Output #4: (i) Mapping source communities for children living in Residential
Centers, (ii) evaluation of the resources that might be used to compensate for
the closing of Residential Centers, and (iii) evaluation of the effectiveness of
community-based services




                                  English version
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 paper are entirely those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, 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 complete
information to: (i) the National Authority for Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption (7 Gheorghe
Magheru Avenue, Sector 1, Bucharest); or (ii) the World Bank Group in Romania (31 Vasile Lascăr
Street, 6th floor, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania).




                                                   2
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 (P156981)




OUTPUT #4: (i) Mapping
source communities for
children      living    in
Residential Centers, (ii)
evaluation       of   the
resources that might be
used to compensate for
the closing of Residential
Centers,      and     (iii)
evaluation       of   the
effectiveness           of
community-based services




This report was 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 the Plan for the Deinstitutionalization of Children in Residential Care and Their
Transition to Community-Based Care� – code SIPOCA 2, funded by the European Social Fund under the
Operational Program for Administrative Capacity. This report is part of Output 4 under the
Agreement.




                                                  3
Acknowledgements

Output #4 under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on Development of Plans for the
Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based
Care was developed under the supervision of Mr. Cem Mete, with overall guidance from Ms. Tatiana
Proskuryakova.

Data collection and report preparation activities were coordinated by Mr. Emil Teșliuc, Mr. Vlad
Grigoraș (team leaders), and Ms. Manuela Sofia Stănculescu. The document received contributions
from a team of 69 consultants, comprising 22 professional social workers – members of the Romanian
National Association of Social Workers (CNASR), 24 sociologists, and 23 research assistants. The
following people contributed to data analysis and report preparation: Simona Anton, Diana Mioara
Ardelean, Elena Cătălina Iamandi Cioinaru, Bogdan Corad, Cristina Cornea (Vladu), Adrian Dușa,
Marinela Grigore, Lavinia Iagăr, Eugen Lucan, Monica Marin, Mihaela Moțoc, Marcela Neagu, Oana
Perju, Emilia Sorescu, Andreea Stănculescu (Trocea), and Mihaela Zanoschi. Monica Lachner translated
portions of Output #4 into English. The report was peer reviewed by Aleksandra Posarac (Lead
Economist, GSP03) and Yulia Smolyar (Sr. Social Protection Specialist, GSP03). The team also received
support from Andrei Zambor, Monica Ion, Corina Grigore, Oana Caraba, and Alexandra Călin.

The World Bank would like to acknowledge the excellent cooperation, guidance and timely feedback
provided by the ANPDCA representatives, in particular by Ms. Gabriela Coman (President), Ms. Elena
Tudor (Project Manager) and Ms. Simona Oproiu (Responsible with the monitoring of the Outputs 2 and
4). Also, the World Bank would like to express its gratitude to all public employees who got involved in
data collection. The World Bank team would like to particularly thank the directors of General
Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection (DGASPC), the mayors of the 35 source
communities, coordinating school principals and the physicians from those communities, for their
cooperation.

Also, the World Bank team would like to thank the main child protection NGOs, as well as UNICEF and
other institutions which lent their support throughout the data collection process.

Equal opportunities and equity

All project activities were designed and implemented for the equal benefit of boys and girls, men and
women. The project team and experts received equal treatment, regardless of gender, ethnic origin,
or other characteristics.

Sustainable development

During project implementation, the World Bank team aimed for a wise and effective use of resources
to protect the environment and ensure social cohesion. Every citizen and institution should bear in
mind that sustainable development is the only way to meet human needs without undermining the
integrity of natural systems and the future of humanity as a whole.




                                                   4
CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES ................................................................................ 7
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 14
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 35
PART 1. CLOSURE STATUS OF PLACEMENT CENTERS FOR CHILDREN IN ROMANIA ........................... 41
  1.1. Data ........................................................................................................... 41
  1.2. General overview ........................................................................................... 42
  1.3. Placement centers with relatively high chances of being closed down ............................. 43
  1.4. Placement centers with small to zero chances of being closed down ............................... 46
  1.5. Main obstacles to the closure of placement centers for children and youth ....................... 48
PART 2A. PROFESSIONAL FOSTER CARE (AMP) ................................................................... 53
  2A.1. Data ......................................................................................................... 54
  2A.2. The foster care (AMP) network .......................................................................... 54
  2A.3. Profile of children in foster care ........................................................................ 62
  2A.4. Relevance of the AMP network for the process of closing down placement centers ............ 62
  2A.5. Implementing standards and case manage-ment at the AMP ....................................... 63
  2A.6. Effectiveness of the AMP services ....................................................................... 72
PART 2B. NETWORK OF FAMILY-TYPE FOSTER CARE WITH RELATIVES AND OTHER FAMILIES / PERSONS 76
  2B.1. Data ......................................................................................................... 77
  2B.2. Family-type foster care network ........................................................................ 78
  2B.3. Profile of children in family-type foster care ......................................................... 87
  2B.4. Relevance of the professional foster parent network in the process of closing the care homes
  for children ........................................................................................................ 88
  2B.5. Implementation of standards and case management to professional foster parents ............ 89
  2B.5. Efficiency of family-type foster care ................................................................... 98
PART 2C. SMALL-SIZED RESIDENTIAL-TYPE FACILITIES: FAMILY-TYPE HOMES AND APARTMENTS ........ 105
  2C.1. Data ........................................................................................................ 107
  2C.2. Network of small-sized residential-type facilities ................................................... 107
  2C.3. Groups of small-sized residential-type facilities ..................................................... 110
  2C.4. Territorial distribution of small-sized residential-type facilities .................................. 110
  2C.5. Profile of children living in small-sized residential-type facilities ................................ 111
  2C.6. Relevance of the network of small-sized residential-type facilities in the process of closing the
  care homes for children ........................................................................................ 112
  2C.7. Care environment in small-sized residential-type facilities ........................................ 113
  2C.8. Efficiency of small-sized residential-type facilities ................................................. 116
PART3. CHILD PROTECTION CASE MANAGEMENT IN ROMANIA ................................................ 125
  3.1. Data .......................................................................................................... 125
  3.2. Case manager network .................................................................................... 126




                                                           5
  3.3. Implementation of standards and case management ................................................. 131
  3.4. Evaluation of case management per-formance ........................................................ 138
PART 4. SOURCE COMMUNITIES FOR THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ...................................... 142
  6.1. Selecting the source communities ....................................................................... 142
  6.2. The data ..................................................................................................... 148
  6.3. Source Communities and Child Welfare Services ...................................................... 150
     6.3.1. Children from Source Communities, placed in the Special Protection System ............... 150
     6.3.2. Child Welfare Services in the source communities ............................................... 153
  6.4. Groups of children and young people from source communities, under difficult situations .... 154
  6.5. Efficiency of prevention and support services within the source communities ................... 155
     6.5.1. Social Services ......................................................................................... 155
     6.5.2. Educational Services.................................................................................. 159
     6.5.3. Medical Services ...................................................................................... 159
     6.5.4. Experts from the community ........................................................................ 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 167
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................. 169
  ANNEX Part 1: Statistical data ................................................................................. 169
  ANNEX Part 2A: Statistical data on the professional foster carers (AMPs) ............................... 188
  ANNEX Part 2B: Statistical data on family-type foster care (PFam) ...................................... 213
  ANNEX Part 2C: Statistical data on small-sized residential-type.......................................... 240
  ANNEX Part 3: Statistical data regarding child protection case managers (MCs) ....................... 250
  ANNEX Part 4: Statistical data ................................................................................. 255




                                                           6
LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES
List of figures

Figure 1: Distribution of placement centers in Romania, according to closure status, as of February
2018 (number of centers)........................................................................................... 42

Figure 2: Evolution of the number of children and young people in the special care system, by types of
care, between 12.31.2010-12.31.2017 ........................................................................... 53

Figure 3: Year of first certification for AMPs active in February-March 2018 ............................... 54

Figure 4: AMPs’ distribution, based on seniority (from the first certification as an AMP till February
2018) (number of AMPs) ............................................................................................ 55

Figure 5: Foster carers’ distribution by age groups and level of education (number of AMPs) ........... 56

Figure 6: AMPs’ distribution based on the number of children in their care in February 2018 and those
cared for in the past, since their first certification as an AMP (number of AMPs) ......................... 57

Figure 7: AMPs’ distribution depending on their seniority and number of children ever cared for, sin ce
their first certification (between 1998-2018)(%) ................................................................ 58

Figure 8: AMP distribution by county and residential area (%) ................................................ 59

Figure 9: Number of field visits at AMPs’ paid by CMs during the past 12 months ......................... 65

Figure 10: Number of petitions/complaints/allegations against AMPs recorded in the part 12 months
(number per county) ................................................................................................ 68

Figure 11: Evaluation of actions and activities carried out by AMP to meet the child ’s needs , by types
of needs ............................................................................................................... 72

Figure12: Evolution in the number of children and youth benefiting from special protection measure in
family type services, broken down per types of services, between 31 December 2010 and 31 December
2017 ................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 13: Year when family-type foster care active in February-March 2018 received the first children
under their care, broken down per types of PFam.............................................................. 78

Figure 14: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on their length of service as PFam (from
the time when they received the first child under their care until February 2018), broken down per
types of PFam (number) ............................................................................................ 78

Figure15: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the caregiver of the child/children
under special protection measures (%) ........................................................................... 80

Figure 16: Distribution of caregivers per gender and level of education (number) ........................ 81

Figure 17: Distribution of family-type foster care per county and residence environment (%) .......... 83

Figure 18: Distribution of children benefiting from care in PFam in February 2018 depending on the
kinship to the caregiver (%) ........................................................................................ 87




                                                            7
Figure 19: Number of on-site visits at the domicile of the foster parent conducted by the CM in the
past 12 months ....................................................................................................... 91

Figure 20: Situation of foster care in February 2018 as compared to the time when the foster care
measure was set up (when the first child was received) ...................................................... 98

Figure 21: Assessment of actions and activities conducted by PFam in order to satisfy the children’s
needs, broken down per types of needs .......................................................................... 99

Figure 22: Evolution in the number of children and youth in small-sized residential-type facilities,
broken down per types, between 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2017 ............................. 105

Figure 23: Year of first certification for small-sized residential-type Facilities ........................... 107

Figure 24: Distribution of county networks of small-sized residential-type facilities (AP/CTF),
depending on the average number of years for which they operated until February 2018 .............. 108

Figure 25: Distribution of small-sized residential-type facilities depending on their capacity, as
declared by the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection (number) ............. 108

Figure 26: Explanations for the difficult fulfillment of SMO by the MCs in their everyday work (%) ... 136

Figure 27: Evaluation of case management performance by case managers and DGASPC management
........................................................................................................................ 138

Figure 28: The proportion of communes with marginalized areas according to the number of mothers in
the commune with children in public care (%) ................................................................. 144

Figure 29: Proportion of villages with marginalized areas according to the number of mothers in the
commune with children in public care (%) ...................................................................... 144

Figure 30: Number of participants in interviews conducted in DGASPC and source communities ...... 149

Figure 31: Distribution of children in the protection system coming from the surveyed source
communities, by types of protection services .................................................................. 151

Figure 32: Distribution of known and alive mothers depending on their actual home address, in
February 2018 (%)................................................................................................... 152

Figure 33: The distribution of children and young people in the protection system that are coming from
source communities by status of parents (%) ................................................................... 153



List of maps

Map 1: Map of AMP services for the 35 counties analyzed (number of AMPs) ............................... 60

Map 2: Map of children placed with AMPs in the 35 counties analyzed (number of children) ............ 61

Map 3: Map of family-type foster care services for the 35 counties under review (number of PFam) .. 85

Map 4: Map of children under family-type foster care in the 35 counties under review (number of
children) .............................................................................................................. 86

Map 5: Average number of children with a special measure per case manager, by counties ............ 128




                                                             8
List of tables

Table 1: Children and youth in the special protection system, by types of protection services, in
February-March 2018 ................................................................................................ 36

Table 2: Changes in the number of children and youth living in placement centers in Romania, between
October 31st, 2016 and February 1st, 2018, according to closure status ..................................... 43

Table 3: Activities performed and funding sources considered by placement centers with chances of
being closed down, as of February 2018 (number of centers) ................................................ 44

Table 4: Main problems/difficulties in the closure of placement centers for children (number of
centers) ............................................................................................................... 45

Table 5: Main reasons given by DGASPC directors for not having done anything/not wanting to close
down these centers (number of centers) ......................................................................... 47

Table 6: Distribution of placement centers for children in Romania, according to eligibility for ROP
funding, closure status and the funding sources that DGASPC directors say they intend to use for
closing down the centers, as of February 2018 .................................................................. 49

Table 7: AMP distribution, based on the number of children in their care (% of total AMPs) ............. 56

Table 8: Relation between the use of the AMP network and average time spent by a child with the
same AMP ............................................................................................................. 58

Table 9: Distribution of children in the AMPs’ care in February 2018, by gender and age (% of total) . 62

Table 10: Children who left foster care in the last 12 months, depending on the exit method (%) ..... 63

Table 11: AMP distribution based on ethnicity and religion (% total) ........................................ 63

Table 12: AMP distribution, based on household composition and number of rooms (% of total AMPs) . 67

Table 13: Compulsory Minimum Standards (CMS) best met and most difficult to meet by the AMP
network (%) ........................................................................................................... 69

Table 14: Support received by the AMP at the AMP Service/Office, in the past 12 months (number of
AMPs) .................................................................................................................. 71

Table 15: Total monthly cost per child placed with an AMP .................................................. 73

Table 16: Distribution of family-type foster care (PFam), children under care and caregivers, broken
down per types of PFam ............................................................................................ 77

Table 17: Distribution of PFam depending on ethnicity and religion (% total) .............................. 82

Table 18: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the number of children in their care and
on the type of PFam (% total PFam) .............................................................................. 82

Table 19: Distribution of children benefiting from foster care in PFam in February 2018, broken down
per gender and age (% total) ....................................................................................... 87

Table 20: Children who left family-type foster care in the past 12 months, depending on the exit
method ................................................................................................................ 88

Table 21: Participation of foster families/persons in setting up the CPP and CSP for the children in
their care, broken down per types of PFam (%) ................................................................. 90



                                                            9
Table 22: County rules on the interaction between the CM and the child under family-type foster care
......................................................................................................................... 92

Table 23: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the members of the household and the
number of rooms, per residential environments (% total PFam) .............................................. 93

Table 24: Support received by PFam from the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child
Protection, in the past 12 months (number of PFam) .......................................................... 97

Table 25: Manner in which the small-sized residential-type facility network is used, broken down per
types, in February-March 2018.................................................................................... 109

Table 26: Distribution of small-sized residential-type facilities individually or in communities of social
service beneficiaries ............................................................................................... 110

Table 27: Network of small-sized residential-type facilities, broken down per types and residential
environments ........................................................................................................ 111

Table 28: Characteristics of children and youth living in small-sized residential-type facilities ........ 111

Table 29: Children and youth who left the network of small-sized residential-type facilities in 2017,
broken down per exit method (%) ................................................................................ 113

Table 30: Activities for the development of independent life skills in the CTFs reviewed as part of the
case studies (number of CTFs) .................................................................................... 117

Table 31: Case management for children and youth in APs/CTFs (% total) ................................ 118

Table 32: Case manager network and interviewed case managers, by county ............................ 125

Table 33: Case managers’ characteristics ....................................................................... 128

Table 34: Compulsory minimum standards (SMO) fulfilled best and most difficult to fulfill by the
network of case managers (%) .................................................................................... 135

Table 35: Assessment of the DGASPC’s provision of the resources needed for case management
implementation ..................................................................................................... 137

Table 36: Data on the localities where the mothers of the children from the placement centers in the
country live .......................................................................................................... 143

Table 37: The distribution of communes in which mothers of children and young people living in
placement centers in the country are according to the number of mothers ............................... 143

Table 38: The distribution of communes where mothers of children in placement centers live according
to the number of mothers and the presence of a marginalized area in the commune ................... 145

Table 39: List of selected source communities ................................................................. 146

Table 40: Distribution of selected communes by categories of source communities and depending on
the presence of a marginalized area within the respective commune ...................................... 147

Table 41: The distribution of selected source communities according to the type of functional micro-
area ................................................................................................................... 148

Table 42: Distribution of the children in the protection system coming from these communes, by
source community and by the presence of a marginalized area within the respective commune ...... 150




                                                            10
Table 43: Children and young people from the protection system that are coming from the 35 source
communities ......................................................................................................... 151

Table 44: Children and young people in the protection system that are coming from source
communities and their known and alive mothers, depending on the number of children in the system of
one mother .......................................................................................................... 152

Table 45: The protection services and the children and young people in protection services, within
source communities, February 2018 ............................................................................. 153

Table 46: Center-type social services located within source communities and rural/urban functional
micro-area (number of source communities) ................................................................... 157

Table 47: Interventions/actions-type social services, within source communities and Rural/Urban
Micro-areas (number of source communities) .................................................................. 158

Table 48: Schools existing within source communities and functional rural/urban micro-areas (number
of source communities) ............................................................................................ 160

Table 49: Interventions/actions-type educational services developed within source communities and in
Rural/ Urban Micro-areas (number of source communities) .................................................. 161

Table 50: Medical Units existing within source communities and within rural/urban functional micro-
areas (number of source communities) .......................................................................... 162

Table 51: Medical Services of intervention/action-type existing within source communities and within
rural/urban micro-areas (number of source communities) ................................................... 163

Table 52: Types of experts existing within source communities (number of source communities) ..... 164




                                                           11
ACRONYMS

AMP                       Professional foster carer

ANPDCA                    National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption

AP                        Apartments

APL                       Local Public Authorities

WB                        World Bank

SEN                       Special educational needs

CNASR                     Romanian National Association of Social Workers

CP                        Placement center

CTF                       Group home

DGASPC                    General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection

HCL                       Local Council Decision

HHC                       Hope and Homes for Children Romania

ISJ                       County School Inspectorate

MEN                       Ministry of National Education

MMJS                      Ministry of Labor and Social Justice1

NGO                       Non-governmental organization

ROP                       Regional Operational Program

PNDR                      National Rural Development Program

PFam                      Family placement

TD                        Technical design

SPAS                      Public Social Assistance Service

FS                        Feasibility study




1
    Called the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly (MMFPSPV) until January 2017.




                                                                 12
     Output #4:
     Executive
     Summary




13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Context and Structure
This diagnostic study was carried out under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement concluded
for the Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and
Their Transfer to Community-Based Care, between the World Bank and the National Authority for the
Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption (ANPDCA), on May 12, 2016. The Agreement covers the
implementation of the ANPDCA project – “Development of the Plan for the Deinstitutionalization of
Children in Residential Care and Their Transition to Community-Based Care� – code SIPOCA 2, funded
by the European Social Fund under the Operational Program for Administrative Capacity.

Between December 2017 and April 2018, the World Bank team collected and analyzed the data needed
to prepare the fourth deliverable under the Agreement (Output #4). This report is a continuation of
the first three deliverables, already submitted to the ANPDCA (in February, May and November 2017),
as well as an opening for Output #5, which will be developed in the following months and will focus on
the plans to develop preventive and support services for children and families at community level.

Output #4 focuses on all four strategic lines of action for the deinstitutionalization of children
deprived of parental care provisioned in the “National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of
Children’s Rights 2014-2020�. Thus, Part 1 presents an update on the closure status of placement
centers for children in Romania. Part 2 maps out and analyzes alternative services to residential care,
being organized into three sections, as follows: (A) the foster care network (AMP); (B) the network of
family placements with relatives and other families or people (PFam); (C) small-sized residential care
services, that is group homes (CTFs) and apartments (APs). Part 3 analyzes the case management,
more precisely the capacity of the current network of case managers to ensure the timely delivery of
good-quality services that meet the needs of children and youth in special care. Part 4 discusses the
availability of services for a number of 35 source communities. The report is complemented by 35
stand-alone reports at county level and by an extensive methodological document.

Data
The whole analysis looks at all 35 Romanian counties where there is at least one placement center for
children. The data was collected between February and March 2018 by a World Bank team 2. Output #4
benefited from a workshop with the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights and
Adoption (ANPDCA), social workers from the Romanian National Association of Social Workers (CNASR),
and the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection (DGASPC), organized by the
World Bank at Brașov, from February 5th to February 8th, 2018.

In the field research, 35 interviews with DGASPC directors, 12 interviews with County Council (CJ)
presidents (vice-presidents or secretaries), and three interviews with mayors were conducted, from all
the counties with at least one placement center for children.

Data collection on professional foster carers has been structured in four distinct stages: (1) making a
face-to-face interview with the Head of the AMP Department (or similar) from DGASPC; (2) completing
the census of professional foster carers with a limited set of information; (3) the random selection of a
sample of 592 AMP that filled out a questionnaire on both the AMP and the children placed at him/her
and (4) the selection at each county level of 1-4 case studies. Only AMPs certified by DGASPC were

2
  The research team included professional social workers, members of the NCSAR, sociologists and research assistants. GDSACP
specialists, serving as heads of departments, inspectors, counselors, case managers, referents, social assistants and
psychologists, also attended data collection.




