricel" 1 1602 DOLJ Craiova Centrul de plasament "VIS DE COPIL" 1 1603 DOLJ Craiova Centrul de Plasament "PRICHINDEL" 1 1605 DOLJ Craiova Centru de plasament "Sf Apostol Andrei" 1 1704 GALAŢI Munteni Centrul de reabilitare şi reintegrare socială a 1 copilului- Casa "David Austin" Munteni 1705 GALAŢI Tecuci Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul cu cerinţe 1 educative speciale Tecuci 1801 GORJ Tg. Centrul de Plasament destinat protecţiei 1 Cărbuneşti rezidenţiale a copiilor - din cadrul CSC-CD Tg-Cărbuneşti 1903 HARGHITA Ocland Centru de plasament Ocland 1 2001 HUNEDOARA Brad Centrul de plasament Brad 1 2002 HUNEDOARA Hunedoara Casa familială pt copilul cu dizabilităţi 1 Hunedoara 142 CP whose closure is envisaged at CP that the some point DGASPC (and in the future, the CJ) does but the not want to DGASPC has close down done now or in the Code County Locality Name of residential center nothing yet future 2003 HUNEDOARA Hunedoara Centrul specializat pt copii cu dizabilităţi 1 Hunedoara 2004 HUNEDOARA Lupeni Centrul de Plasament Lupeni 1 2101 IALOMIŢA Slobozia Centrul de Plasament nr. 2 Slobozia 1 2102 IALOMIŢA Slobozia Centrul de Plasament nr. 3 Slobozia 1 2103 IALOMIŢA Urziceni Complex de Servicii Urziceni (Serviciul 1 Rezidenţial) 2204 IAŞI Iaşi Complex de servicii comunitare "Sf. Andrei" 1 2208 IAŞI Paşcani Complexul de servicii" M. Sadoveanu" Paşcani 1 2210 IAŞI Paşcani Complex de servicii "Sf. Nicolae" Paşcani 1 2301 ILFOV Periş Centrul de Plasament nr. 5 Periş 1 2302 ILFOV Periş Centrul de Plasament nr. 1 Periş 1 2303 ILFOV Periș Centrul de Plasament "Piticot" 1 2304 ILFOV Voluntari Centrul de Plasament nr. 6 Voluntari 1 2501 MEHEDINŢI Dr. Tr. Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 Severin dizabilităţi 0-7 ani (funcţionează în cadrul complexului de servicii sociale pentru copilul preşcolar) 2502 MEHEDINŢI Dr. Tr. Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 Severin dizabilități 2601 MUREŞ Sighișoara Complex de servicii pentru copilul cu 1 deficienţe neuropsihiatrice Sighişoara - Serviciul Rezidenţial 2701 NEAMŢ Piatra Modulul Casa "Traian" funcţionează în cadrul 1 Neamţ Complexului de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ 2702 NEAMŢ Piatra Modulul Casa "Floare de Colţ" funcţionează 1 Neamţ în cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ 143 CP whose closure is envisaged at CP that the some point DGASPC (and in the future, the CJ) does but the not want to DGASPC has close down done now or in the Code County Locality Name of residential center nothing yet future 2705 NEAMŢ Piatra Centrul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu 1 Neamţ dizabilităţi Piatra Neamţ 2707 NEAMŢ Piatra Modulul Casa "DECEBAL" funcţionează în 1 Neamţ cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ 2901 PRAHOVA Băicoi Complexul de Servicii Comunitare “Rază de 1 Soare” Băicoi-Centru de plasament 2902 PRAHOVA Câmpina Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf. 1 Filofteia» Câmpina, Centru de plasament 2903 PRAHOVA Câmpina Centrul de Plasament Câmpina - Centru de 1 Plasament 2904 PRAHOVA Filipeştii de Centrul de Plasament Filipeştii de Târg - 1 Târg Centru de plasament 2905 PRAHOVA Ploieşti Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf. 1 Andrei» Ploieşti, Centru de plasament 3001 SATU MARE Halmeu CPC ”Floare de colț” Halmeu 1 3002 SATU MARE Hurezu CPC “Roua” Hurezu Mare 1 Mare 3101 SĂLAJ Cehu Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului 1 Silvaniei de Servicii Sociale Cehu Silvaniei 3103 SĂLAJ Șimleul Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului 1 Silvaniei de Servicii Sociale Şimleu Silvaniei 3201 SIBIU Agîrbiciu Centrul de Plasament Agârbiciu 1 3202 SIBIU Cisnădie Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 dizabilități "Tavi Bucur" Cisnădie 3205 SIBIU Sibiu Centrul de plasament Gulliver, Sibiu 1 3206 SIBIU Sibiu Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 dizabilități "Prichindelul" Sibiu - Complexul de servicii "Prichindel" Sibiu 3207 SIBIU Turnu Roşu Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 dizabilităţi Turnu Roşu 144 CP whose closure is envisaged at CP that the some point DGASPC (and in the future, the CJ) does but the not want to DGASPC has close down done now or in the Code County Locality Name of residential center nothing yet future 3301 SUCEAVA Siret Servicii pentru copilul aflat în dificultate Siret 1 - Centrul terapeutic modular pentru copilul cu nevoi speciale "Ama Deus" Siret 3504 TIMIŞ Recaș Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu 1 dizabilități Recaș 3601 TULCEA Mahmudia Centrul de plasament Mahmudia 1 3605 TULCEA Sulina Centrul de plasament Sulina 1 3606 TULCEA Topolog Centrul de plasament Sâmbăta Nouă 1 3607 TULCEA Somova Centrul de plasament Somova 1 3802 VÂLCEA Băbeni Casa "Pinocchio" Băbeni 1 3808 VÂLCEA Rm. Vâlcea Serviciul de tip familial pentru deprinderi de 1 viață și integrare socioprofesională a tinerilor din sistemul de protecție - componenta rezidențială 5101 CĂLĂRAŞI Călărași Serviciul rezidenţial în cadrul Centrului de 1 Servicii Sociale pentru Copil şi Familie ”SERA” 5102 CĂLĂRAŞI Călărași Serviciul Rezidenţial (în cadrul Complexului 1 de servicii comunitare pentru copilul cu handicap sever Călăraşi) 5103 CĂLĂRAŞI Oltenița Serviciul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu handicap 1 sever - din cadrul C.S.C. Olteniţa Total 31 56 Source: World Bank (N=87). Bucharest is not included. 145 Annex 3. List of rural source communities for the child protection system and rural communities with marginalized areas, by counties Excel file 146 Competence makes a difference! Project selected under the Administrative Capacity Operational Program, co-financed by European Union from the European Social Fund