                                                            14
included in the research, regardless of whether they had children in care at the time of the research
or not.

For studying Pfam, in the first stage, a face-to-face interview was conducted with the Head of the
Case Management Service or Family-Type Foster Care (or similar) services within the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, in connection with county-wide practices. In the
second stage, the census of family-type foster care (PFam) was supplemented, containing a small set
of information. In the third stage, a sample of 774 PFam was randomly selected, to which a
questionnaire was provided in connection both with the foster family, and with the children under
their care. The questionnaires were filled out together with the children’s case managers, within the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, in reliance upon the data existing in
their files. In the last stage, 1 to 4 case studies were selected from each county, totaling 57, which
were targeted by the social assistants within the World Bank team by on-site visits conducted together
with the case managers of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection.

Data on small-sized residential care services have been collected in three stages: (i) the first step
consisted in the performance of a census of small-scale residential services (AP and CTF) and
comprised a limited set of information, applied to each institution, irrespective of whether the
institution hosted or not children and youth at the time of the research; (ii) during the second step, a
random sample was selected comprising 96 APs and 266 CTFs, to which a desk assessment
questionnaire was administered; (iii) in the last step, 1-2 CTFs were selected from each county for
case studies, in total 50, which were conducted by the social workers in the World Bank team by
means of field visits, together with DGASP case managers. Overall, during the census, 98% of the CTFs
and 73% of the APs were functional, out of the total existing services.

For the collection of data on case management implementation at county level, interviews were
conducted with DGASPC management representatives and with case managers. In this research, case
managers were selected for interviews based on two criteria: (1) the case manager has at least one
active case of a child with a special protection measure in place and (2) the case manager is not the
service provider. Using these two criteria, 785 case managers were identified, but face-to-face
interviews were conducted with only 675 of them.

Closure Status of Placement Centers for Children in Romania
This section discusses the closure of placement centers for children in Romania. We would like to
mention that, in our understanding, the deinstitutionalization of children should be child-centered and
planned for the best interests of the children and youth living in those institutions. Thus, all
deinstitutionalization efforts should take into consideration that no child would be moved out of the
place where she/he is unless a better care option is found.

The current situation at national level shows that deinstitutionalization efforts continue to face major
challenges in Romania. They come from the large number of placement centers with small chances of
being closed down by 2020, the increasing number of children living in centers which are currently not
in the process of closure, as well as a series of obstacles identified by DGASPC directors during the
closure process. More than half of the centers have small (or zero) chances of being closed down by
2020. The other 40% (or 60 centers) are in the process of closure, either in the initial stage (23
centers) or in a more advanced stage (37 centers). The number of children diminished only in the
centers declared to be in the process of closure and it increased in all the other types of centers.

The “hard core� of deinstitutionalization efforts in Romania comprises a number of 87 placement
centers for children with relatively small chances of closing down by 2020. More than that, for 56
centers, the DGASPCs say that “closure is not envisaged to take place now or in the future�. The share
of centers that the DGASPCs do not want to close down is significantly higher among centers without
youth aged 18+, but with children under 3, among those with children with disabilities, especially with
profound disabilities, as well as among centers with juvenile offenders or with a high share of children
with risky behaviors.




                                                  15
The project implemented by the World Bank and the ANPDCA, aimed at the “Development of the Plan
for the Deinstitutionalization of Children in Residential Care and Their Transition to Community-Based
Care� (code SIPOCA 2), has provided substantial support to the closure of placement centers in
Romania. Based on the methodology developed under Output #2 and refined under Output #3, with the
e-cuib application, 29 centers have already completed the multidisciplinary evaluation of all children
and youth. In addition, another quarter (15 centers) of the centers likely to be closed down either
already use the e-cuib application or intend to use it in the future. Overall, the 60 placement centers
with high chances of being closed down by 2020 accommodated almost 2,750 children and young
people, that is 51% of all children in institutional care, as of February 1st, 2018.

The deinstitutionalization process should continue in a way that takes into account the
problems/difficulties identified in this research. The most frequently mentioned problems have to do
with land, namely identifying and procuring it, but also with related permits and documentation.
Second, the limited institutional capacity of the DGASPCs to implement concurrently several EU-
funded projects is highly relevant if we consider that almost half (69 centers) of all placement centers
nationwide are concentrated in nine counties. Third, center employees oppose the closure of some
centers, mainly because they are offered alternatives that are not considered acceptable. Fourth,
problems at community level concern the need to develop preventive and support services for children
and families, as well as the need to improve acceptance of special child protection services. There is
also a feeling of frustration among the DGASPCs with a relatively small number of centers. During
interviews, several DGASPC directors emphasized that: “those who have done nothing until now are
more favored� or “performance is punished�, since “Romanian counties split into three categories as
regards child deinstitutionalization. There are counties which have closed down the CPs and have set
up alternative services, counties which have modernized the CPs, and counties which have
demonstrated a lack of involvement and strategy for 20 years. The latter are very unlikely to actually
do anything now, even with the available funds�. In addition, there are also cases of centers where, in
the latter programming period, the funds available in the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) have
been used for improving the living conditions. For these residential centers, one of the conditions in
the financing contract from ROP funds was that the centers should be functional for a number of
years.

Other obstacles to the application for EU funds aimed at the closure of placement centers are raised
by ROP rules or child protection regulations. ROP-related difficulties concern: (1) the need to finance
and rehabilitate buildings, along with new constructions; (2) the cost covered by ROP, namely EUR
395/m2 of new construction, which is too small and requires a substantial financial contribution from
the county council; (3) the condition of having a day care center per project is considered unrealistic
in terms of sustainability; (4) the conditions for minimizing the risk of creating new services that
deepen social or spatial segregation (by expanding or maintaining the current communities of social
service beneficiaries). Obstacles related to child protection regulations are: (1) the absence of
minimum quality standards for CTFs; (2) the need to update standard costs, which are currently less
advantageous for CTFs than for placement centers, especially in the case of children with disabilities.

The Foster Care Network (AMP)
The analysis provides information on: (i) the AMP network; (ii) the profile of children placed on AMP;
(iii) the relevance of the AMP network for the closure of children placement centers; (iv) the
implementation of standards and case management in AMP, and (v) the effectiveness of AMP services,
along with examples of good practice extracted from the case studies.

The current development of the AMP network reflects the history of the AMP network establishment at
national level but also the different DGASPC options. In February 2018, AMP services covered almost
8,250 AMPs that cared for more than 13,700 children and were monitored by about 290 case managers.
The data on the first active AMPs attestation, identifies the following stages of development of the
AMP network, until February-March 2018: (i) between 1998-2001, the capacity was developed at about
20% of the current one; (ii) 2002-2006 when it increased to over 70% of the current capacity; (iii) 2007-
2012 with slow growth and (iv) 2012-present, with a stage of expansion to the current capacity.
However, some counties have experienced different developments. While counties like Valcea or




                                                   16
Prahova have developed the entire network since 2005, counties such as Constanţa, Dolj, Gorj or
Tulcea had less than half of the current network in 2005 and expanded it only after 2011. The average
experience as AMP is 11 years (with a minimum of several days and a maximum of 20 years), with
inter-county differences given by the network development history at each county level.

The profile of foster carers does not differ significantly between counties. Out of the AMPs, 92% are
women aged 21 to 81 (with an average age of 50) and with an average level of training (over 84% of
AMPs graduated from vocational school or high school). The youngest AMP networks (46-48 years
average age) are in Gorj and Dolj counties, developed largely after 2011, while the highest average
age (53 years) networks are in the counties of Alba, BraÅŸov, Covasna and Prahova. AMP ed ucation level
wise, if the national network includes only about 12% of the AMP who graduated, at most, secondary
school, four counties are different, with considerably higher weights, namely: Satu Mare (40% of AMP) ,
CaraÅŸ-Severin and Iasi (with 25% of AMP each) and TimiÅŸ (17%).

The size of the AMP network varies substantially between counties. The number of AMPs in the county
network varied between a minimum of 75-76 in the counties of Ialomita, Ilfov and Salaj and a
maximum of 795 in Iasi. At the same time, the number of children cared for by AMP in February 2018
as a share of the total number of children cared for by these AMP ever (from the first attestation)
varies between a minimum of 26% in Arad county and a maximum of 69% in Caras- Severin. In total, the
current AMP network has cared for 28,103 children over the past 20 years (between 1998 and 2018).
Consequently, children placed in AMP in February 2018 accounted for almost half of all children ever
cared for by the current network.

The way the AMP network is used at county level reflects structural influences in the evolution of the
special protection system for children in Romania. These are represented on the one hand by the
underdevelopment of other types of services, by the poor results regarding the achievement of ICP
objectives for family reintegration and adoptions (very low number) and on the other hand, by the
large number of children in the special protection system and the large number of entries in the
system (especially by maternity abandonment). Thus, although AMP services were been introduced as
a temporary care solution in a family environment for children left without parental care (especially
for young children), these services have become long-term care solutions, at least in some counties
(such as Caras-Severin, Maramures or Neamt).

The territorial distribution and the monitoring of the AMP network at county level differs significantly
from one county to another. However, there is a common model of organizational structure- in all
counties, DGASPC has a service or a department dedicated to AMP or family-type services (AMP and
family placements). In terms of territorial distribution, the network has a high level of territorial
concentration, both in the rural and urban areas. Thus, 25 of the cities concentrate 46% of all urban
AMPs and 106 of the communes concentrate 43% of all rural AMPs. On average, the AMP/CM ratio is 28
at national level, with variations between 10 (in Alba and Valcea counties) and over 95 (in Suceava). At
the same time, in two counties- Constanta and Ilfov- there are no case managers for AMP.

The profile of children placed in AMP includes boys and girls aged 4-14. Approximately 28% of them
have one or more of the following special needs: disabilities (20%), SEN (15%) or other special needs
(13%). About 30% of AMP-fostered children have at least one sibling placed at the same AMP.

The relevance of the AMP network for the closure of children placement centers is relatively low for
the following reasons: (1) the estimated potential capacity is particularly low in six counties, some
with many placement centers that should be closed (Harghita, Iasi, Sibiu , Valcea); (2) the profile of
children cared for by AMP is very different from that of children in placement centers; (3) only about
half of the AMPs are willing to take children aged 15 and above; (4) only 17% of the AMPs express their
consent to receive in foster care a child with disabilities, and half of them already have a child with
such health problems; (5) the analysis of children care for, throughout time, in the AMP network and
that were no longer placed at the same AMP in February 2018 shows that the AMP network is highly




                                                  17
relevant for the adoption process. In addition, the same kind of analysis shows that the AMP service
has fed the placement centers, especially in recent years.

The Mandatory Minimum Standards (MMS) to ensure child protection at AMP are partially implemented
at county level. According to case managers, almost all children placed in AMP have received an initial
or detailed assessment before the protection measure, and almost all children in AMP care have an
individual care plan (ICP). However, only about 42% of AMPs, according to DGASPC case managers, and
32% according to AMP statements, received a copy of the initial assessment report. Similarly, only part
of AMPs received copies of the ICPs and individual service plans (ISP) for the children they have in
foster care. Likewise, nearly one-third of AMPs did not take part in designing the ICPs for the children
they foster, and most AMPs receive maximum a quarterly visit (not monthly, according to standards).

The Mandatory Minimum Standards (MMS) to ensure child protection at AMP are poorly known by some
case managers. One of the six CMs stated that they did not know Order no.35/2003 regulating these
standards. Almost 40% of CMs had problems in identifying the code corresponding to the standard they
wanted to mention, although the research team made the Order available to them. Case studies
showed that of the 51 AMPs visited, only 30 knew that there was a clear and transparent procedure for
situations in which a AMP is incriminated and only 38 would know how to proceed if they were
incriminated.

The minimum mandatory standards best met by AMP are MMS 6- ensuring a healthy, safe and
incentivizing environment and MMS 1- ensuring services that promote diversity acceptance, that lead
to the increased self-esteem of the child and the development of the usefulness feeling, that value
and respect the ethnic, cultural and linguistic past of each child, that develop abilities to overcome
discriminatory situations, that provide opportunities for developing the child's talent, interest or
passions as well as specific support and recovery services for children with disabilities. However, these
are also the most difficult standards to meet, along with: (i) maintaining and developing relationships
with the family and friends (MMS 9)- difficulties in maintaining/encouraging contact with parents living
abroad, with parents/relatives without a stable or known residence, with parents that do not want to
keep in touch with the child or with parents in different difficulty situations; (ii) developing
independent living skills (MMS 12), because "out of too much love, do not ask the child to do anything";
(iii) meeting the child's educational needs (MMS 11), particularly because of the discrimination in
schools both by teachers and colleagues.

The training needs of AMPs are partly known, addressed and centralized in documents or databases.
The situation at national level shows that in the 35 counties only 56% of AMPs received additional
training in 2017, most of them (32%) receiving 1-8 hours of training. Additionally, the training needs
are identified for only 43% of AMPs and only 29% of these needs are recorded in a document/database.
However, the Heads of the AMP Services in 23 counties (out of the 35 surveyed) stated that there is a
clear picture on the training needs of the AMP network. The training needs identified by them
concern: (i) developing parental skills for interacting with adolescents, in particular for behavioral
disorders cases, the development of independent life skills and sexuality; (ii) developing skills to work
with and integrate children with disabilities. The social workers in the research team, following the
field visits, added two topics to the training needs, namely: (iii) managing the relationship between
the AMP and the child to reduce the child´s dependence on the carer, and (iv) identifying trauma and
working with children with trauma.

The performance of the AMP network in childcare has been assessed as good for all needs and by all
evaluators- heads of AMP Services within DGASPC, CMs monitoring the work of AMPs or AMPs
themselves. However, as an institutional practice, DGASPCs do not systematically measure the
satisfaction level of either children or AMPs. Regarding the costs associated with AMP services, the
data provided by DGASPC is weak. Approximately one-third of the Heads of the AMP Services within
DGASPC believe that an additional monthly financial support of 250-300 lei per child would be needed,




                                                   18
in order for the service to be attractive for AMPs, and around 300-350 lei per child, so that the child's
access to certain services that he needs is not to be denied, postponed or canceled.

The Network of Family Placements with Relatives and Other Families or People
(PFam)
The analysis contains information in relation to (i) the family-type foster care network; (ii) the profile
of children under family-type foster care; (iii) the relevance of the PFam network upon closing care
homes for children; (iii) implementation of standards and case management to PFam; (iv) efficiency of
family-type foster care, together with best/worst practices.

In Romania, family-type foster care services are broken down into: (i) foster care provided by relatives
up to the fourth degree and (ii) foster care provided by 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. The entire network of Pfam is structured as follows: 72% with relatives, 27%
with other families or persons, and 1% in mixed foster care (with several children, among which some
with relatives and others with other families). Nevertheless, county networks significantly varied
between the network existing in the county of Covasna containing 89% PFam to relatives, 11% to other
families/persons and no mixed foster care, and the network existing in Teleorman, where 50% of foster
care was provided by other families/persons, 48% by relatives and 1% mixed foster care. At any rate,
irrespective of the caregiver indicated when the measure was first set up, most of the children live, in
fact, in a family, and were given either in the care of a couple, or of a married person.

The current family-type foster care network was set up in three stages. Starting from the date when
they received the first children under their care, the current PFam network (carrying for one or
several children in February-March 2018) developed at a slow pace between 1994 and 2004, until 7% of
its current capacity. The growing pace of the network increased from 2005 until 2014, when it reached
almost half of its current capacity. Between 2015 and March 2018, the family-type foster care network
virtually doubled and reached the 11,300 foster families with 14,500 children under their care.

The size of the network widely varies across the counties. The number of PFam in the county network
ranges between a minimum of 124 and a maximum of 705. Furthermore, in February 2018, the PFam
network provided care for approximately 14,500 children. The general model (more than 91%) is 1 to 2
children under the care of the Pfam.

Overall, the family-type foster care network contains almost 16,100 caregiving persons. More than two
thirds (66%) of these persons are women. The percentage of women is considerably higher (more than
75%) in foster care provided by a person and in two counties - Alba and Ialomița. Almost half of
caregiving persons have graduated no more than a secondary school: 6% are illiterate, 16% have only
graduated primary schools, and 29% have graduated secondary schools. At the other end of the
spectrum, only 8% of caregivers have graduated an educational institution higher than high-school. The
level of education is significantly lower for women, than for men. In general, older county networks
and those with more women have an average education level lower than most recent networks and
those with fewer women.

The PFam network in the 35 counties is spread in 320 towns and municipalities and 1,930 communes.
The network has a high level of territorial concentration, both in the rural environment, and in the
urban environment.

Children placed under the care of PFam are to an equal extent boys and girls, of all ages, particularly
between 4 and 17 years of age. A percentage of 12% among them have one or several of the following
special needs: disabilities (9%), special educational requirements (7%) or other special needs (4%). The
percentage of children with special needs is significantly higher among children in the foster care of




                                                   19
other families/persons (17% as compared to 10% among children in the foster care of relatives or in
mixed foster care).

Only few counties have a department or office dedicated to family-type foster care. In most counties,
the Case Management Department is in charge of monitoring children given in family-type foster care.
There is no social assistant or CM for foster families or persons, as it happens in the case of
professional foster parents.

In terms of relevance upon closing care homes for children, family-type foster care services bear, most
likely, little relevance, in the absence of continued efforts by case managers. Family-type foster care
depends on the existence of extended family for the child and on the efforts of case managers to
identify relatives or other families/persons willing to take the child in their care. In that respect, the
situation of children and youth in care homes is unfavorable. Many of them have arrived in the
protection system after having been abandoned after their birth in maternities, while others have
been in the system too long.

Different counties employ different practices in the management of family-type foster care. Family-
type foster care is accredited as a department of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and
Child Protection only in 8 out of the 35 counties under review, according to the heads of Case
Management Departments (or for PFam or similar Departments) which we interviewed. In February-
March 2018, 14 counties had no written document approved/endorsed by the General Directorate for
Social Assistance and Child Protection, containing standards governing the family-type foster care.
Furthermore, the social assistant or case manager for the child in PFam should monitor the child’s
situation by regular visits, at least once a month. Nevertheless, the documentary assessment of family-
type foster care services reveals that most foster families/persons are paid visits no more often than
once every three months.

As a whole, however, the PFam network saw a positive evolution over time, in particular in terms of
the financial and economic conditions and housing conditions of foster families. Given the significant
percentage of grandparents, it is understandable that the health condition worsened for 11% of the
PFam.

The performance of child care achieved by the family-type foster care network is good, being assessed
between 7.6 and 9.8 (on a scale of 1 to 10), in connection with all types of needs and by all appraisers
– Heads of CM/PFam (or similar) Department within the General Directorate for Social Assistance and
Child Protection, CMs monitoring the children in PFam or the foster families/persons themselves.

The network of small-sized residential care services, that is group homes (CTFs)
and apartments (APs)
The RezMic study presents: (i) the network of small-scale public residential services (RezMic); (ii) the
clusters of small-scale residential services; (iii) the territorial distribution of small-scale residential
services; (iii) the profile of the children placed in RezMic services; (iv) the relevance of the RezMic
network for the process related to the closure of placement centers for children; (v) the care-taking
environment in the small-scale residential services;(vi) the efficacy of the RezMic services, together
with examples of best/bad practices.

The current AP/CTF network was established along three phases. The first phase (between 1990 and
2000) was characterized by a very slow development rate, of up to 10% of the current capacity. During
the following seven years (between 2001 and 2007) the network reached the level of up to 77% of the
current number of CTFs and up to 84% of the current number of apartments. In the last phase, which
started in 2008, the development rate reverted to the rate recorded during the first phase.
Nevertheless, the establishment year of the first small-scale residential service is not indicative for the
average years of service of the county network. Thus, even if a county developed the first service in
the beginning of the '90s, the county in question may have a county network of an average or



                                                    20
relatively low number of operation years if it has established, more recently, several such services.
The length of service of the county networks varies, from a maximum of 19 years in Călărași County to
a minimum of 7 years in Vâlcea and Bistr ița-Năsăud Counties, with an average length of service of 13
years.

The networks of small-scale residential services are significantly different among counties. In 12
counties there were less than 5 CTFs in operation, while in MaramureÈ™ there were 27 CTFs, in MureÈ™
36, while in Harghita 39 CTFs. These three counties alone concentrate 29% of all available CTFs. A
similar situation is also recorded for apartments, with 64 apartments in Teleorman, 32 in Mehedinți, 31
in Caraș-Severin and 29 in Botoșani. These 4 counties alone concentrate half of all available APs.
Furthermore, more or less territorially or socially-segregated communities of service beneficiaries
were established in 18 counties. The largest RezMic clusters are found in MureÈ™ county - 11 CTFs (83
children and youth, in Sâncraiu de Mureș) and in Mehedinți county - 21 apartments (with a total
capacity of 48 places, yet hosting only a number of 5 children upon the time of the research, in
Drobeta Turnu-Severin).

The residential services (AP, CTF or placement centers) are sometimes used at the full capacity
thereof, but there may also be certain situations or timeframes when they operate under or above
capacity. The services operating above capacity accounted for 17% of the CTFs and 10% of the APs,
while the services with available places accounted for 55% of the CTFs and 31% of the APs. Only
approximately one of four CTFs and one of three apartments operated according to their capacity.

The networks of CTFs and apartments present a high degree of territorial concentration. The network
of CTFs is concentrated both in the rural area, as well as in the urban area. Half of all children and
youth living in the CTFs in the urban area are concentrated in a number of 16 cities/municipalities.
Similarly, half of the children and youth placed in the CTFs in the rural area are concentrated in 16 of
the communes. The network of apartments is almost fully located in the urban area. There are only
two counties which established APs also in the rural area, namely B otoșani and Iași. The network of
APs comprises 41 cities and municipalities and 3 communes, from 24 counties. In the urban area, more
than two thirds of all children and youth placed in APs are located in 9 cities/municipalities. This
territorially concentrated geographic distribution is rather unfavorable to the process concerned with
the closure of the placement centers.

The profile of the children placed in small-scale residential services indicates the existence of a larger
number of boys than of girls, mostly in the age group 4-17. The children with disabilities account for
more than a third of the children and youth placed in the CTFs and for 19% of those placed in
apartments. In general, among the children and youth with disabilities, predominant are the children
with severe disability rating certificate in the CTFs and those with small and medium disability rating
certificate in the apartments. Groups of siblings are found in about three quarters of the CTFs and in
about half of the APs. Over one third (35%) of the CTF beneficiaries had one or more siblings in the
same CTF.

Most likely, the network of small-scale residential services represents the most relevant alternative for
the closure of placement centers. Although not representing family-type alternative services when
compared to the placement centers, the apartments and the CTFs provide the children with conditions
that are much closer to the family environment. Moreover, the relevance of the RezMic network
derives from: (i) the weak capacity of the current networks of alternative services (AMP and PFam) to
take over the children and youth from the placement centers scheduled to be closed, (ii) the
insufficient number of beneficiaries who leave the system (by reintegration into the family and by
adoption), as well as from (iii) the prevailing profile of the children and youth in the placement
centers.

Each county prepares/uses its own definition of residential services. Consequently, at territorial level,
between counties but also within some of the counties, there is a variety of methods employed to




                                                   21
designate, declare and register the centers, the CTFs and the apartments. The research team
identified cases where structures such as a grouping made of the ground floor and the second floor of a
building, small houses, wooden shacks, duplex houses, or even apartments in a residential building,
were designated and registered as CTFs. The high diversity of practices leads to lack of clarity and to
the impossibility of preparing policies that could generate a potentially significant impact.

Most of the apartments and CTFs comply with all modulation requirement proposed under Output #1.
Nevertheless, approximately 8% of the CTFs and 15% of the APs are only falling under the category of
‘partly modulated’. The 50 CTF case studies revealed that the children living in one third of those
CTFs did not have a sufficient personal space except for their bed (shelf, small cabinet, nightstand,
desk etc.) and also the fact that, also in one of the three CTFs subject to analysis, the children’s
spaces were not personalized with photographs, posters or drawings posted on the wall near their bed.

The shortage of staff employed in the RezMic services is significant. The DGASPC representatives
claimed that 35% of the CTFs and 33% of the apartments were confronted with a shortage of teaching
and care-taking staff. Also, a shortage of specialists was also indicated for almost 40% of the CTFs and
also of the APs. Finally, the staff is deemed as a „weakness� in one of every fiv e CTFs and APs
respectively.

The quality of childcare in the RezMic services is analyzed along three dimensions: (i) the services and
activities available in the AP/CTF for child development, (ii) the interactions between children and the
staff and (iii) the implementation of case management.

Many of the CTFs/APs provide different types of services, depending on the specific needs of the
beneficiaries, to the extent of the available human, material, financial and institutional resources.
The APs/CTFs provide access to suitable educational services for almost all the children.
Recovery/rehabilitation services are provided to the children and youth in 44% of the CTFs and 33% of
the APs. More than three quarters of the CTFs provide homework support activities, participation in
trips and camps - at least for some of the children and organization of birthday parties for each child.
The CTF case studies reported that the independent life skills development activities for children and
youth who are 14 years old and older, are performed only by some of the CTFs. Also, the Children’s
Board is only organized in some of the CTFs and not in all of them.

As to the interaction between the children and the staff, the social workers in the research team, by
means of direct observation, indicated in their field reports signs of positive interactions in 40 of the
50 CTFs where field visits were conducted. In the other 10 institutions, the observations indicated
negative or neutral interactions.

The quality of services provided to the children and youth in the APs/CTFs is not monitored and
assessed in an independent manner. The case management in the network of small-scale residential
services is provided in 17% of the CTFs and 40% of the APs by the very representatives of the
institutions also providing the services.

Case Management
The analysis provides information about: (i) the national network of case managers; (ii)
implementation of standards and case management, and (v) evaluation of case management
performance.

The national network of 785 case managers shows the highest coverage in the counties of Iași (47 MCs)
and Galați (33 MCs) and the lowest in the counties of Bistrița Năsăud (11 MCs) and Sălaj (10 MCs).

In terms of composition, the national network of case managers is predominantly female (92%) and
over three quarters of its members are 30 to 49 years old. More than half of case managers have a
social work degree and 16% of them have a higher education degree in other fields. In addition,
nationwide, almost a quarter of all case managers have a postgraduate degree in social work.



                                                   22
Nonetheless, the census of case managers identified 59 case managers who did not meet the
conditions for employment set out in SMO 9 under Order No. 288 of 6 July 2006.

On average, a case manager works with a number of 50 children, which is more than what is stipulated
under the compulsory minimum standards (SMO) with regard to the number of active cases. The
highest number of cases of children with special protection measures assigned to a case manager is
185 and the lowest is 0, in the case of recently appointed case managers.

The information relevant to PIP/PIS objective/goal achievement requires a better systematization.
Some of the case managers (40) do not know the number of indirect MC beneficiaries – parents of
children with special protection measures who are currently active cases. Moreover, only one third of
the interviewed case managers have a list of parents of children with special protection measures who
are active cases.

The difficulties most frequently mentioned by case managers for the implementation of PIP, PIS, PS
(service provision) are related to the challenging collaboration with parents, mayoralties and the
multidisciplinary team. The difficult collaboration with parents is caused by distance (parents who
work abroad), lack of interest, low level of education as well as difficulties in identifying the parents’
current address. The difficult collaboration with local authorities derives from the lack of social work
professionals at local level, an excessive bureaucratization of their work, the accumulation of social
work responsibilities and other mayoralty-specific tasks, and a certain organizational culture “in some
mayoralties – they talk to each other and if one of them does not run the social inquiry, the other one
won’t either�. In addition, “usually, the multidisciplinary team is comprised of a single person� and
where the multidisciplinary team, however, includes professionals, it is very difficult to cooperate
with family physicians and teachers. Other setbacks mentioned are: (i) heavy workload/high caseload;
(ii) biological family’s poverty, including precarious housing conditions ; (iii) lack of transport
resources; (iv) lack of services for youth leaving care; (v) difficult collaboration with the beneficiaries
(children), placement families and placement center employees; (vi) lack of local services and
professionals; (vii) lack of time; and (viii) the difficult collaboration with other institutions. As a
conclusion, problems/difficulties were mentioned for reaching PIP/PIS objectives/goals, especially
those related to family reintegration.

The compulsory minimum standards that MCs fulfill best are SMO 7 concerning monitoring and
reevaluation and SMO 4 concerning the detailed/comprehensive evaluation. Apart from these, other
standards mentioned as being properly fulfilled were SMO 3 concerning case identification, initial
evaluation and takeover and SMO 6 concerning the individual care plan and the service plan.

At the other end of the spectrum, the compulsory minimum standards for case management in the
field of child rights protection most difficult to fulfill are Standard 5 regarding the multidisciplinary
team and Standard 8 concerning the post-service monitoring and case closure. Both are regarded as
falling outside the case manager’s control.

The causes/reasons why case managers have had to take/accept other measures/decisions than those
that they first identified/planned and that they considered best for the child are related to young
people who want to leave public care when they turn 18, children with behavioral disorders, changes
in family circumstances (paternity test, biological family members’ loss of income), parents’ non -
involvement hampering the successful reintegration and, hence, having to change the goal from
reintegration to adoption.

The lowest rated resources provided by the DGASPC are those related to the sufficient number of case
managers for ethnic communities in the county who know the language and culture of those
communities and the sufficient number of case managers (meeting conditions for appointment) for
children in special care.




                                                    23
On the whole, case managers’ superiors and case managers themselves rate case management
performance at institutional level as good (scores above 8).

Source Communities for the Child Protection System
The chapter presents: (i) the selection of source communities for the diagnosis of services meant to
prevent separation of the child from the family; (ii) the main vulnerable groups of children and young
people, and (iii) the effectiveness of child and family prevention and support services available in
February-March 2018. By definition3, “source communities� (be they rural or urban) are areas at the
locality or sub-locality level, where from, in comparison with the other localities/areas, a significantly
higher number of children reach the public child protection system. Sub-locality areas may refer to a
neighborhood, but also to a street, to a group of houses and/or blocks of flats, in urban areas, and to a
whole village, to a settlement or to a group of houses in the rural environment

The method of identifying source communities has used a step-by-step approach, as follows:

    (1) The first step was the aggregate number of mothers with children in foster care at the level of
        administrative territorial units. Thus, identified were 994 communes in which mothers of
        children in foster care centers in the country live. Most of these communities have only 1-2
        mothers.
    (2) Improving the identification and prioritization of interventions in source communities by using
        additional criteria. One of these refers to the presence of marginalized areas. Marginalized
        areas are highly disadvantaged areas where the population has at most lower-secondary
        education, earns an informal income (especially from agriculture), and lives in precarious
        housing, even according to rural standards, and generally having little access to basic
        infrastructure and utilities (overcrowded houses and/or without access to water or
        electricity).Thus, only 17% of the communes without mothers whose children are in the special
        protection system include at least one marginalized area, but the likelihood of such an area to
        exist is much higher for communes where at least 11 mothers (65%) do exist. The 994
        communes identified in the first stage are distributed as follows: (i) communes with 5 mothers
        or more than 5 mothers (52 communes); (ii) communes with 3-4 mothers and with at least one
        marginalized community (68 communes); (iii) other communes - with either 1-2 mothers or 3-
        4, but without any marginalized community (874 communes).
    (3) Using a participative method to select the 30 source communities provided for in the
        Agreement.Thus, in the interviews with DGASPC (Directorate General for Social Welfare and
        Child Protection) directors, a separate chapter on the community selection was introduced.
        DGASPC directors were asked to choose between the source communities identified in the
        county, taking into account: (1) the communities where more children, than the other rural
        communities in the county, are enrolled in the system (in any protection service, and (2) the
        communities where DGASPC intends to intervene or considers that the development of the
        community-based support and prevention of separation at the level of the community would
        be more stringent. In cases where the Director of the DGASPC considered that there are other
        communes in the county, than those included in the list, having sent a larger number of
        children and young people to the protection system (regardless of the protection service they
        are to be found), then, after verifications, this new community could be selected. This was the
        rule especially for the case of counties with few foster care centers but with numerous
        alternative services (AMP, foster family).

Based on all this information, in the end, 35 source communities were selected in 32 counties. In
addition, in order to map the prevention and alternative services in the 35 selected source
communities, we introduced the functional micro-area concept. The functional micro-area contains
the selected commune and the accessible area within about 30 minutes distance by means of transport

3
Stănculescu et al (2016).




                                                   24
or possibly by car. All the collected data on the functional micro-area referred to: (i) the source
community - the selected community; (ii) rural micro-area with all neighboring villages accessible
within about 30 minutes distance; (iii) the urban micro-area with all neighboring cities or
municipalities, including the administrative villages thereof.

The analysis is based on the data collected by the World Bank team in February-March 2018. In each
source community, the social workers in the research team collected an extensive set of quantitative
and qualitative data from a wide range of relevant representatives at county and community level.In
total, in 32 DGASPCs and in the 35 source communities, 233 interviews were carried out involving 276
specialists. In each of the 32 counties where source communities were selected, the team started with
an interview with the DGASPC Director on the source community selection. Then, within the DGASPC
(i) the list of children in the special protection system (regardless of service) from the selected source
community was filled in, in February 2018 and (ii) the DGASPC specialist/ specialists responsible for
the selected commune was/were interviewed with regard to: (a) The evaluation of services in the
selected source community from the perspective of DGASPC; (b) The list of new services that should
be developed in the selected source community, according to the opinion of DGASPC.

In the next stage of fieldwork at community level, in the field visits to each of the 35 selected
communities, the research team together with the DGASPC specialists designated for this activity
conducted: (a) an interview with the mayor (deputy mayor or secretary of the town hall); (b) an
interview with SPAS (Social Welfare Public Service), which also included a list of all mothers who had
sent their children to the protection system during the last 5 years and a check of the list of children
currently in the system; (c) an interview with the coordinating school principal; (d) an interview with
the family doctor (or with the community nurse); (e) an interview with CCS (Community Consultative
Structure) representatives or with any other local actor (priest, informal group, police officer, etc.)
with initiatives in preventing child separation in the family or child protection; (f) identified social
service sheets in the community or in the functional rural micro-area that have only children or adults
and children among the beneficiaries.

Source communities and child protection services

In source communities, over half of children and young people in the protection system (569 children
and young people) come from only 26 villages in 20 communes. Another 139 children and young people
are spread across nearly 50 villages in 7 communes, and for the other 296 children and youngsters, a
deeper study of the 8 communities of origin (with a total of 45 villages) is needed to identify the
degree of concentration at the village level.

Under the protection system, in February 2018, children and young people from source communities
were spread across all types of special protection services. Although source communities were
determined starting from children in foster care centers, data analysis shows that children in the
system are more numerous in these communities. Only one of the five children who arrive in the
system is in a foster care center, while the other four are mostly in a family type service - AMP or
PFam.

A percentage of 93% of children and young people in the protection system in source communities had
their mothers known and alive. The other 7% had a deceased, unknown or missing mother. Most
mothers still live in the source community, but one in three has either moved somewhere in the
country (usually in a large city), or has moved abroad, or, rarely, has an unknown address to be found.
Thus, out of the 35 selected source communities, there are 10 communes that in February 2018 no
longer qualified as source communities (the number of mothers with children in the protection system
was already low).

The selected communes are source communities, but at the same time they are part of the county
child protection services networks developed by DGASPC. Thus, alongside children and young people in




                                                   25
families, nearly 700 children and young people (mostly from other communities) live in family-type
services (AMP and PFam) or small residential services (CTF's).

Groups of children and young people from source communities in difficult situations

At the level of the 35 selected source communities, the following vulnerable groups of children and
young people were mentioned by more than half of respondents in all respondent groups, namely over
three quarters of school principals and family doctors: i) children in poverty including families with
many children, single-parent families); ii) children and young people from marginalized areas; iii)
children with parents who moved left abroad; (iv) minor mothers; v) children with disabilities; vi)
children with special educational needs (CES); vii) children who have dropped out or left school; viii)
children aged between 6 and 15 years, at risk of school dropout; (ix) children and young people who
need transport to an educational establishment in another locality; x) children and young people who
need support to prepare the documents necessary for disability; xi) children over 1 and under 10 years
of age who are not in compliance with development standards.However, the data provided in the
interviews are “poor�, representing estimates in the absence of solid information.

Effectiveness of the prevention and support services in source communities

Analysis of the prevention and support services for the child and family which existed in the selected
source communities is structured according to social services, educational services and medical
services, and each of these services are regarded either as centres, or interventions/activities.

Social services centres are very rare in the source communities and in the related rural micro-areas. In
total, in the 35 source communities and in the 151 communes in the rural micro-areas (which in total
cover 649 villages), during the period February-March 2018 only the following were in operation: i) 3
day centres (one for supporting the integration/reintegration of the child into the family and two for
developing the skills for an independent life), ii) 1 centre for counselling abused, neglected and
exploited children, and in addition thereto iii) 7 adult institution (two in the source community and
five in the rural micro-area). The centres are more numerous in the urban micro-area related to the 35
selected source communities, however, their number is relatively small if we are to take into account
that the urban micro-area covers in total 30 cities and municipalities.

The social services as interventions or activities which may be conducted in any kind of
institutions/organizations/facilities (including centres) are relatively more numerous; however, they
remain accessible to not too many source communities and their functional micro-areas. Out of these
services the least represented are the social economy enterprises and assistance services for
offenders.

The status of the educational services is better than that of the social services. Pre-school, primary
and secondary education institutions are found in almost all source communities. A high school or a
technological high school is found in the functional micro-area for 21, respectively 25 source
communities. Educational support services or integrated special schooling, as regards primary or
secondary education level, are available for children in almost half of the selected source
communities. Counselling and guidance services such as sports or club activities are found in more than
30 source communities. Afterschool services are available in more than half of the communes under
review, and in almost one third of them one may find A doua șansă ( Second chance) and services
connecting education to the labour market.

The medical units available in the source communities and in the rural functional micro-areas are
lower in number than the education institutions, nevertheless greater in number than the social
services centres. In these communities, the most frequent (however low in number) are the permanent
medical centres and multifunctional centres. Only half of the source communities have access to
hospitals and policlinics in the urban micro-area. The rehabilitation centres for addicts, therapeutic
community centres, house-care units for children and mobile teams are very rare both in the rural and



                                                  26
in the urban areas. Family planning services, sexual education for teenagers, psychological counselling
and speech therapy may be accessed in 19-24 of the source communities. Furthermore, only
approximately one third of the communities benefits from access to kinetotherapy,
recovery/rehabilitation services, especially in the urban micro-area, and also to parenting services and
house-care for children/families with children.

The human resources with SPAS in the source communities confirm the conclusions formulated in
previous studies concerning the deficit of skilled personnel. In the 35 source communities, only 24 of
them have a SPAS, only 14 have at least one professional social worker and in all of them there isn’t at
least one person having social assistance duties. For this matter these are the explanations behind the
poor development of field activities (only for 56% of the children and teenagers in the protection
system did someone from SPAS visit the family in its home (including the extended family) at least
once in the last 12 months), of the work conducted with the family in view of reintegrating it (for 40%)
or of the support granted by SPAS in view of reintegration (for 29% of the children and teenagers in the
special protection system).

From among other specialists at the level of the community, only the family doctor is available in all
source communities under review. The specialists in the field of education are also few. A school
mediator and/or a school counsellor and/or a support teacher has/have been reported in only 12-15
communities. Although Law No. 272/2004 and Government Decision No. 49/2011 provide the obligation
to create Consultative Community Structures (CCS) in the care of the local authorities, they are
operational only in half of the source communities. Nevertheless, along CCSs only the religious groups
providing support services for children and families in vulnerable situations are somewhat more
numerous.

Despite the existence of numerous groups of children and teenagers in difficulty, in the source
communities the social services are almost fully lacking. However, in only 7 out of the 35 selected
communities neither the local authorities nor other active local players have plans in the future to set
up new services or to the develop the existing services. If we are to limit the discussion to local
authorities, in 18 of the selected communes the mayors have declared that in the future they are
planning to develop the social services within the community.

In brief: Relevance of the study for the process of closing the placement centers
for children
•  More than half of the centers have small (or zero) chances of being closed down by 2020. The other
40% (or 60 centers) are in the process of closure, either in the initial stage (23 centers) or in a more
advanced stage (37 centers). The number of children diminished only in the centers declared to be in
the process of closure and it increased in all the other types of centers.

•   The number of children diminished only in the centers declared to be in the process of closure and
it increased in all the other types of centers.

•  The “hard core� of deinstitutionalization efforts in Romania comprises a number of 87 placement
centers for children with relatively small chances of closing down by 2020.

•  The relevance of the AMP network for the closure of children placement centers is relatively low
for the following reasons: (1) the estimated potential capacity is particularly low in six counties, some
with many placement centers that should be closed (Harghita, Iasi, Sibiu , Valcea); (2) the profile of
children cared for by AMP is very different from that of children in placement centers; (3) only about
half of the AMPs are willing to take children aged 15 and above; (4) only 17% of the AMPs express their
consent to receive in foster care a child with disabilities, and half of them already have a child with
such health problems; (5) the analysis of children care for, throughout time, in the AMP network and
that were no longer placed at the same AMP in February 2018 shows that the AMP network is highly
relevant for the adoption process. In addition, the same kind of analysis shows that the AMP service



                                                   27
has fed the placement centers, especially in recent years. Yet, provided there are stronger efforts in
addressing the development needs identified in the report, the foster care network could play a
stronger role in deinstitutionalization. At the present time, the current foster care network has
difficulties in absorbing the children in care in placement centers due to lack of sufficient training and
support services.

•   In terms of relevance upon closing care homes for children, family-type foster care services bear,
most likely, little relevance, in the absence of continued efforts by case managers. Family-type foster
care depends on the existence of extended family for the child and on the efforts of case managers to
identify relatives or other families/persons willing to take the child in their care. In that respect, the
situation of children and youth in care homes is unfavorable. Many of them have arrived in the
protection system after having been abandoned after their birth in maternities, while others have
been in the system too long. Still, deinstitutionalization requires continuous development/
strengthening of family based forms of care. While for many children currently in institutions, family
based care may not be an option, for children entering care, institutionalization should be out of
question.

•  Most likely, the network of small-scale residential services represents the most relevant alternative
for the closure of placement centers. Although not representing family-type alternative services when
compared to the placement centers, the apartments and the CTFs provide the children with conditions
that are much closer to the family environment. Moreover, the relevance of the RezMic network
derives from: (i) the weak capacity of the current networks of alternative services (AMP and PFam) to
take over the children and youth from the placement centers scheduled to be closed, (ii) the
insufficient number of beneficiaries who leave the system (by reintegration into the family and by
adoption), as well as from (iii) the prevailing profile of the children and youth in the placement
centers.

•   In agreement with one of the key principles of deinstitutionalization, according to which family
support services need to be available within the community, and the prevention services need to be
strengthened, the section relating to source communities reviews the geographic distribution of
children facing a risk of being separated from the source communities selected throughout the study.
The principle invoked relies on the hypothesis that preventing the enrolment into the system is much
more efficient from the perspective of costs than treating the effects of the separation. Nevertheless,
the response of the prevention policies substantially depends on the manner in which the separation
risk is concentrated or spread at the level of or within the localities.

•  The relationship between the source communities and the child protection system is a dual one. On
the one hand, source communities enrol the children and teenagers into the system in a relatively
larger number than other local communities. Consequently, it is these communities that should be
targeted both by the efforts of developing the services for preventing the separation of the child from
the family, and by the services working with the families in view of reintegrating the children who are
already in the special protection system. On the other hand, DGASPC has set up protection services
(AMP, family foster care centres, CTF, AP, foster care centres) in some source communities, in which
children from other communities and sometimes even from the community in questionare placed into
foster care.

• More than half of the children and teenagers in the protection system (569 children and teenagers)
come from only 26 villages in 20 communes. At the same time, out of the 35 selected source
communities, there are 10 communes which in February 2018 already no longer qualified to be source
communities (the number of mothers having their children in the protection system was already
small).

•  From the viewpoint of prevention and support services in the source communities, educational
services have the best status, as compared to medical units and social services. Pre-school, primary
and secondary education institutions are found in almost all source communities. Medical facilities
available in source communities and in rural functional micro-areas are fewer than the education
institutions, however, they exceed the number of social services centres.




                                                   28
•  At the level of SPAS in the source communities there is still a deficit of trained personnel as also
presented in the previous studies. In the 35 source communities, only 24 have a Social Welfare Public
Service (SPAS), only 14 have at least one professional social worker and in all of them there isn’t at
least one person having social care duties. Alternatively, the family doctor is present in all source
communities, specialists in the field of education are also few, and the CSSs only operate in
approximately half of the source communities.

In brief: Recommendations for maximizing the impact of deinstitutionalization
efforts
•  The impact of the project developed by the World Bank and the ANPDCA could grow significantly in
the coming period, provided that a new call for proposals is launched (in the autumn or winter of
2018). At present, for a number of 24 centers, a few more months are still needed to finish the
documentation needed to apply for ROP funding. This second call for proposals could make better use
of the methodologies developed and refined in the project, along with the institutional capacity built
by the DGASPCs through the experience gained by using them. Consequently, a second call for
proposals has real chances of getting more applications, with better national coverage and without the
concentration of proposals in certain counties.

•   The disparities between counties in terms of deinstitutionalization efforts are in part due to
different capacity and drive to implement the deinstitutionalization agenda. To reduce regional
disparities in implementing the deinstitutionalization process, the following measures/ actions would
help: (i) better instruments for evaluating and monitoring the situation of all the children in public
care, to be part of the revised regulatory framework; (ii) an MIS that would allow the Child Protection
Agency to monitor in real time the situation of the children and of the needed remedial actions; (iii) a
national performance monitoring system with modules for Child Protection Agency, County
Directorates for Social Assistance and case managers, (iv) a national training system that would be
compulsory and adjusted to the needs of the staff and of the children’s under their care, (v) better
legislation – including new/improved quality standards for social services.

•  For developing the network of professional foster carers, there is a need to ensure a standardized
implementation of the Mandatory Minimum Standards (MMS) (in present only partially fulfilled),
supplementary financial revenues for an increased quality of care offered by the foster carers,
assessing and addressing training needs of AMP, but also investments in the development of community
level services, in the proximity of AMP, especially day care centers, centers/ services for rehabilitation
and school after school services.

•  Increased performance of the Pfam networks requires standardized working practices, especially
regarding the child’s monthly monitoring, training needs of PFam, because none of the counties under
review provided training for foster families/persons in the past 5 years, regular measurement of the
satisfaction degree of children and of foster families, consistent recording of information on the
existence or inexistence of cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children in Pfam, drawing up
and implementation of a regulation in reliance upon which social services are supplied at home for
children in Pfam and increasing the frequency of visits to the domicile of foster families, but also of
face-to-face interaction between CMs and children.

•   The main development areas in respect of the small-scale public residential services (RezMic) are:
(i) a more extensive territorial dispersion of the CTFs and apartments, through the development of the
network while avoiding the establishment of service beneficiaries communities; (ii) preparation/use of
a common national-level definition for the residential services; (iii) addressing the modulation
deficiencies and the staff shortage for a part of CTFs and apartments; (iv) improving the types of
services and activities available in the small-scale public residential services (RezMic); (v) independent
quality monitoring and assessment for the services provided to children and youth in the APs/CTFs.

•  To improve case management performance, DGASPC directors have made a number of
recommendations for optimizing the implementation of the following case management standards:




                                                   29
•  SMO 1. Improving conditions for method implementation through software development for the
registration of all children with special protection measures and/or improving working procedures.

• SMO 5. Improving collaboration with the multidisciplinary team, including through more frequent
meetings with CP/AMP teams.

•   SMO 6. Raising the targets set for case managers for starting the adoption proceeding.

•  SMO 9. Expanding the organizational structure by hiring more case managers and meeting the
caseload standard, ensuring a more balanced area coverage or setting a new threshold, closer to the
standards (“each MC should work with 50 beneficiaries at most�); filling vacancies; hiring case
managers in accordance with SMO; as regards the deinstitutionalization process, the AMP networks
could develop, which would lead to a larger team of MCs available for children placed with AMPs.

•  SMO 10. Changing the organizational chart by setting up a MC service or reorganizing the MC into a
single structure so that a child can have one MC during the entire time spent in special care; clearly
separating MC responsibilities from service provision; restructuring the organizational chart based on
the recommendations formulated by a Committee of Social Workers and Psychologists responsible for
the human resources required for Pfam and AMP (recruitment, evaluation, certification, monitoring).

•  SMO 11. Developing initial and continuing training though experience exchanges, various
professional training courses, including in the field of supervision, case management, social service
quality – “no plans until 2020, only continuing training�. Some directors also mention the necessity to
train mayoralty employees as well as the need for burnout preventio n training (“after a while, they
turn into robots, like they are on an automatic mode�). Also motivated by the lack of a training
budget, some DGASPC directors suggest experience exchanges to discuss exceptional cases with
colleagues from other services.

•  SMO 12. Improving MC supervision, especially that “on the ground, you have to make decisions by
yourself, you don’t know if those decisions are right and your signature can change the course of a
child’s life�.

•  The success of the deinstitutionalization process will essentially depend on reducing the number of
children entering into foster care centres and, in general, in the special protection system. This target
implies developing the prevention and support services in the community. The analysis of the
geographic distribution of the separation risk has identified a series of source communities which, on
the one hand, cover a large number of children and teenagers in the special protection system, with
known mothers who still live in these communities and in which on the other hand, the local
authorities, at least in the present, show themselves interested in developing prevention and support
services for children and families. Maximizing the impact of the deinstitutionalizing endeavour would
equate to prioritizing the interventions required in these source communities, in order to mobilize in
the most efficient manner the resources of the child protection system. The study has identified the
need for development especially in the field of social services centres, of the trained human personnel
at the level of SPAS and of the functionality of the Consultative Community Structures.




                                                   30
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption (ANPDCA) under the
Romanian Ministry of Labor and Social Justice (MMJS) 4 requested assistance from the World Bank in
developing an operational plan for the deinstitutionalization of children cared for in traditional
placement centers and their transition to the services developed in their home communities.

Reducing the number of children living in unsuitable large child care institutions remains a priority for
the Romanian Government in the coming years. The Government has already committed to speed up
the deinstitutionalization process and has made this issue a priority under different strategic
documents, including the National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights
2014-2020, the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020, and the
Partnership Agreement. In line with the European Commission’s Social Investment Package and
Recommendation on "Investing in Children: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage", the ANPDCA
established, among other things, the following priorities for 2014-2020: (i) Close down traditional child
care institutions and transfer children from those institutions to community-based services, and (ii)
Ensure early and preventive interventions for children, which will guarantee children’s right to grow
up in a family environment and will help them reach their full potential and exercise all their rights.

Communism left Romania with a disastrous child protection system. Between 1945 and 1989, the State
set up a network of large institutions and poor families were encouraged to put their children
(especially those with disabilities) into public care. Traditional child care patterns, like placing the
child in difficulty with a member of his or her extended family, were undermined. In the context of
aggressive pro-birth policies, combined with the economic crisis of the 1980s, the outcome was
devastating. In 1989, more than 100,000 children were living in such institutions, in appalling
conditions. Moreover, even when material conditions were reasonable, institutionalization had a strong
negative impact on children’s health, development and psychological state because of
depersonalization, rigid routines and social isolation.5

Over the past 15 years, the Government has made significant progress in reducing the number of
institutionalized children, also by developing alternative family-based services, but progress has
stagnated since 2010. The number of children in residential care (in public and private placement
centers, including group homes) declined from a record high of 57,181, reported in December 2000, to
approximately 15,478, as of September 30, 2016. Nonetheless, in 2011, for the first time in 15 years,
the number of institutionalized children escalated 6, as a consequence of a larger poor population and
the limited budget available for family-based services. However, in the past few years, the rate has
started to drop again. Moreover, the total number of children in special care in Romania 7 benefiting
from a special protection measure diminished significantly, from approximately 98,000 children in
1997 to approximately 52,774, as of September 30, 2016. However, there was also a decline in the
total child population, which means that the rates of children in special care actually stagnated (1,776
per 100,000 children in 2000 and 1,641 per 100,000 children in 2011), illustrating the limited ability of
the system to reduce the number of children entering care. Compared with other countries in Central
and Eastern Europe and the Community of Independent States (CEE/CIS), Romania has an average rate 8
of children placed into public care. Nevertheless, in absolute figures, the child protection system of




4
  Called the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly (MMFPSPV) until January 2017.
5
  Johnson et al. (2006), Browne (2009), Tobis (2000), National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2014).
6
  MMFPS, DGPC (2011: 1). The number of institutionalized children (placed in residential care) was 23,240 in 2011, compared
with 23,103 in 2010.
7
  In Romania, the special care system comprises a set of measures, benefits and services developed for raising and caring for
children who are temporarily or permanently separated from their parents and cannot be left in their care.
8
  Romania has between 1,600 and 1,700 children in public care, per 100,000 children, in the total population aged 0 to 17,
compared to an average of 1,850 per 100,000 children aged 0 to 17 reported in the CEE/CIS region and in the countries from
Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Transmonee database, 2015, Table 6.1.22).




                                                             31
Romania remains one of the largest, having to look after approximately 60,000 children (with 52,000 in
special care).9

The closure of child care institutions has been a slow process and the share of children placed in
(traditional or modular) institutions has not changed since 2011. According to the National Strategy for
the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights 2 014-2020:10 “Child care institutions were
restructured as efforts were made to provide family-based alternatives to residential child care and to
prevent child abandonment. On the one hand, large-sized traditional institutions (100 to 400 places)
were reorganized in an attempt to make them smaller, to modulate them, and to offer more space to
each child, in a setting as close to family environment as possible. The decrease in the number of
children due to deinstitutionalization – especially through children’s reintegration into their biological
or extended families or their placement with a family or a person – made institutional ‘humanization’
possible. Still, not all placement centers had this kind of makeover; due to lack of funding and
experience, after 2007 the whole process ran at a slow pace, in stages, as dictated by available funds
or priorities set under county strategies. In 2011, 52% of children in residential care were living in
traditional and modular institutions.�11 At the end of 2014, 50% of children in residential care were
still living in institutions (placement centers).

The child deinstitutionalization reform implemented so far in Romania offers five key lessons which
decision-makers have to consider for this new wave of reforms (see also Box 2). The key lessons
learned show that: (i) Institutional closure and new service development need to be planned based on
the specific needs identified for each child and his or her family, and by consulting them; (ii) The
closure of placement centers should be combined with the development and strengthening of services
meant to prevent children’s separation from their families, at community level; (iii) The monitoring
and evaluation of the child’s post-closure circumstances and the quality of the newly created
alternative services need to improve considerably; (iv) NGOs are valuable child protection partners
and, for that reason, deinstitutionalization should be mostly built on public-private partnerships; (v) It
would be useful to roll out information and awareness-raising campaigns for the general public and
local decision-makers in order to improve community acceptance and integration of these children,
especially of those with special needs.

As of March 31st, 2015, most of these children were still living in placement centers, be they
traditional or modular.12 According to the official statistics of the ANPDCA, there were 81 traditional
placement centers, with a total of 3,866 children and young people. Additionally, there were other 83
modular placement centers, with 3,492 children. Although the need to close down those centers had
been unanimously accepted, the costs of that process were extremely high and available funds were
clearly insufficient. Consequently, at the start of the SIPOCA 2 project, priorities had to be set so as to
decide which centers would be closed down first, based on a thorough analysis of their circumstances
and the quality of the services they were providing to children.

Therefore, within the project, Output #2 (May 2017) proposed an evidence-based typology of
traditional and modular centers and a prioritization methodology with a set of list options for
prioritizing the closure of placement centers for children in Romania. The typology of traditional and
modular centers has not yet been recognized as such in a consistent manner nationwide. The
prioritization methodology was based on a multi-criteria evaluation meant to rank all placement
centers in Romania (both traditional and modular ones) according to the quality of care delivered to


9
   The other approximately 8,000 children benefit from guardianship, day care, special supervision, counseling, prevention and
different other services which don’t require removal from family and placement into family-based services or residential care.
10
   ANPDCA (2014: 30)
11
    According to HHC (2012), an "old-type", "traditional" or "classic" institution is a placement centre accommodating over 12
children or young people, with more than four children in a bedroom and with shared sanitary facilities for the residents living
on the same floor. A "refurbished", "restructured" or "modular" institution is a placement centre accommodating over 12 children
or young people, organized into units, which typically consist of one bedroom, one living room, and one bathroom. By
comparison, a group home (CTF) is a residential facility based on a family model, with a living room, a kitchen, and bathrooms.
12
   March 13, 2015 was the reference date set when the project was developed, back in 2015.




                                                              32
children.13 Thus, the prioritization methodology identified the centers where children’s health and
developmental needs were unlikely to be covered. 14 For this, the multi-criteria evaluation looked at:
(1) the quality of child care in every placement center, in terms of (a) the number of affected
children,15 (b) environment of care,16 and (c) quality of care17; (2) children’s views about the quality of
life in the placement centers where they were living;18 and (3) the options of the DGASPC regarding
which centers needed to be closed down and in which order. 19 Hence, since it is impossible to find a
one-size-fits-all solution for prioritizing the closure of placement centers, a set of "good" process
planning practices was proposed.

The closure of placement centers is a process20 which needs to be carefully and thoroughly planned in
order to establish:

(i) The needs of children currently living in those centers;

(ii) Alternatives to the care currently delivered in those centers, which could be considered after
centers are closed down;

(iii) Services that could be delivered, considering the resources available and those needed;

(iv) Areas and levels of investment that will be needed;

(v) Staff training needs and new types of employees to be hired;

(vi) Preventive measures to be taken or strengthened for reducing the number of children who enter
special care.




13
    For example, based on the multi-criteria evaluation, Output #2 has clearly showed that, although modular centers are
somewhat better than traditional ones as concerns the environment of care, there are no differences in the quality of care.
Hence, modular and traditional centers deliver the same quality of care (not very good) to their beneficiaries.
14
   Mulheir and Browne (2007: 55).
15
   (a) Number of affected children: the bigger the center, the greater the need to close it down in order to give all the children
who live there the chance to grow up in an environment as close to a family setting as possible.
16
   (b) Environment of care: insufficient and/or low-quality human and material resources in a center can affect the health and
development of children living there. As a result, the poorer the resources available in a center, the greater the need to close it
down. Structural variables associated with the environment of care have been categorized into four sub-dimensions: distance
and isolation, institutional infrastructure, health and safety issues, and carers (López Boo et al, 2016: 53)
17
   (c) Quality of care: children’s health and development can also be negatively impacted by abusive interaction and neglect or
other forms of violence from center employees or other children. As a result, the poorer the quality of care in a center, the
greater the need to close it down. Relevant process variables have been categorized into three sub-dimensions: child
development services and activities, interaction between children and carers, and implementation of quality standards and case
management. (López Boo et al, 2016: 53)
18
   Information from focus groups.
19
   Information from interaction with the DGASPC, mainly during interviews.
20
   According to the recommendation of the European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care
formulated in the “Common European Guidelines on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care� and in the
“Toolkit on the Use of European Union Funds for the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care� (EEG, 2012).




                                                                33
To that end, Output #2 (May 2017) included a "Guide on Developing Individual Closure Plans for
Placement Centers in Romania". That way, every traditional or modular center can be closed down
based on a methodology and a plan which consider all the aforementioned elements (with special
attention to children’s needs) and look at the extent to which the available human, financial and
material resources are adequate for that institution.

Moreover, Output #3 (November 2017) showed the manner in which the preliminary methodology for
developing individual closure plans for placement centers (presented in the Guide) was refined for the
multidisciplinary evaluation of children. At the same time, it provided valuable information about
alternative care measures for children living in placement centers, based on a multidisciplinary
(medical, psychological, social and educational) assessment of their needs 21 and on their preferences
for and choices of alternative care options, as expressed by the very children during focus groups.

The success of deinstitutionalization will essentially depend on the decrease in the number of children
entering placement centers. It is particularly necessary to draw up a methodology for identifying
children at risk of being separated from their families.

Reducing the number of children in special care will require preventive services developed in the
community. Research shows that there are places (especially source communities) without early
intervention and guidance services, which is one of the reasons why children may end up in special
care.22 According to official statistics, almost 1.4% of all Romanian children aged 0 to 17 are at risk of
being separated from their families. Nevertheless, a UNICEF study has estimated that the rate is higher
– almost 2% of children aged 0 to 17 – if we also count ‘invisible’ children. 23




21
   The multidisciplinary evaluation of a representative sample of 1,712 children and young people from placement centers, with
data entered into the E-cuib application.
22
   Stănculescu et al. (coord.) (2016)
23
    Stănculescu and Marin (2012). ‘Invisible’ children are those who “are disappearing from view within their families,
communities and societies and to governments, donors, civil society, the media and even other children�, according to UNICEF
(2006) The State of the World’s Children 2006: Excluded and Invisible, www.unicef.org




                                                             34
INTRODUCTION
This diagnostic study was carried out under the Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement concluded
for the Development of Plans for the Deinstitutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and
Their Transfer to Community-Based Care, between the World Bank and the National Authority for the
Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption (ANPDCA), on May 12, 2016. The Agreement covers the
implementation of the ANPDCA project – “Development of the Plan for the Deinstitutionalization of
Children in Residential Care and Their Transition to Community-Based Care� – code SIPOCA 2, funded
by the European Social Fund under the Operational Program for Administrative Capacity.

Between December 2017 and April 2018, the World Bank team collected and analyzed the data needed
to prepare the fourth deliverable under the Agreement (Output #4). This report is a continuation of
the first three deliverables, already submitted to the ANPDCA (in February, May and November 2017),
as well as an opening for Output #5, which will be developed in the following months and will focus on
the plans to develop preventive and support services for children and families at community level.

Output #4 benefited from a workshop with the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s
Rights and Adoption (ANPDCA), social workers from the Romanian National Association of Social
Workers (CNASR), and the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection (DGASPC),
organized by the World Bank at Brașov, from February 5 th to February 8th, 2018.

Report structure

In line with the vision of the ANPDCA, translated into the “National Strategy for the Protection and
Promotion of Children’s Rights 2014 -2020�,24 under this Agreement, the World Bank provides technical
assistance on four strategic lines of action for the deinstitutionalization of children deprived of
parental care, as follows:

(i) Closure of placement centers 25

(ii) Development of alternative services to residential care 26

(iii) Improvement of case management, to ensure good-quality and adequate protective services

(iv) Development of preventive and support services in the community.

Output #4 focuses on all four key themes. Thus, Part 1 presents an update on the closure status of
placement centers for children in Romania. Part 2 maps out and analyzes service alternatives to
residential care, being organized into three sections, as follows: (A) the foster care network (AMP); (B)
the network of family placements with relatives and other families or people (PFam); (C) small-sized
residential care services, that is group homes (CTFs) and apartments (APs). Part 3 analyzes the case
management, more precisely the capacity of the current network of case managers to ensure the
timely delivery of good-quality services that meet the needs of children and youth in special care. Part
4 discusses the availability of services for a number of 35 source communities. The report is
complemented by a number of 35 stand-alone reports at county level and by an extensive
methodological document.




24
   GD no. 1113/2014
25
   This theme is also tackled under Output #1 (February 2017) and Output #2 (May 2017).
26
   See also Output #3 (November 2017).




                                                              35
 Table 1: Children and youth in the special protection system, by types of protection services, in
                                      February-March 2018
         Children and youth in …                                              Number      Percentage
         Residential services                                                  10188           27
         Placement centers                                                     5353            14
         Group homes                                                           3494             9
         Apartments                                                            1341             3
         Family-type services                                                  28179           73
         Professional foster carers                                            13725           36
         Placement families                                                    14487           38
         Family placements with relatives                                      10580           28
         Family placements with other families/persons                         3745            10
         Mixed family placements                                                162            0.4
         Total                                                                 38400           100
Source: World Bank, Census of placement centers, of small size residential services, of professional foster carers
and of placement families (February-March 2018).

The whole analysis looks at all 35 Romanian counties where there is at least one placement center for
children (see Annex 1. Table 1).

Our key messages

This document discusses the closure of placement centers for children in Romania. We would like to
mention that, in our understanding, the closure of placement centers for children is aimed at
improving the conditions of children and young people living there, not at the actual shutdown of
those institutions. Thus, no institution should be closed down before better care solutions have been
identified for each child and young person at that center.

The children and youth who are currently in residential care make a very diverse group and
(re)integration is not a possible option for some of them. Those children should continue to be looked
after either in foster or family care or in small-sized residential facilities, like group homes or
apartments.

Hence, the deinstitutionalization of children should be child-centered and planned for the best
interests of the children and youth living in those institutions. Therefore, the closure of a placement
center implies setting up, developing and strengthening new services, so as to provide the most
adequate form of alternative care, in a family setting, along with different preventive and support
services in the communities.




                                                       36
Child deinstitutionalization principles
The below set of principles27 has guided all the methodologies, analyses, instruments and
recommendations under Output #4.

Residential care should be           Residential care should be used only as a a last resort and provided only
used only as a last resort           temporarily either in placement centers or in small-sized facilities (groups
                                     homes or apartments) before finding a permanent family care solution as
                                     quickly as possible.
                                     One has to bear in mind that any newly created residential facility comes
                                     with a need for permanent residents.

Children are the main                Therefore, the institutional closure process should, first and foremost, be
beneficiaries of                     centered on children and their families.
deinstitutionalization
processes

Children need to participate         All the conditions need to be provided so as to involve children in decisions that
in and be consulted                  concern them, in accordance with their age and maturity. Children with
throughout the entire                disabilities, too, need to be encouraged to express their views, their ability to
process, and their views             evolve has to be valued, and focus should be maintained on their developmental
have to be heard                     potential while showing trust in that potential.


It is preferable for children        Whenever possible, children should be reintegrated into their biological families,
to grow up in their biological       be cared for within their extended families, or be adopted.
families

Children and family need to          Children’s needs and circumstances cannot be separated from those of the
be taken as a whole                  family. Hence, the assessment of circumstances and the planning of
                                     interventions or new services need to look at family and child as a whole.

Family support services need         Children and their parents may need support and specialized services to prevent
to be available in the               family separation and disruption, as well as to ensure the child’s sustainable
community and preventive             reintegration. Family support services need to be available in the community and
services need to be                  adapted to the individual needs of each child and family.
strengthened

Deinstitutionalization should        No child will be moved out of an institution before s/he and his or her family
start with the                       have been through a multidisciplinary evaluation process. Based on those
multidisciplinary evaluation         evaluations, a conclusive report will be prepared, setting out the service plan,
of each child’s needs                and measures will be planned and taken to ensure that the child is moved out as
                                     adequately as possible from a physical and psychoemotional perspective.

New services need to be              Where and how new services are developed and everything related to their
planned based on the needs           planning need to match the needs of the children benefiting from those services,
identified for each child, not       which should prevail over any other considerations.
on administrative priorities

Under the institutional              The practice of moving “bad children� to centers that are not closed down and
closure program, no child            transferring “good children� to the new services, as it sometimes happens, will
will be transferred to a             not be accepted.
larger institution

Quality standards need to be         Quality standards have been developed for most services; they should be
followed                             followed during planning and implementation phases.

In planning each action,             Children are extremely sensitive to change. Consequently, during the
priority should be given to          institutional closure process, any move should be a positive experience and final,

27
   The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Romania under Law No. 18/1990, and the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified under Law No. 221/2010, provide the general framework of principles and values for
deinstitutionalization. All these principles have been incorporated into the “National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion
of Children’s Rights 2014-2020� and into laws, including compulsory standards and regulations for all interventions in this area.




                                                               37
the child’s stability and         as much as possible. This means that all children will be moved for the long
changes should be minimized       term, in a well-prepared and planned manner, to alternative family-based
                                  services or small-sized residential facilities (CTFs, apartments).

Outcomes should be                New services, planned interventions and their expected outcomes should be
realistically planned             realistic and consider all options (including, moving into specialized institutions
                                  for adults, where applicable).

Respect for the child’s best      Improvement needs to be noticeable, quantifiable and sustainable. Temporary
interests and the                 and partial solutions are not enough. For each child, the outcome should be what
improvement of children’s         that child needs in order to reach his or her full potential, not a slight
living conditions should be       improvement of the current situation.
demonstrable

Children need to be               Reintegration into the biological family or placement with relatives should not
protected from harm or            happen at all costs. Children will not be exposed to any risk or abuse. For
abuse                             instance, if one of the reasons for child placement was family abuse or neglect,
                                  the child will not be reintegrated into the family unless a rigorous assessment
                                  proves that things have changed and the child is no longer at risk, paired with a
                                  strict post-integration monitoring plan.

Children need to maintain         Children who cannot be reintegrated into their biological families or cared for
contact with their families       within their extended families should be allowed to maintain contact with family
                                  members. Thus, an alternative form of placement should be sought without
                                  moving the child too far away and visits should be facilitated when they are in
                                  the child’s interest.




Children will be reunited         Groups of siblings will not be separated as a result of the institutional
with their siblings, whenever     closure process. Where it is possible and in the interest of each child,
possible                          groups of siblings will stay together or be reunited.

Special attention should be       This involves careful step-by-step planning and adequate support
paid to youth leaving care        (qualification, job, housing, etc.), counseling and monitoring services until
                                  social integration is complete. Planning will be done with every young person
                                  about to leave care.

Post-deinstitutionalization       Post-deinstitutionalization monitoring and evaluation are needed for each child
monitoring and evaluation are     and family and for all newly created services.
vital

Center buildings should no        Options for the future use of those buildings should under no circumstances
longer be used for residential    include group-based residential care. Wherever possible, consideration may be
child care                        given to the possibility of splitting those buildings into fully independent
                                  apartments for people leaving care (and not only), with accessible housing
                                  options.

Deinstitutionalization            Integrated interventions are needed in all aspects of family life (sometimes
requires a multidisciplinary      implemented by several bodies): housing conditions, family and social
approach                          relations, physical and mental health, and finances/ability to make a living.

Deinstitutionalization is not a   Deep changes are needed in attitudes towards children, family life and child
stand-alone process               abandonment. The deinstitutionalization process should be rolled out along
                                  with attempts to change attitudes, social and cultural norms regarding family
                                  life and child abandonment. It is highly important to promote acceptance of
                                  parental responsibilities and ensure the general and specialized support that
                                  parents need.

NGOs can be extremely             Civil society organizations can always bring the innovation, flexibility, quality
valuable partners throughout      and celerity required in the deinstitutionalization process.
the entire                        More than that, NGOs have the ability and capacity to reach local
deinstitutionalization process    communities, to quickly adapt responses to the needs identified and build
                                  capacity, where needed.




                                                         38
                            For all these reasons, consideration should be given to ways to involve private
                            service providers in the long term and build public-private partnerships.
                            Creating an open market for provision of services based on
                            contracting/outsourcing procedures could ensure a prompt and flexible
                            response to the needs and the sustainability of actions taken by the civil
                            society and the private sector to provide good-quality services.
                            The role of NGOs should not be limited to direct provision of services. NGOs
                            should act as partners for the DGASPC in the efforts to close down placement
                            centers and, more broadly, to deinstitutionalize children. Their participation
                            can create added value in all process phases, from preparation, planning and
                            application for funding to implementation and, in particular, as part of the
                            monitoring and evaluation process.

Sources: Mulheir and Browne (2007), UN (2010), EEG (2012), ANPDCA (2014).




                                                   39
             Output #4:
                 Part 1


      CLOSURE STATUS OF
     PLACEMENT CENTERS
           FOR CHILDREN




40
PART 1. CLOSURE STATUS OF PLACEMENT
CENTERS FOR CHILDREN IN ROMANIA
Part 1 of Output #4 provides an update on the closure status of placement centers for children in
Romania. In January 2017, Romania had 159 placement centers for children, located in 37 counties. 28
In February 2018, the number of placement centers went down to 147, in 35 counties (see Annex 1.
Table 1). Hence, 12 placement centers for children, accommodating 290 children and youth at the
time of the initial evaluation (October 31st, 2016), were dissolved over the past year.

Nonetheless, the total number of children and youth living in placement centers declined very little
between the time of the initial evaluation (October 31 st, 2016) and that of the current evaluation
(February 1st, 2018), by less than 140 children (accounting for less than 3% of the total). 29


1.1. Data
The analysis we present here is based on the data collected by the World Bank team in February-March
2018. Data were collected by a team of sociologists, through face-to-face interviews, using the guides
in the methodological report. Overall, 35 interviews were conducted with DGASPC directors, 12
interviews with County Council (CJ) presidents (vice-presidents or secretaries), and four interviews
with mayors, from all the counties with at least one placement center for children.




28
  Additionally, eight centers were reported in the city of Bucharest. See more data in Output #1 and Output #2.
29
  The number of children and youth living in placement centers in Romania (not counting those from the city of Bucharest)
declined from 5,491, as of October 31st, 2016, to 5,353, as of February 1st, 2018 (see Table 1). We have to mention that, at the
time of the initial evaluation, approximately 6,300 children and youth had a protection measure to be implemented in
placement centers (not counting those from the city of Bucharest), but about 900 of them were missing from those centers as
they were away for school or treatment or runaways or in other circumstances. In addition, around 100 children were living in
those centers without a protection measure or with a protection measure for other services (for example, AMP). So, 5,491
children and youth were actually living in those centers, with or without protection measures to be implemented there. As of
February 1st, 2018, the situation was similar, meaning that there were children with special protection measures to be
implemented in centers but who were missing from those institutions, just as there were children with protection measures for
other services who were living in those centers. Nevertheless, in this report, we refer strictly to the children and youth who
were actually living in placement centers as of February 1st, 2018.




                                                              41
1.2. General overview
Of the 12 dissolved placement centers (see Annex 1. Table 2), half were closed down with support
from NGOs (SERA and HHC) and the other were shut down based on an administrative procedure. The
six centers closed down with NGO support accommodated 137 children and young people, who were
reintegrated into their families, transferred to foster care or moved into CTFs. The other six centers
closed down by the DGASPCs with their own resources (or by the CJs) accommodated 153 children,
who were mainly transferred to school residences (with cancellation of their protection measures) or
to other placement centers.

Out of the 147 placement centers operational in February 2018, almost 60% have small (or zero)
chances of being closed down by 2020. The other almost 40% (or 60 centers) are in the process of being
closed down, either in the initial stage (23 centers) or in a more advanced stage (37 centers).

Figure 1 shows the situation at national level, while Annex 1. Table 3 presents the county-level
situation.

           Figure 1: Distribution of placement centers in Romania, according to closure status,
                                 as of February 2018 (number of centers)




     Source: World Bank, Interviews with DGASPC directors and CJ presidents (N=147 centers).

It would be useful to mention that, in some counties, decision-makers’ answers were seriously affected
by social desirability bias.30 Consequently, categories in the middle, concerning the centers that the
DGASPC wants to close down at some point in the future and the centers who are in the initial stage of
the closure process, in particular, should be treated with caution.

We should also mention the consensus between DGASPC directors and CJ representatives, except for
two counties. In other words, CJ representatives seem to support entirely the positions/views
expressed by DGASPC directors. Although all CJ representatives state that they fully agree with the
process of child deinstitutionalization, they immediately mention some centers which should not be
closed down (which normally coincide with those indicated by DGASPC directors).




30
   The tendency of DGASPC directors and, more rarely, CJ representatives to answer in a way that puts the DGASPC in a good
light (“the County has to look good�). (Paulhus, 1991)




                                                           42
As previously mentioned, in the period November 2016 – January 2018, the number of children and
youth in institutional care declined only marginally. In fact, Table 2 shows that the number of children
diminished only in the centers declared to be in the process of closure and it increased in all the other
types of centers.

      Table 2: Changes in the number of children and youth living in placement centers in Romania, between
                      October 31st, 2016 and February 1st, 2018, according to closure status

                                                                     No of children and
                                                                     youth living in CPs

                                                                    October
                                                           No                   February         %       % in
                                                                     31st,
                                                           CPs                  1st, 2018      change    2018
                                                                     2016

Dissolved CPs                                               12        290           0             0           0

CP that the DGASPC (and the CJ) does not want to
                                                            56       1,401        1,508          108         28
close down now or in the future

CP whose closure is envisaged at some point in the
                                                            31       1,002        1,088          109         20
future, but the DGASPC has done nothing yet

CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken
talks, negotiations, actions (process in the initial        23       1,102        1,132          103         21
stage)

CP which the DGASPC says it is in the process of
                                                            37       1,696        1,625           96         30
closure (process underway)

Total CPs nationwide, Bucharest excluded                   159       5,491        5,353           97         100

Source: World Bank, Interviews with DGASPC directors.


1.3. Placement centers with relatively high chances of being
closed down
A number of 60 placement centers, accommodating almost 2,750 children and young people, that is
51% of all children in institutional care, as of February 1 st, 2018, have relatively high chances of being
closed down by 2020 (Table 2). The list of these centers is included in Annex 1.Table 4.

About half (29 centers) of these centers have already completed the multidisciplinary evaluation of all
children and youth, based on the methodology developed under Output #2 and refined under Output
#3, using the e-cuib application. Following the training of DGASPC specialists on how to use the new
methodology for the multidisciplinary evaluation of children, another quarter (15 centers) of the
centers likely to be closed down either already use the e-cuib application or intend to use it in the
future. Finally, the other 16 centers will be closed down without using the e-cuib application or the
methodologies developed in this project. Most of them are using or will use the methodologies of the
NGOs with which they cooperate, especially HHC31 or SERA Romania.

The features of the e-cuib application, the activities aimed at institutional capacity building and the
constant support provided to the DGASPCs that have started to develop individual closure plans for one
or several placement centers have also led to 20 centers already having individual closure plans all
done and to 24 other centers in the process of completing them or stating their intention to use the e-
cuib application to that end.



31
     For instance, Dărăbuș et al (2017).




                                                      43
 Table 3: Activities performed and funding sources considered by placement centers with chances of being
                           closed down, as of February 2018 (number of centers)

                                                                CP for whose         CP which the
                                                            closure the DGASPC      DGASPC says it
                                                               has undertaken      is in the process
                                                                                                       Total
                                                            talks, negotiations,       of closure
                                                             actions (process in        (process
                                                              the initial stage)       underway)
 Total N                                                    23                     37                   60

 Have you conducted        No and it will not be
                                                            7                      9                    16
 the multidisciplinary     conducted in e-cuib
 evaluation of all CP
                           No, but we intend to do
 children in e-cuib                                         11                     0                    11
                           it when CP closure starts
 (using the methodology
 from the Guide)?          Yes, underway                    4                      0                    4

                           Yes, all done                    1                      28                   29

 Have you prepared the     No and it will not be
                                                            7                      9                    16
 individual closure plan   prepared in e-cuib
 for the CP in e-cuib?
                           No, but we intend to do
                                                            12                     0                    12
                           it when CP closure starts

                           Yes, underway                    3                      9                    12

                           Yes, all done                    1                      19                   20

 Funding source planned    ROP (current call)               0                      15                   15
 to be used for CP
                           ROP/OP HC (future calls
 closure                                                    12                     12                   24
                           in 2018)

                           CJ, own resources                5                      3                    8

                           NGOs or other sources            6                      7                    13
Source: World Bank, Interviews with DGASPC directors and CJ presidents. For the e-cuib application, see
World Bank (2017d).

Regarding funding sources, DGASPC directors say they will apply for ROP funding under the current call
only for a quarter of these centers (15). For the other 24 centers, a few more months are still needed
(until June or September, according to different estimates) to prepare all the documentation required
for the application. Consequently, even with cautious interpretation, data show that a new call for
proposals (in the autumn or winter of 2018) could really help the deinstitutionalization process. This
second call for proposals could get more applications for funding than the current call, considering
that the refined methodology is already available, the e-cuib is operational, and the DGASPCs have
already gained experience on how to use them. Moreover, the effect would be even greater if the
second call is announced well in advance, so that the DGASPCs don’t stop/slow down the actions they
have already started but step up.

Although 29 centers have conducted the evaluation of children in e-cuib, only 20 have completed the
individual closure plan. Even fewer have sent them to and received the approval of the ANPDCA.
Finally, DGASPC directors say they will finish all the documents needed to apply for ROP funding under
the current call only for 15 centers. Table 4 shows the main problems/difficulties that explain why the
number of centers closing down has halved throughout the process (from 29 to 15) and why there are




                                                       44
(15) centers for which the DGASPCs have already undertaken talks/actions but have not started the
multidisciplinary evaluation of children.

      Table 4: Main problems/difficulties in the closure of placement centers for children (number of centers)
                                                         CP for whose closure
                                                                                         CP which the
                                                            the DGASPC has
                                                                                      DGASPC says it is in
                                                           undertaken talks,
                                                                                        the process of          Total
                                                         negotiations, actions
                                                                                       closure (process
                                                         (process in the initial
                                                                                          underway)
                                                                 stage)
     Total N                                                        23                         37                60
     No problems/difficulties                                       0                          5                  5
     Yes, there are problems/difficulties regarding:
                                                                    23                         32                55
     (Multiple answer)
     - Land/buildings                                               9                          16                25

     - The limited capacity of the DGASPC to
     implement concurrently several EU-funded                       3                          11                14
     projects

     - Resistance to closure from CP staff                          2                          12                14
     - Insufficient alternative services                            5                          7                 12
     - CJ support                                                   3                          4                  7
     - Insufficiently developed services in the
                                                                    15                         14                29
     community
     - The mentality of mayoralties as they refuse to
     accept child protection services (CTFs) in their               4                          13                17
     communities
     - Other                                                        17                         16                33

Source: World Bank, Interviews with DGASPC directors.

Problems most frequently concern land, namely identifying and procuring it, but also related permits
and documentation.

Second, the limited institutional capacity of the DGASPCs to implement concurrently several EU-
funded projects is highly relevant if we consider that almost half (69 centers) of all placement centers
nationwide are concentrated in nine counties. 32 Actually, 21 of the 37 centers declared by the DGASPC
to be in the process of closure come from only five counties, 33 which would thus have to manage EU-
funded projects for three to six centers. Such an endeavor is realistic only for organizations with
strong institutional capacities.

Third, center employees oppose the closure of some centers, mainly because they are offered
alternatives that are not considered acceptable. For instance, in one county, the jobs offered by the
DGASPC required a 19-km commute. These problems concentrate in three counties: Constanța, Neamț,
and Vâlcea.

Fourth, there are problems at community level, highlighting the need to develop preventive and
support services for children and families, as well as the need to roll out information and education
campaigns to improve acceptance of special child protection services. In the absence of these
measures, even if placement centers close down, children cannot be effectively transferred to


32
   The counties with more than five placement centers, as of February 2018, were (in alphabetical order): Argeș, Brașov,
Constanța, Iași, Neamț, Prahova, Sibiu, Tulcea, and Vâlcea.
33
   These are: Brașov, Constanța, Iași, Neamț, and Vâlcea.




                                                          45
community-based care. Moreover, besides reintegration that will be difficult to achieve, the inflow of
children into the system will not be reduced, let alone stopped.

Other problems concern: insufficient alternative services (and insufficient funds for their proper
development), educational and medical service dysfunctions, poor capacity of the current network of
case managers to monitor and evaluate available services, the fact that the centers have not been
included on the list of 50 centers eligible for ROP funding, or the complexity of the methodology for
the multidisciplinary evaluation of children (brought up in the counties with many centers).


1.4. Placement centers with small to zero chances of being
closed down
In Romania, 87 placement centers for children have relatively small chances of being closed down by
2020. In the case of 31 centers, the DGASPCs want to close them down in the future, but they haven’t
done anything yet, and for 56 centers, the DGASPCs (typically, supported by the CJs) say that “closure
is not envisaged to take place now or in the future�. As of February 1 st, 2018, almost 2,600 children
and youth were living in those centers, meaning 49% of all institutionalized children (Table 2). The list
of these centers is included in Annex 1.Table 5.

Most centers with small chances of being closed down are (Table 5):

•  Institutions where modernization investments have been made (mainly, from MMJS and ROP funds,
with the obligation to keep the service running);

•   Centers with an already small capacity (according to DGASPC directors); and

•  Centers which are not on the list of 50 placement centers eligible for ROP funding, from counties
with many institutions, where the DGASPCs are already preparing several EU-funded projects (each)
for closing down a number of centers.




                                                   46
      Table 5: Main reasons given by DGASPC directors for not having done anything/not wanting to close down
                                        these centers (number of centers)

                                                                          CP whose closure             CP that the
                                                                           is envisaged at            DGASPC (and
                                                                          some point in the         the CJ) does not
                                                                                                                            Total
                                                                           future, but the            want to close
                                                                          DGASPC has done            down now or in
                                                                             nothing yet               the future

     Total N                                                                       31                       56                87
     The DGASPC is already preparing several EU-funded
     projects for the centers that should be closed down first,                   10 (a)                    11                21
     in counties with many institutions
     Centers where investments have been made either with
     ROP or MMJS funds, bound by contract clause to keep the
     service running until 2019/2020, or with other funds (CJ,                    9 (b)                   25 (c)              34
     international NGOs), all having “good conditions�
     according to DGASPC directors
     Centers with an already small capacity, in the opinion of
     DGASPC directors, for which a “natural closure process� is                   5 (d)                   23 (e)              28
     envisaged
     Centers with highly specialized services (for children and
     youth with profound disabilities, juvenile offenders, or
     with behavioral disorders) or located in areas that ensure                     9                       15                24
     children’s access to certain services (special school, high
     school, etc.)
     The CJ does not agree to increase the funds allocated to
     the DGASPC (since moving children to the CTFs implies                          6                        4                10
     higher costs, at least in the short term)
     Centers from Ilfov County, which are not eligible for ROP
                                                                                    4                        0                 4
     funding
     Other reason                                                                   0                        9                 9

Source: World Bank, Interviews with DGASPC directors.

Notes: Multiple answer question, with maximum three answers. (a) For these centers, problems related to the
land/buildings needed for closure are also mentioned. (b) Seven centers are bound by contract clause to keep the
service running/maintain the scope of activity. (c) Seventeen centers are bound by contract clause to keep the
service running/maintain the scope of activity. (d) The number of children and youth living in those centers as of
February 1st, 2018 varied between 18 and 35 children. (e) The number of children and youth living in those centers
as of February 1st, 2018 varied between 6 and 39 children.

The centers that the DGASPCs do not want to close down account for 55% of modular centers
nationwide, compared with 15% of traditional centers. 34 Also, this share is significantly higher among
centers without youth aged 18+, but with children under 3, among those with children with




34
  By definition, a modular center meets all of the following six criteria: organized into units (criterion 1), adequate size (criteria
2 and 3, meaning a maximum of 16 beds per unit and of 5 beds per dormitory), indoor play area (criterion 4), food preparation
infrastructure allowing children to eat at least some of the meals inside the unit (criterion 5), and proper sanitary facilities
(criterion 6, meaning that each unit has at leat one bathroom with at least one toilet and a sink). In all the other cases, if only
some criteria are met, the centers are defined as ‘traditional’ or between traditional and modular, namely improved tradition al
or semi-modular center. (World Bank, 2017c, Output #2)




                                                                 47
disabilities, especially with profound disabilities,35 as well as among centers with juvenile offenders or
with a high share of children with risky behaviors 36 (especially, centers for boys).37


1.5. Main obstacles to the closure of placement centers for
children and youth
The overrepresentation of the centers from certain counties38 on the list of 50 placement centers
eligible for ROP funding poses two problems.

•  The first problem concerns the institutional capacity of those DGASPCs to prepare and implement
concurrently several EU-funded projects. In most of these counties, authorities state that they have
limited institutional capacities and experience to make closure plans for all the centers on the list,
especially when combined with a lack of/difficulty to find land/buildings as needed. This reduces the
number of potential applications for funding which will be submitted under the current ROP call.

•   The second problem regards the feeling of frustration among the DGASPCs with a relatively small
number of centers. During interviews, several DGASPC directors em phasized that: “those who have
done nothing until now are more favored� or “performance is punished�, since “Romanian counties
split into three categories as regards child deinstitutionalization. There are counties which have closed
down the CPs and have set up alternative services, counties which have modernized the CPs, and
counties which have demonstrated a lack of involvement and strategy for 20 years. The latter are very
unlikely to actually do anything now, even with the available funds�.

As already highlighted, a second call for proposals (in the autumn or winter of 2018) would really help
the deinstitutionalization process. Table 6 below shows that, under a second call, applications for
funding would most probably come from the list of 50 eligible centers and the reserve list (of 20
centers). Noticeably, these potential projects would be more spread out across the country, without
marked clustering in some counties. Overall, the 23 institutions on the lists of 50+20 centers for which
the DGASPC directors say they would apply for funds under future ROP/OP HC calls are located in 13
counties (see also Annex 1.Table 4).

Moreover, to ensure a higher number of applications for funds in the second call for proposals, the list
could be open to all DGASPCs with a genuine desire to close down placement centers and with strong
CJ support. Such a strategy would also reduce the level of frustration in the counties where the
DGASPCs have made great efforts so far and have managed to close down most placement centers for
children.




35
   These were institutions designated as residential care centers for children with disabilities and former special school
dormitories taken over by the DGASPC from the Ministry of National Education (MEN), with over 70% of beneficiaries being
children with disabilities, of whom more than 50% with profound disabilities. (World Bank, 2017c, Output #2)
36
   Underage parents, beatings or other acts of violence involving other children, gang membership or deviant peer group
affiliation, runaways from the center, trouble with the police, begging, prostitution, victims of trafficking and exploitation.
37
   Centers where boys account for 80-100% of the beneficiaries.
38
   There are nine counties which each have three to seven centers on the list. These centers are: Brașov, Buzău, Constanța,
Galați, Iași, Neamț, Prahova, Tulcea, and Vâlcea. In total, 40 centers on the list of 50 come from these counties.




                                                              48
Table 6: Distribution of placement centers for children in Romania, according to eligibility for ROP funding,
 closure status and the funding sources that DGASPC directors say they intend to use for closing down the
                                       centers, as of February 2018

                                                               List of 50
                                                                              Reserve       Other
                                                                centers
                                                                             list of 20   placemen    Total
                                                              eligible for
                                                                              centers     t centers
                                                             ROP funding

Number of centers
Dissolved CPs                                                     4              0           8         12
CP which the DGASPC says it is in the process of closure
                                                                  33             0           4         37
(process underway), with funding from:

 - Current ROP call (application deadline March 2018)             15                         0         15
 - Future ROP/OP HC calls                                         12                         0         12
 - CJ, own resources                                              2                          1          3
 - NGOs and other sources                                         4                          3          7

CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken talks,
negotiations, actions (process in the initial stage), of          9             10           4         23
which:
 - Future ROP/OP HC calls                                         5              6           1         12
 - CJ, own resources                                              1              4           0          5
 - NGOs and other sources                                         3              0           3          6
CP whose closure is envisaged at some point in the
                                                                  1              4           26        31
future, but the DGASPC has done nothing yet

CP that the DGASPC (and the CJ) does not want to close
                                                                  3              6           47        56
down now or in the future

Total                                                             50            20           89       159


Number of children and youth living in the centers
CP which the DGASPC says it is in the process of closure
                                                                1,532            0           93       1,625
(process underway), with funding from:

 - Current ROP call (application deadline March 2018)            786                         0         786
 - Future ROP/OP HC calls                                        523                         0         523
 - CJ, own resources                                              25                         0         25
 - NGOs and other sources                                        198                         93        291

CP for whose closure the DGASPC has undertaken talks,
negotiations, actions (process in the initial stage), of         559            379         194       1,132
which:

 - Future ROP/OP HC calls                                        244            206          20        470
 - CJ, own resources                                              41            173          0         214
 - NGOs and other sources                                        274             0          174        448
CP whose closure is envisaged at some point in the
                                                                  34            138         916       1,088
future, but the DGASPC has done nothing yet

CP that the DGASPC (and the CJ) does not want to close
                                                                 122            139         1,247     1,508
down now or in the future
Total                                                           2,247          656         2,450      5,353




                                                        49
Source: World Bank, Interviews with DGASPC directors.

Also, Table 6 shows that, if all DGASPCs managed to submit applications under the current ROP call for
the closure of 15 centers as planned, then almost 800 children and young people would benefit from
better living conditions. In addition, if a second call were held, the number of children and young
people from the centers for whose closure the DGASPCs say they would apply for funds under future
ROP/OP HC calls would increase by almost 1,000 children.

To these are added the 291 children and young people living in the centers that are in the process of
closure with support from NGOs and almost 450 other children and youth from the centers for which
the DGASPCs have already started talks with one or several NGOs. In addition, a number of 239
children and young people live in centers that are in the initial or advanced stage of closure, with own
or CJ resources.

Overall, in the best case scenario, more than 2,750 children and young people could benefit from the
deinstitutionalization process supported from all funding sources. In other words, the lives of 52% of
the children and youth currently living in centers would change for the better: 15% would benefit from
ROP funds under the current call, 19% would benefit from the second ROP call, 5% have benefited from
the funds already invested by NGOs and other 8% from the funding negotiated (or under negotiation)
by NGOs with the DGASPCs for the future, and 5% from DGASPC funds from own or CJ resources.

Obstacles to the application for EU funds aimed at the closure of placement centers are raised by ROP
rules or child protection regulations.

Regarding ROP funding rules, DGASPC directors and CJ representatives mentioned the following:

•   The need to finance and rehabilitate buildings, not only new constructions;

•  The cost covered by ROP, namely EUR 395/m2 of new construction, was repeatedly valuated as
insufficient or too small, requiring a substantial financial contribution from the CJ;

•  The condition of having a day care center per project is considered unrealistic in terms of
sustainability. Anyhow, the vast majority of the DGASPCs involved don’t even try and don’t find it
useful to enter into a partnership with the local authorities, which are often described as the “enemy�
that sends children into care;

•  The conditions for minimizing the risk of creating new services that deepen social or spatial
segregation (by expanding or maintaining the current communities of social service beneficiaries),
namely the condition to build a maximum of two CTFs on a plot of land and that the land should not be
in the close proximity of residential facilities for children or adults. These conditions require the
DGASPCs to change their practice of setting up new services on the same land (which they own) or in
the same buildings with other services, which creates larger communities of beneficiaries that are ever
more socially isolated from the local communities in which they are located. DGASPC directors support
this practice with arguments like “tradition�, cost efficiency and a streamlined process by removing all
the steps needed to identify and procure new land that is well-integrated into the community. Still,
this practice conflicts with the spirit of deinstitutionalization and transition from institutional to
community-based care. Moving children from large buildings into small facilities located in the
immediate vicinity of large buildings is not deinstitutionalization. This is something that many DGASPC
directors and CJ representatives still need to grasp and accept.

As regards child protection regulations, many DGASPC directors point out the fact that “the new CTFs
risk being just like the centers, only smaller�, considering:

•  The absence of minimum quality standards for CTFs which, they say, creates licensing problems
and, most of all, a design which incorporates institutional practices associated with the old pattern of
care (from placement centers) for it does not support children and youth from CTFs to acquire



                                                        50
independent living skills. For instance, according to current regulations, in a CTF with youth over 18,
the residents are not allowed to manage the home on their own, but they need help from staff just
like in the CTFs with children. Or, the children are not allowed to do the daily shopping and their
involvement in the preparation of meals is restricted (at least in some counties).

•  Standard costs which have not been updated since 2015 and are less advantageous for CTFs than for
placement centers, especially in the case of chil dren with disabilities. “These are not just words, it’s
the reality�, says a DGASPC director, and the CJ president adds that the county budget cannot bear
the real cost of caring for a child in a CTF, which is much higher than in the case of a center. “And if a
CTF with a capacity of ten children only has eight children, then the costs go up even more, by 10-15%
per child�. This is how many directors explain why institutional closure could get a boost if standard
costing changed in favor of CTFs and alternative services, especially if the law on contracting out
social services were passed and clarified.

Finally, almost all DGASPC directors brought up the need to develop and strengthen alternative
services, especially professional foster care, as well as the critical need to roll out information and
education campaigns in local communities and to develop services that prevent children’s separation
from their families and offer support to children and families in the community. These themes are
dealt with in Part 2 and Part 4 of this report.




                                                   51
                    Part 2 (A)


ALTERNATIVE SERVICES TO
PLACEMENT CENTER CARE:


      Professional foster care




 52
PART 2A. PROFESSIONAL FOSTER CARE
(AMP)
The total number of children and young people in the special care system has constantly decreased,
from about 65,000 in 2010 down to about 55,000 in 2017. The decrease was recorded for all types of
special care services, but the most for children and young people in residential care (Figure 2). In
terms of structure, during this period one third of the children in public care were distributed to foster
carers (AMP), one third to family placements (relatives or other families/persons) and one third in
residential settings.

Figure 2: Evolution of the number of children and young people in the special care system, by types of care,
                                     between 12.31.2010-12.31.2017




Source: www.copii.ro, ANPDCA (2010-2017).

At national level, the number of children in foster care (AMP) decreased from almost 20,000 in 2010 to
about 18,421 on 12.31.2017. Consequently, for the same period, the number of foster carers was
reduced from 13,300 to 11,680.

The same trend was also noticed in the 35 counties where, on February 2018, placement centers were
running. In some of these counties, the number of children in foster care (AMP) increased (Dolj, Gorj,
Iasi and Mehedinti), while in others the number was significantly reduced (down to half – two thirds of
the total number at the end of 2010), namely in: Brasov, Calarasi, Hunedoara, Salaj and Sibiu.

Part 2 (A) of Deliverable #4 presents an analysis of professional foster care services (AMP) in the 35
counties that have placement centers. In February 2018, these family-type DGASPC services included
about 8,250 AMPs, looking after more than 13,700 children, who were monitored by about 290 case
managers (see Annex 2A, Table 2).




                                                    53
2A.1. Data
The analysis we present hereunder is based on the data gathered by the World Bank team between
February - March 2018 (Annex 2A. Table 1). The first step in all 35 counties analyzed was to conduct a
face-to-face interview with the head of the AMP Service (or similar) from DGASPC, on AMP-related
practices in that county. As a second step, a full census of professional foster carers (AMPs) was
carried out, with a limited set of information. As a third step, a sample of 592 AMPs was randomly
selected; a survey was administered for them, with questions on the AMP but also on the children
placed with them.39 The surveys were filled out together with the DGASPC case managers, based on
the data in the files. In the first step, 1-4 case studies were selected for every county, 51 in total,
which were carried out by the social workers in the World Bank team through site visits conducted
together with the DGASPC case managers.40 The methodological report includes the research
instruments.

Data was gathered by a team comprised of: 22 professional social workers, CNASR members (National
College of Social Workers), 24 sociologists and 23 research assistants. At the same time, 327 DGASPC
specialists took part in the data gathering, occupying positions such as heads of service, inspectors,
counselors, case managers, referents, social workers and psychologists.


2A.2. The foster care (AMP) network
The data from the professional foster carers census conducted between February-March 2018 only
consider AMPs with a DGASPC certification, irrespective of them having children to look after when the
research was conducted or not.41

History of the AMP network: At national level, the current AMP network was developed in three stages.
According to the data from the first certification of AMPs active in February-March 2018, between 1998
and 2001 the AMP network was developed at a capacity of about 20% of the current one. Between
2002-2006 the AMP network significantly increased to over 70% of the current one. After 2007, its
development was slowed down until 2012, when a new development was launched, up to the current
size.

                     Figure 3: Year of first certification for AMPs active in February-March 2018

     100
                                                                         DB
     90
     80                                                                  DJ
     70
     60                                                                  GJ

     50
                                                                         PH
     40
     30                                                                  TL
     20
     10                                                                  VL

       0




39
   10-20 AMPs were selected in every county, based on statistical steps. For the survey analysis, the data is weighted.
40
   The case studies were randomly selected, from the AMPs in the sample.
41
   All in all, 68 AMPs did not have children to care for, 10 of which recently certificated, who had never received a child in their
care before.




                                                                54
Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP)
DGASPCs had different options in terms of developing the AMP network (Figure 3). While some
counties, like Valcea or Prahova, developed the entire network as of 2005, others, like Constanta,
Dolj, Gorj or Tulcea had, in 2005, less than half of their current network, which they expanded after
2011.

Consequently, early developed networks have AMPs with significantly more seniority than those
recently developed. Thus, if in Valcea, Dambovita or Prahova the average number of seniority years
for an AMP is of 13-14 years, in networks such as Constanta, Dolj, Gorj or Tulcea the average seniority
as an AMP is of about 8 years.

                                          Figure 4: AMPs’ distribution, based on seniority
                            (from the first certification as an AMP till February 2018) (number of AMPs)

     1000
      900                                                                    833         832 855 862
                                                                                   756
      800
      700
      600
      500                                                          439 416                              446
                        374 337
      400         325           334                                                                           320
                                      230                    258
      300
            170                             150        136
      200                                                                                                           109
                                                  61
      100                                                                                                                 2
        0
             0     1    2     3   4    5     6    7     8     9    10   11   12    13    14   15   16   17    18    19    20




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP)

All in all, in the 35 counties analyzed the average seniority for an AMP is of 11 years (ranging from a
few days minimum to a maximum of 20 years).42 About 2% of the entire network is represented by
AMPs who were first certified in 2017, 19% have a 1-5 years seniority, 18% of AMPs have 6-11 years
seniority, half of the network has between 12-16 years seniority and 11% have between 17 and 20 years
seniority as an AMP (Figure 4).

Composition of the AMP network: The foster carers’ (AMPs) profile does not significantly differ from
one county to another. 92% of AMPs are women, 43 aged between 21 and 81 years old (average age is
50) and with a medium level of education (over 84% of them graduated from vocational school or high
school).44

The youngest AMP networks (with an average age of 46-48 years) are in Gorj and Dolj and were largely
developed after 2011, whereas county networks with the highest average age are in Alba, Brasov,
Covasna and Prahova.

If in the national network only about 12% of AMPs don ’t have more than lower secondary education,
four counties stand out and show significantly higher percentages: Satu Mare (40% of AMPs), Caras-
Severin and Iasi (25% of AMPs, each) and Timis (17%).

Annex 2A. Tables 3, 4 și 5 show the distribution of AMP networks by gender, age groups and education
level.




42
   Standard deviation of 5 years.
43
   In Tulcea, Valcea, Gorj and Buzau over 99% of AMPs are women.
44
    In the 35 counties, 0.2% of all AMPs have primary education at the most, 12% lower secondary education, 42% vocational
school or step 1 of high school, 42% high school education, 2% post-secondary education or foreman school and 2% higher
education (including post-graduate education).




                                                                              55
                Figure 5: Foster carers’ distribution by age groups and level of education (number of AMPs)




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018).

Size of the AMP network: As already mentioned, in February-March 2018, in the 35 selected counties
there were almost 8,250 active AMPs (see Annex 2A. Table 2). In terms of size, there were major
differences from one county to another. The number of AMPs in the county network ranged from a
minimum of 75-76 in Ialomita, Ilfov and Salaj, to a maximum of 795 in Iasi. 45

                Table 7: AMP distribution, based on the number of children in their care (% of total AMPs)

                                     Total number of children cared for since their first certification
                                                          until February 2018:
     Number    of  children
     cared for in February
     2018:                              0            1           2          3          4        5-10        11-22   Total
     0                                 0.1          0.1         0.2        0.1        0.0        0.1         0.0    0.8
     1                                 0.0         14.3         8.8        5.6        3.4        6.1         0.4    38.6
     2                                 0.0          0.0        20.9       11.6        8.4        13.2        0.7    54.8
     3                                 0.0          0.0         0.0        2.0        0.9        2.1         0.1    5.1
     4-6 kids                          0.0          0.0         0.0        0.0        0.1        0.5         0.0    0.7
     Total                              0           14          30         19         13          22         1      100
Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP)

In February 2018, the AMP network was caring for 13,725 children. Table 7 shows that over 92%                              of
AMPs were taking care of 1-2 children and that, throughout their career, more than three quarters                          of
the AMPs have taken care of 1-4 children (including those currently in their care). Consequently,                          as
seen in Figure 6, about three quarters of AMPs have taken care only of kids still in their care (37%),                     or
another one (22%) or two (15%) apart from these.




45
     Five counties have under 100 AMPs, whereas six have between 300-500 AMPs. Timis county has 555 AMPs.




                                                               56
Figure 6: AMPs’ distribution based on the number of children in their care in February 2018 and those cared
                  for in the past, since their first certification as an AMP (number of AMPs)




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP)

All in all, the current AMP network has cared for 28,103 children in the past 20 years (between 1998
and 2018). So, the children in foster care in February 2018 represented about half of all children ever
put in the current foster care network.

But there are major differences between counties, as can be noted from Annex 2A. Table 6. Thus, the
number of children in foster care in February 2018, out of all children ever looked after by these AMPs
(from their first certification) ranges from a minimum of 26% in Arad to a maximum of 69% in Caras-
Severin. This is a combined effect of the AMP network history - older networks have had time to care
for more children than those recently developed - and the specific manner in which the DGASPC is
managing the AMP network in every county.

How the AMP network is used at county level: Professional foster care services were introduced as a
temporary solution of family-type caring for children deprived of parental care, especially for small
children. Because of the high number of children in the special care system, the high number of
entries (especially by abandoning them in the maternity), of the fact that the other services were
underdeveloped and the very small number of family reintegrations and adoptions, foster care services
became long term care solutions, at least in some counties, as can be seen in Annex 2A. Table 7.

In other words, some DGASPCs keep, in average, only for 2-3 years a child in the care of the same AMP
(for instance Arad), unlike others that leave the child in the care of the same AMP for almost 9 years,
in average (such as Caras-Severin, Maramures or Neamt). The data on the average period spent by a
child with the same AMP, in every county, is found in Annex 2A. Table 8.




                                                    57
                                Table 8: Relation between the use of the AMP network and
                                     average time spent by a child with the same AMP
                                                                                           % children        Average
                                                                            % children     ever cared      number of
                                                                           cared for by   for by these     years spent
                                                              Average       the AMP in    AMPs (1998-       by a child
                                                              seniority      February        2018)           with the
                                                % AMP          as AMP          2018            (*)          same AMP
     AMP that throughout their career
     have taken care only of the
                                                  37               9           38             18                9
     children that were still with them
     in February 2018
     AMPs that apart from the children
     in their care in February 2018
                                                  22              12           21             17                6
     have also taken care of .... more
     1 child
     ... more 2 children                          15              12           15             16                4
     ... more 3 children                           9              13           10             13                3
     ....between    4   and    12   other
                                                  16              14           16             36                2
     children
     Total                                        100             11           100            100               6
     N                                          8.247                        13.725         28.103

Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018)

Note: (*) children cared for by the AMP in February 2018 are included.

There is a statistically significant correlation 46 between the number of seniority years as an AMP and
the total number of children cared for. This correlation is extremely high in some counties,47 but it
looses its statistical significance in counties in which foster carers take care for too many years of the
same 1-2 children (for instance, Caras-Severin or Maramures).

     Figure 7: AMPs’ distribution depending on their seniority and number of children ever cared for, since their first
                                          certification (between 1998-2018)(%)




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,234 AMP) Foster carers (AMPs) recently certified in
2017, that have not received a child in their care yet, are not included.

Anyways, in the 35 counties, it can be noticed that the share of AMPs that have taken care of a single
child in their entire career decreases from 44% of AMPs with less than one year seniority to 7% of those
with 17-20 years seniority. Similarly, the share of AMPs that have taken care of only two children is of

46
      Pearson coefficient of 0.289 (p=.000).
47
     For instance, Pearson coefficient of 0.583 (p=.000) in Arad county.




                                                                  58
45% of AMPs with less than one year seniority compared to 15% of those with 17-20 years seniority.
However, the share of AMPs that have taken care of 5-10 children in total increases from 1% of those
with less than 1 year seniority to 42% of those with 17-20 years seniority. However, it should be
mentioned that although 61% of the AMP network has between 12-20 years seniority (Figure 7), only
36% of AMPs have taken care of 4 or more children since their first certification until February 2018
(Table 8).

How the AMP network is monitored at county level: DGASPC has, in all counties, a service or office
dedicated for foster care or family-type services (foster care and family placement). The 8,247 AMPs
are monitored and supported by 290 case managers (CMs), that is roughly 28 AMPs per CM. But the
number of CMs for AMPs differs significantly from one county to another. In two counties - Constanta
and Ilfov - there are no case managers for AMP. In the other counties, the number of CMs for AMPs
ranges between 2 (in Arad, Hunedoara and Tulcea) to 30 (Valcea). Thus, the AMP/CM ratio varies from
10 (in Alba and Valcea) to over 95 (in Suceava). The county-level data is available in Annex 2A. Table
9.

Case studies have shown that only three quarters of AMPs have had in their career just one case
manager, whereas the others have changed between 2 and 10 case managers.

Territorial distribution of the AMP network: 36% of the AMP network analyzed is in the urban area,
whereas 64% in the rural area. County discrepancies are striking (Figure 8). The AMP share in the urban
area ranges from 17% in Harghita to 71% in Ialomita.

                              Figure 8: AMP distribution by county and residential area (%)




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP)

The AMP network in the 35 counties covers 233 towns and 1,129 communes. The network has a high
territorial concentration, both in the rural and in the urban area. Thus, 25 towns 48 concentrate 46% of
all urban area AMPs and 47% of all children in foster care in the urban area. Similarly, 106 communes 49
concentrate 43% of all rural area AMPs and 45% of all children in foster care in the rural area. The list
of these localities is available in Annex 2A. Table 10.

Maps 2 and 3 show the AMP services in the 35 counties.




48
     Towns with more than 50 children placed with AMPs (between 51 and 215 children). They are located in 19 counties.
49
     Communes with more than 20 children placed with AMPs (between 20 and 108). 20 of these communes are in Iasi county.




                                                               59
                 Map 1: Map of AMP services for the 35 counties analyzed (number of AMPs)




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP)




                                                    60
    Map 2: Map of children placed with AMPs in the 35 counties analyzed (number of children)




Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=13,725 children with AMPs)




                                                     61
2A.3. Profile of children in foster care
Most of the children in foster care are boys and girls aged 4-14. About 28% of them have one or several
of the following special needs: disabilities (20%), SEN (15%) or other special needs (13%). About 30% of
children in the AMPs’ care have at least another sibling placed with the same AMP (see Annex 2A.
Table 11).

                        Table 9: Distribution of children in the AMPs’ care in February 2018,
                                            by gender and age (% of total)



                                                         Boys        Girls       Total
                                      0-3                  9           9           18
                                      4-10                 18          16          34
                                      11-14                14          12          27
                                      15-17                8           8           16
                                      18+                  2           2           5
                                      Total                52          48         100

Source: World Bank, AMP census (February - March 2018) (N=13,725 children with AMPs)


2A.4. Relevance of the AMP network for the process of
closing down placement centers
The demands related to number of children n care expressed by AMP in the certification request,50
show that the current AMP Network has a potential capacity of 2,100 children more than those
currently in foster care. And yet, the relevance of the AMP network for closing down placement
centers is relatively low given the following reasons:

(1) The estimated potential capacity is extremely low (0-20 additional children) in six counties, of
which some with many placement centers that should be closed down (Harghita, Iasi, Sibiu, Valcea). 51

(2) The profile of children in foster care is extremely different from that of children in placement
centers. Whereas the AMP network is profiled on looking after young children, with no special needs
and no groups of siblings, most children in placement centers (for which closure is desired, as part of
the de-institutionalization process) are over 11 years old, a third actually 16 or more, more than half
of them have a disability certificate or are constantly monitored for a serious chronic disease and 41%
have siblings in the same center.52

(3) Only about half of AMPs, including those that potentially could receive more children in their care,
are willing to receive in foster care children aged 15 and more.

(4) Only 17% of AMPs agree with receiving a child with disabilities, and out of these, half are already
taking care of a child with health problems.

(5) An analysis of the children that the AMP network has taken care of over the years, that were no
longer at the same AMP in February 2018, shows that 70% have left the public care system: 40%
through adoption, 22% through family reintegration and 8% through socio-professional integration,
after turning 18. Actually, one of ten AMPs has adopted or is currently in process of adopting a child


50
   The AMP certificate is issued for a 3-year period and has compulsory requirements in terms of number, age and particularities
of children that can be placed (deficiencies, language, ethnicity, religion).
51
   In the other counties, the available capacity is of more than 21 children, with maximums of about 100 children in Dolj and
Maramures, respectively 250 children in Suceava and Timis.
52
   Data from Deliverable #3 of SIPOCA 2 project (World Bank, 2017d).




                                                                62
they had in their care. So we could say that the AMP network is highly relevant for the adoption
process.

        Table 10: Children who left foster care in the last 12 months, depending on the exit method (%)

                                                                                                             Procent

     Total                                                                                                         100
     Exits     from         the    Reintegration back into the family or with relatives within the
     protective system             4th degree of consanguinity                                                      22
                                   Adoption                                                                         40
                                   Socio-professional integration                                                    8
     Transfer into another         Transfer to the same AMP in family placement                                      2
     protective service
                                   Transfer into family placement                                                    9
                                   Transfer into a residential service for children                                 17
                                   Transfer into a residential service for adults                                    1

Source: World Bank, QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP). Data is
weighted.
Note: This information was requested in the interviewes with the Heads of the AMP Departments, the estimates
were different, the percentages being as follows: 12%, 36%, 15%, 11%, 9%, 16% și 1%.

The other 30% of children were transferred to other services. Many of them (17%) were transferred to
a placement center. So, the AMP service actually fed (more and more in the past years) placement
centers. 8% were transferred to other AMPs, whereas the other children left for family placements, for
an adult institution or were in several other situations.

Less than 6% of all AMPs have ever refused to receive a child in placement, most of these cases
because the child’s age.


2A.5. Implementing standards and case manage-ment at the
AMP
This section is structured in line with Order no 35/2003 53 on Compulsory Minimum Standards (CMS) to
ensure child protection at the AMP.

It is expected for the AMP service to acknowledge and answer the children ’s individual needs taking
into account religion, ethnicity, language, culture, disabilities and sexuality. 54 In this respect, most
counties have only Romanian Orthodox ethnics as AMPs. Only 14 counties have AMPs of different
ethnicity and religion, meaning that they have the capacity to meet the specific needs of children
from minority groups/communities. 55

                         Table 11: AMP distribution based on ethnicity and religion (% total)

                                    Orthodox        Catholic         Another religion             Not stated          Total

     Romanian                          83.6            1.1                   5.2                       0.2               90

     Hungarian                          0.0            3.9                   3.6                       0.0               7

     Roma                               1.4            0.0                   0.1                       0.0               1


53
     Available on http://www.monitoruljuridic.ro/act/ordin-nr-35-din-15-mai-2003-privind-aprobarea-standardelor-minime-
obligatorii-pentru-asigurarea-protectiei-copilului-la-asistentul-maternal-profesionist-si-a-ghidului-metodologic-de-implementare-
a-acestor-standarde-43957.html
54
   => CMS 1: Every child is entitled to foster care services, if need be; the service shall accept diversity and promote equality.
55
   These counties are: AB, AR, BH, BN, BV, CS, CJ, CV, HR, IF, MS, SM, SJ and SB.




                                                               63
     Another ethnicity                  0.0            0.0                   0.1                       0.0              0

     Not stated                         0.6            0.0                   0.0                       0.4              1

     Total                              86              5                     9                         1              100

Source: World Bank, QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP). Data is
weighted.

According to case managers, almost all children in foster care were subject to an initial or detailed
evaluation56 before taking the protection measure. But only 42% of AMPs, according to the DGASPC
case managers, or 32% of them, according to the AMPs, have received a copy of that report.

At the same time, almost all children in foster care have an Individual Care Plan (ICP). In line with the
standards,57 when drafting the ICP it is compulsory for all stakeholders to participate: the child ’s social
worker or case manager, foster carer (AMP), the child (depending on his/her age and maturity),
biological family. Data from the desk-research survey of the AMP services reveal that:

•    29% of AMPs were not involved in drafting the ICP for the children in their care;

•  18% of AMPs were involved in drafting the ICP, according to the case managers, but there is no
document signed by them as proof of this;

•    52% of AMPs were actively involved in drafting the ICP and there are documents proving this;

•    for 1% of AMPs, it is not known whether they participated or not in drafting the ICP.

Only in some counties does the DGASPC also draft Individual Services Plans (ISP) that accompany the
ICPs. That is why only the children placed with 60% of AMPs also have ISPs accompanying the ICPs. Out
of these AMPs, 17% were not actively involved in drafting the ISPs, 14% participated in this, without
this being documented in any way, 24% participated and signed a document in proof of this.58

Anyways, case studies have revealed that only 38% of AMPs have received a copy of the ICP for the
children in their care. At the same time, only 17% of AMPs received a copy of the ISP. And yet, case
managers estimate that 93% of AMPs know the ICPs/ISPs drafted for the children they look after. On
the other hand, one out of five AMPs assessed their knowledge of the ICIP/ISPs of the children in their
care with the grade 5, on a 1 to 10 scale.

As part of the foster care services, the child benefits from the care provided by a professional foster
carer (AMP) and a social worker or case manager 59, who monitors the the AMP’s activities in the child’s
best interest. A child is placed with an AMP following a matching process that entails organizing
several meetings, except for emergency placements.60 The matching process considers both the child’s
and the AMP’s opinions.

The interview with the heads of the AMP Service (or similar) within the DGASPC reveals that in all
counties AMPs got the certificate and were re-certified every 3 years. The evaluation criteria used for



56
   => CMS 2: The child’s needs assessment is conducted before taking the foster care measure, is disseminated to all
stakeholders and constantly reviewed.
57
   => CMS 3: The child placed with an AMP shall have an ICP and all activities in this plan shall be implemented. The ICP
comprises short and long-term objectives and activities, which are set after assessing the child’s needs.
58
   As for the remaining 5% of AMPs it is not known whether they participated or not in drafting the ISPs for the children in their
care.
59
   => CMS 5: The child placed with an AMP has a social worker that ensures that the provisions on child protection and care are
complied with and who promotes the child’s wellbeing and development.
60
   => CMS 4: The child is placed with an AMP only after a careful process of matching the two, so that the chil d’s needs and
preferences are met.




                                                               64
the certification and re-certification of AMPs are those set in GD 679/2003 61 or Order no 35/2003. The
AMP certification criteria has been assessed as being sufficient, receiving 8.4 on a scale from 1 to 10.
Anyways, 83% of the heads of Services feel that it is necessary for two criteria to be introduced when
certifying the AMPs: (a) at least 10 or 12 grades as a minimum level of education; and (b) an age limit
of 45-50 years old.

By the standards, the social worker or the case manager should monitor the child ’s status through
regular visits, conducted at least once a month. The desk-research of AMP services shows that most
AMPs receive a visit every three months, at the most (Figure 9). The visits are documented in the visit
or monitoring reports, included in the child’s file, in most cases. In less than 1% of these visits case
managers report they were faced with situations in which the child was imminently endangered by the
AMP, the latter’s family, neighbors or community. Field evaluations conducted for the case studies
revealed similar results.

            Figure 9: Number of field visits at AMPs’ paid by CMs during the past 12 months




Source: World Bank, QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP). Data is
weighted.




61
  GD 679/2003 on conditions for acquiring the certificate, certification procedures and the status of the professional foster
carer.




                                                             65
Focusing on standards and administrative tasks could endanger the service
quality

For the purpose of a social assistance activity from any social service being
carried out at professional standards, for the child’s best interest, that
service should be licensed and, in this way, the Social Inspection asks for
the compulsory minimum standards to be met. In this case, we are talking
about the AMP Service in a given county, where the Social Inspection, in
view of providing the license, asked for three visits paid monthly to the
foster carer’s residence, namely two for the child and one for monitoring
the professional foster carer.

For monitoring a number of children and foster carers in line with the legal
provisions in force, and if there were enough staff, in line with the
standards, namely a case manager for the AMP and another one for the
child, these requirements could probably be met, provided there is also
the logistics and administrative capacity (means of transportation, enough
financial resources, etc.)

But in the field we’ve come across cases in which the social worker is both
case manager for the child and for the professional foster carer, with over
100 cases that have to be monthly monitored. How would it be possible for
him/her to monitor this high number of cases, paying three monthly visits
and prepare the associated documentation, as well as other types of
activities necessary in line with the case management steps? Under these
circumstances, the social worker specialists, although they tried to comply
with the standards by visiting more than once a month the child ’s
residence, the reporting and the proof of their qualitative involvement, of
the time spent with the child and family could not be captured in the
documentation produced.

Moreover, there were registration numbers for the visits paid, without the
social workers having had the time to write the visit report which should
follow quite a dense template, but fails to catch the progress or a clear
picture of the child at that point.

It is required to have balance and a good analysis of whether these
standards were met, which would lead to qualitative results felt, on one
hand, by the child in foster care and by the professional foster carer and,
on the other hand, by the social worker who also needs support and
specialized supervision.

(Case study AMP, Field report social worker Marinela Grigore)




                                     66
The data arising from the desk research shows that, in the urban area, children in foster care usually
live in households comprising an average of 4 people, namely 2 adults and 1-2 kids in foster care. In
the rural area, the household size is of 5 people, 2-3 adults and 1-2 children in foster care.
Irrespective of the area, only about 30% of AMP families have also their own children to look after.

         Table 12: AMP distribution, based on household composition and number of rooms (% of total AMPs)
               Total number of people in                    AMP’s         own    Children in              Number    of
                                                 Adults
               the household, of which:                     children             foster care              rooms

                     % AMP in URBAN
                     (N=2,945 AMP)
     0                        0                     0               72                  2                      0
     1                        0                    14               21                 49                      0
     2                        6                    66                 5                43                      22
     3                       31                    15                 2                 4                      39
     4                       32                     3                 1                 2                      24
     5                       18                     2                 0                 0                      8
     6-10                    13                     0                 0                 0                      6
     Total                  100                    100             100                100                     100

               % AMP in RURAL (N=5,302
                         AMP)
     0                        0                     0               70                  0                      0
     1                        0                     9               18                 26                      0
     2                        2                    56                 9                56                      3
     3                       16                    24                 2                 7                      29
     4                       30                     9                 0                 9                      33
     5                       22                     1                 0                 0                      18
     6-10                    29                     0                 0                 1                      17
     Total                  100                    100             100                100                     100

Source: World Bank, QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP). Data is
weighted.

The AMP’s house62 needs to be clean, have enough space as to ensure the privacy of all its inhabitants,
separate beds for each child and appropriate annexes for hygiene, and ensure a safe environment in
terms of health and wellbeing. If in the urban area the usual house of an AMP is a 2-4 room apartment,
in the urban area AMPs inhabit 3-5 room houses. Thus, in both residential areas the average is of 1,2
people per room (with a minimum of 0.33 - that is, three rooms per person - and a maximum of 3
people per room). About 80% of them did some house works before bringing in the child, especially
refurbishments, painting and sanitation works, changing the doors, building an inside bathroom, a new
room or annexes, installing a heating station or replacing the furniture.

The study cases reveal that almost all AMPs visited live in houses owned by the family, which they can
afford to heat properly every day, with a number of rooms that meets the necessities, with a separate
kitchen equipped with everything necessary to cook, with enough bedrooms, properly furnished (beds
have linen, blankets, pillows). All in all, the World Bank experts and the DGASPC case managers
conducting the field visits scored from 9.5 - 9.9 (on a 1 to 10 scale) all the aspects related to space,
cleanness, smell, hygiene products, children’s hygiene, their clothes and footwear and the overall
environment (warm, friendly, colorful, happy, personalized). So the acre environment provided by the
AMP network seems to be a very good one, although some heads of AMP Services draw the attention on

62
     => CMS 6: The foster carer shall ensure a healthy and safe environment, that stimulates the child.




                                                                 67
the need to support AMPs to improve the conditions, expand or adjust their house, especially in the
case of children with disabilities.

34 complaints/petitions/allegations against AMPs (irrespective of the source) 63have been filed during
in the past 12 months, including cases /suspicions of abuse, neglect or child exploitation involving
AMP’s family, relatives, neighbors or members of the community.

 Figure 10: Number of petitions/complaints/allegations against AMPs recorded in the part 12 months (number
                                                per county)




Source: World Bank, Interview with the heads of AMP Services within DGASPC on AMP-related county practices
(February-March 2018) (N=35).

The total number of complaints/petitions/allegations against the AMP network increases to 552 for the
1998-2018 timeframe, that is from the first certification until February 2018. In 12 counties no cases of
this kind have ever been recorded (Annex 2A. Table 12), whereas others report about 90
complaints/petitions/allegations for the entire period (Caras-Severin, Iasi). The most recurrent
accusations related to unfair treatment between children, complaints in respect to house sanitation,
accidents endangering the children, complaints from neighbors or schools about the children ’s
inappropriate behavior, and various types of child abuse. Following the DGASPC investigations, most
allegations were not confirmed.

Out of the 35 counties analyzed, 30 DGASPCs state they have a clear and transparent procedure for
those cases in which complaints are filed against an AMP. The procedure is known and understood by
the AMP network at a 8.5 level on a scale from 1 to 10, according to the heads of the AMP Service from
DGASPC. However, the case studies revealed that only 30 out of the 51 AMPs visited were aware of this
procedure and only 38 would know what to do if allegations were brought against them.

The AMP services, just like all other protection services, apart from a healthy, safe and stimulating
environment (CMS 6 and CMS 7) should ensure children in public care suitable medical care, tailored to
their specific physical, emotional and social development needs (CMS 10), the education services best
suited to encourage children reach their top potential (CMS 11), support to maintain and develop links
with the family and friends (CMS 9), but also to develop independent living skills (CMS 12).

In order to assess the extent in which the AMP network complied with all the standards in Order no
35/2003, the interviewed case managers (CMs) were asked about the two standards best met and the
two standards most difficult to meet by every foster carer included in the sample. As a first comment,
one out of six CMs declared not to know Order no 35/2003. As a second comment, about 40% of CMs
had a hard time in identifying the appropriate code for the standard they intended to mention,
although the research team provided them the Order. In the end, CMs gave information on 78% of
AMPs, as can be seen in Table 13.




63
     => CMS 7: The child in foster care is protected from any type of abuse, neglect, exploitation or deprivation.




                                                                  68
Table 13: Compulsory Minimum Standards (CMS) best met and most difficult to meet by the AMP network (%)
                                                                                   Most difficult to meet
                                                           Best met by the AMP
                                                                                        by the AMP
                                                            First      Second        First       Second
                                                           option      option       option       option
    CMS 1                                                    16           9           5             3
    CMS 2                                                    2            3           0             1
    CMS 3                                                    2            2           2             0
    CMS 4                                                    2            1           3             1
    CMS 5                                                    5            2           1             1
    CMS 6                                                    33          28           11            3
    CMS 7                                                    3            9           0             1
    CMS 8                                                    2            2           3             0
    CMS 9                                                    3            4           6             3
    CMS 10                                                   7            7           1             1
    CMS 11                                                   3            7           5             3
    CMS 12                                                   1            1           4             6
    Total AMPs about whom the CMs provided answers           78          74           42           23
    Total AMPs about whom the CMs did not provide
                                                             22          26           58           77
    answers
    Total AMP                                               100         100          100          100
    N                                                      8.247        8.247       8.247        8.247

Source: World Bank, QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP). Data is
weighted.

Note: CMO in virtue of Order no 35 from May 15th, 2003.

The compulsory minimum standards best met by AMPs are CMS 6 - on ensuring a healthy, safe and
stimulating environment, and CMS 1 - ensure services that promote acceptance of diversity, that lead
to an increased self esteem in children and to developing the feeling of usefulness, that value and
respects the child’s ethnic, cultural and language past, that develop skills allowing them to overcome
discriminatory situations, that offer opportunities for talent, interest or passion development, as well
as specific support and recovery services for children with disabilities. Case studies confirmed these
opinions. Apart from the extremely positive assessment of the physical environment created for
children by AMPs, the research team gave an average score of 9.7 on a scale from 1 to 10 for
endowments existing for recreational-education activities and noticed signs of positive interaction
between children and the AMP/AMP’s family in 45 cases (out of the 51), with no observations on signs
of negative or indifferent interactions.

The same standards (CMS 6 and CMS 1) are also some of the most difficult to meet, together with:

•   Maintaining and developing links with the family and friends (CMS 9) - usually it’s about difficulties
in keeping or encouraging links with parents left abroad, parents/relatives with no stable or unknown
domicile, parents who do not want to be in contact with the child or parents in various difficult
situations. For instance: `Father is unknown and the mother has psychological problems and changes
quite often her domicile� or �Alcoholic father and schizophrenic mother, who runs off quite often with
various lovers� or �The mother started the reintegration steps in 2015 and was constantly in touch
with her daughter. In 2016 and 2017 she spent 1-2 weeks with her daughter in August. At the trial, the
girl said she does not want to live with her mother, and from that point on, her mum never again
sought her and refuses to see her.�



                                                      69
          �I asked the kids if they know their parents names. One of them, a boy with a very large
          smile, instantly answered �my mum’s name is Maria and my dad’s Liniuta�... I was about to
          skip to the next question, thinking that I’ve come across another unusual name. But I
          refrained from doing this, because the two kids started to contradict each other. The older
          girl was trying to convince the boy that their dad’s name was not Liniuta. Liniuta is actually
          the horizontal line put in their birth certificate instead of the father’s name. I was struck by
          the dramatism of this situation and surprised by the ardent conviction with which the child
          had said that his dad’s name was Liniuta. I changed the subject at that point, to get out of
          this ...meeting his brother who was with another foster family. He was very happy to show
          me his brother’s photo. I was happy that his brother had a name, that he had met him; and
          yet, my mind was still on Liniuta...on the child in front of me and on dozens of children who
          do not know their fathers and for whom the line in their birth certificate hides so much pain
          and hope, because no specialist has ever taken the time to talk to the child...� (Case study
          AMP, Iasi County, Field report social worker Mihaela Zanoschi)

•  Develop independent living skills (CMS 12), because �out of too much love, they don’t ask the
children to do anything�.

•  Satisfying the child’s education needs (CMS 11), usually because of discriminations in school both
from teachers and from colleagues.

DGASPC should train AMPs as to give them the necessary skills and knowledge. 64 Out of the studied
counties, only a part have ensured in 2017 additional training for AMP (see Annex 2A. Table 13).
According to the heads of AMP Services, 12 counties have not organized this kind of trainings. 65 But the
data gathered on every AMP reveals that in only 9 counties none of the AMPs have received additional
training in 2017. At the other end, 9 counties provided training for the entire AMP network. 66 In the
other counties, the share of AMPs that attended trainings ranges from 8% to 95%. 67

All in all, out of the 35 counties only 56% of AMPs received additional training in 2017,68 most of whom
(32%) benefited from 1-8 training hours. Moreover, training needs have been identified only for 43% of
AMPs and only 29% of these needs are recorded in a document or a database. For the other AMPs,
training needs are known only by the CM who is monitoring them. However, heads of the AMP Service
in 23 counties (out of the 35 analyzed) claim there is a clear record of the training needs of the AMP
network. In all these counties, the AMPs’ training needs mostly refer to:

(1) develop parental skills for working with teenagers, usually topics such as behavioral disorders,
developing independent living skills and sexuality

(2) develop skills for working with and integrating children with disabilities.

Following the field visits, social workers part of the research team added two more topics to the
training needs, that seem to be quite wide-spread among AMPs, without actually giving them the due
attention, which are:

(3) Manage the AMP-child relation, to reduce the child’s dependence on the carer. Several case studies
have revealed that some AMPs encourage children to call them �mum� and �dad�, not only because
this is a sign of the child accepting them as parents, but also to minimize or weaken the biological
family’s role in the child’s life. Consequently, during the talks held with children it was quite difficult
to constantly make the distinction between the �mum/dad� from here (AMP) and those from home.
Or, as a head of AMP service put it: �In general, AMPs don’t really get their profession. The children
become theirs; they don’t understand that being an AMP is a job.�

64
   According to CMS 15 the social worker or case manager is responsible to monitor the AMP’s activity and to identify their
training needs. 15.2. Training foster carers is part of the training program for the SPPC/OPA staff and includes opportunities for
common trainings with social workers and staff in residential centers.
65
   These counties are: AG, BT, CT, DB, IF, MM, MH, PH, SM, TR, TL, VL. But in AG, BT and TR part of the AMPs did receive
additional training in 2017.
66
   Counties that trained the entire network are AR, BH, BN, CS, CV, IL, NT, SB, SV.
67
   The AG and HD counties trained only 8-10% of AMPs, whereas AB, TM and SJ trained over 90%.
68
   On 2% of the AMPs there is no information on 2017 trainings.




                                                               70
(4) Identify trauma and work with a traumatized child.

Apart from training, the DGASPC also offers county AMP networks:

•     Psychological counseling, in 34 out of the 35 counties

•     Individual or group psychotherapy sessions, in 12 counties

•     AMP support groups, in 20 counties.

Table 14 below shows the support received by AMPs from the AMP Service within the DGASPC,
according to the AMPs’ statements. As can be seen, the most recurrent type of support, and also the
most necessary, refers to providing information on the children, counseling and information on the
available services.

    Table 14: Support received by the AMP at the AMP Service/Office, in the past 12 months (number of AMPs)
                                                                                  Support
                                                                                             Support deemed
                                                                                  received
                                                                                             by the AMP to be
                                                                                    in the
                                                                                                 the most
                                                                                   past 12
                                                                                                 necessary
                                                                                   months
    Total AMPs participating in the case studies, of which:                         51             51

    a. Information on children                                                      36             22

    b. Information on services (location, how to access them)                       28             15
    C. Mediation with the medical services (specialized, dentist, mental health
                                                                                    23             15
    services, recovery services, etc.)
    d. Mediation with the educational services (school network, clubs, etc.)        20              8

    e. Counseling and support for parents/carers                                    29             16

    f. Temporary care (respite care)                                                 2              8

    g. AMP support groups, formal/informal AMP associations                         21             17

    h. Trainings                                                                    29             20

    i. Psychological counseling                                                     30              6

    j. Individual or group psychotherapy                                             5              4
    k. Support in keeping the link between the child/children and the
                                                                                    20              8
    natural/extended family
    m. I haven’t received any support (the AMP salary is not considered)             1              -

Source: World Bank, CS AMP Case studies for AMPs (February-March 2018)

All in all, during the case studies AMPs appreciated the support received from the AMP Service as being
�vital; without it we wouldn’t have managed� or �useful, but we could have managed without it too�
(almost equally). At the same time, about half of them appreciated as vital the support received from
other DGASPC specialists, such as psychologist, doctor, kinetotherapist, speech therapist, etc. In some
counties the DGASPC is also organizing camps and trips for children, reimbursing medical bills and
providing other services, especially for children in emergency placement.




                                                           71
2A.6. Effectiveness of the AMP services
The performance of the AMP network in taking care of children is good, being evaluated at 8.5 up to
10 (on a 1 to 10 scale), in respect to all types of needs and by all evaluators - heads of AMP Service
within the DGASPC, CMs monitoring the AMPs’ activity and the AMPs themselves.

  Figure 11: Evaluation of actions and activities carried out by AMP to meet the child’s needs , by types of
                                                     needs




Source: World Bank, (*) Interview with the heads of AMP Services within DGASPC on AMP-related county practices
(February-March 2018) (N=35). (**), QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP).
Data is weighted. (***) CS AMP Case studies for AMPs (February-March 2018) (N = 2018)

Note: Averages calculated based on valid answers. Child’s needs, in line with Order no 286/2006 from
07/06/2006, approving the Methodological Norms on developing the Services Plan and the Methodological Norms
on developing the Individual Care Plan, published in the Official Gazette Part I, no 656 from 07/28/2006.

DGASPCs do not measure systematically the satisfaction of children and AMPs. Best case scenario, they
randomly administer surveys for a small sample (for instance, in Dolj, for 20 children and 20 AMPs), or
use the forms filled out in the field by the CM (in Alba or Arad), or use the reports filled out for AJPIS
(County Agency for Payments and Social Inspection). However, social workers part of the research
team that conducted the case studies made evaluations similar to those in Figure 11, following the
discussions with the AMPs and the children in their care. The general conclusion was that in almost all
cases �children are well taken care of, sociable, open and active in the family environment�.

As for the costs associated to the AMP services, DGASPC has provided poor data. First of all, only a
small part of the heads of AMP Service gave an estimate of the total monthly cost per child in foster
care, as can be seen in Table 15. Secondly, the estimates received range between a minimum to a
five-times higher maximum, both for children without disabilities and for those with disabilities.




                                                     72
Thirdly, the average monthly cost per child is almost double the minimum cost standard for this
service, set in Decision no 978/2015.69

                            Table 15: Total monthly cost per child placed with an AMP
                                                                      Child without
                                                                                             Child with disabilities
                                                                       disabilities
     Direct
                       No of counties that answered                         19                         18
     expenditures
                       Average (lei)                                      2,281                       2,886
                       Minimum (lei)                                      1,517                       1,896
                       Maximum (lei)                                      3,500                       4,500
     Indirect
                       No of counties that answered                         10                         10
     expenditures
                       Average (lei)                                      1,345                       1,513
                       Minimum (lei)                                       100                         150
                       Maximum (lei)                                      6,000                       6,500
     Total
                       No of counties that answered                         10                         10
     expenditures
                       Average (lei)                                      3,728                       4,479
                       Minimum (lei)                                      2,100                       2,450
                       Maximum (lei)                                      9,500                      11,000

Source: World Bank, Interview with the heads of AMP Services within DGASPC on AMP-related county practices
(February-March 2018) (N=35).

And yet, about one third70 of heads of AMP Service within DGASPC feel that an additional monthly
financial support of 250-300 lei per child would be necessary, to make the service more attractive for
AMPs, and of 300-350 lei per child, so that the child is not denied, postponed or canceled access to
services they need. This is also the opinion of about one third of 71 CMs, but their estimates are higher,
to about 500-700 lei per month per child. Half of the foster carers interviewed say they would need an
additional 800-900 lei per month per child, generally for medical and recovery services and for
expenses incurred with school and extracurricular activities.

             �Children (in foster care) participate in extracurricular music activities (organ and
             saxophone) and extra tutoring (foreign languages and maths). there are signs of clear
             emotional interactions, and the AMP can be seen as a best practice example. At home we
             noticed that there were several pictures of the two children, taken during important events
             for them (celebrations, award festivities, trips to Germany to the AMP ’s biological children).
             The AMP states that it would be impossible to offer the children extracurricular activities
             without the support of her bilogical children.� (Case study AMP, Brasov County, Field report
             social worker Florentina Andrei)

In any case, in view of increasing the quality of foster care all stakeholders agree that, apart from
money, more and better training of AMPs is also needed and developing community services, in the
AMP’s vicinity, especially daycare centers, recovery services and school after school.




69
   http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/images/Documente/Legislatie/Assistenta-sociala-2018/HG_978_-2015_la_18012018.pdf
70
   Out of the 35 counties, 9 answered and 15 agreed that an additional financial support is not necessary.
71
   7% of CMs did not answer and 61% did not feel that additional financial support is needed.




                                                         73
Best practices
M, from Miracle

I am in Buzau and we are heading towards a foster family from the rural area that are looking after
2 children: a 4-year old girl and a 9-year old boy. The house in which the foster carer lives,
together with her family, is clean and welcoming. The lady welcomes us with a smile on her face,
together with her husband. In the room we enter, M, a 4-year old girl, looks at use in a relaxed
way, is very sociable and immediately interacts with us. She shows us her toys, approaches the
case manager, while talking about friendship, kindergarten, colleagues.

The center of everyone’s attention, from time to time she climbs into the foster carer’s arms,
pirouettes, turns back to the case manager, gets into bed, explores, communicates, talks, looks at
us carefully, fills out all the space with her being and, eventually, asks the case manager for a little
lipstick, to put on some make-up like �a young lady�. Somehow aware of being the center of
attention, she makes me say in my head �how natural and relaxed is this child , how bright her eyes
are�, and how good she feels in this foster family.

M comes from a disadvantaged family, who ended up at the AMP for poverty-related reasons, with
no apparent medical issues. In the social evaluation in her file I read later on: M was born on
08.15.2013 in the Rm. Sarat Maternity, father unknown, domiciled in Rm. Sarat. After giving birth,
her mother abandoned her in the Newborn Ward of the Rm. Sarat Municipal Hospital, later
motivating that she did not have the financial or material means to raise and look after the child,
because she already has three other.

From the discussions, I was surprised to learn that M had not had any special medical issues until
May 2015. I can’t believe that a child so alive and healthy was actually sick. �As of May 2015, the
following behavioral signs are recorded: low appetite, low interest for surrounding objects, she
rocks herself to sleep, she would bang her head against the floor, sometimes was aggressive with
the others and according to the psychological assessment, she was not developed according to her
age, had signs of auto and hetero-aggressiveness, hyperkinetic syndrome, light psychomotric
retardation. In May 2015 she was admitted for medical investigations to Prof. Dr. Alexandru
Obregia Hospital in Bucharest, with a recommendation to periodically go to the neuro-pshychiatrist
in Buzau The child received the treatment given by the latter - Encephabol, Timonil, Cerebrolizin
(for about 1 year). Periodic encephalograms were done, as the specialist d octor recommended.�

Later on she started to develop her vocabulary, she stopped being aggressive and became
interested in activities, in games. As of the 2016-2017 school year, M has been going to the local
kindergarten, she fit in, she takes part in the activities, gets along well with the other children.
�The foster carer was constantly in involved in raising, looking after and educating the child,
followed the doctors’ recommendations and those of toher specialists, actively collaborated with
them and got involved in the child’s individual development�, says the case manager. I don’t think
that if this child had been in residential care she would have had the same chance!

This is one of the best experiences I’ve had as an evaluator/social worker: to hav e in front of you
this wonderful child, playful and full of energy, and to learn that in the past she showed signs of
hospitalism, that she has the NPI diagnostic or shows low interest in the surrounding objects. And
for none of these things to be obvious; to just learn them from the case manager, while talking or
by reading the file.

There are the miracles you read of in the Bible, but there are also the living miracles, experienced,
that surprise you. Here, in Buzau, in a beautiful family, I saw the 4-year old M. M’s destiny is not a
prophet’s miracle; the miracle was made by a foster carer!

(Case study AMP, Buzau County, Field report social worker Eugen Lucan)




                                                     74
                  Part 2 (B)


     ALTERNATIVE SERVICES
           TO CARE HOMES:


     Family-type foster care




75
PART 2B. NETWORK OF FAMILY-TYPE
FOSTER CARE WITH RELATIVES AND
OTHER FAMILIES / PERSONS
In Romania, foster care type services are broken down into:

•   Foster care with relatives up to the fourth degree and

•  Foster care with other families or persons, namely relatives, other than up to 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.

In the official statistics, foster care is registered at child level, and there is no information on the
persons taking care of the children or the households in which they live. This data is all the more
relevant as many foster families take care not only of one child, but of between 2 and 12 children.
This is why this chapter provides an analysis of foster care, in addition to the analysis of children
benefiting from care supplied by such services.

The total number of children in foster families decreased between 2010 and 2017, as it also happened
in the case of children placed in residential care or with foster parents (please also see Part 2A).
Nevertheless, regarded as weight in the total number of children in the special protection system,
foster care continued to account for approximately one third. Among all types of protection services,
there is a service which, unlike all the others, witnessed a surge. This is the service of foster care with
other families/persons, as indicated in Figure 12. However, in the total number of foster care, the
weight of care provided by other families/persons merely increased from 18%, in 2010, to 26%, in
2017.

Figure12: Evolution in the number of children and youth benefiting from special protection measure in family
    type services, broken down per types of services, between 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2017

 Figure 1: Evolution in the number of children and youth benefiting from special protection measure in family type services,
 broken down per types of services, between 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2017




                                                                                                                         Children in the
                                                                                                                         care of professional
                                                                                                                         foster parents

                                                                                                                         Children in the
                                                                                                                         foster care of
                                                                                                                         relatives


                                                                                                                         Children in foster care
                                                                                                                         with other families or
                                                                                                                         persons




Source: www.copii.ro, National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption (NAPRCA)
(2010-2017).

At national level, the number of children placed in foster families with relatives up to the fourth
degree has decreased from more than 15,100 in 2010 to approximately 11,200 on 31 December 2017.



                                                                       76
In contrast, the number of children in foster care with other families/persons has increased from
approximately 3,300 to approximately 3,900 (see Annex 2B. Table 2).

A similar evolution was also recorded at the level of the 35 counties where, in February 2018, there
were in operation care homes for children. Among such counties, however, in some of them the
number of children in foster care with relatives has increased (Dolj, Ilfov, Suceava and Tulcea), while
in others, the number dramatically dropped, for instance, in Galați, up to one third of the number
existing at the end of 2010. At the same time, although the number of children in foster care with
other families/persons increased in general, it also saw considerable drops in counties such as Harghita
or TimiÈ™.

          Table 16: Distribution of family-type foster care (PFam), children under care and caregivers,
                                         broken down per types of PFam
                                                Family-type foster
                                                       care                Children in PFam              Caretakers
                                                            Percent                    Percent                   Percent
                                               Number         age         Number         age        Number         age

     Total, out of which:                       11,300         100        14,487         100         16,079         100
      - with relatives up to the fourth
     degree                                      8,133          72        10,580          73         11,435         71

     - with other families or persons            3,099          27         3,745          26         4,553          28

     - Mixed                                      68            1           162            1           91            1

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).

This Part 2 (B) of Output #4 contains an analysis of family foster services in the 35 counties where
there are in operation care homes for children. In February 2018, these General Directorate for Social
Assistance and Child Protection services of the family-type contained a total of 11,300 placements
(with families or persons) who provided care for approximately 14,500 children whose wellbeing was
monitored by more than 340 case managers. Among these placements, 72% were with relatives, 27%
with other families or persons, and 1% were placements with several children, some of which with
relatives and some of which with other families.


2B.1. Data
The analysis detailed in the sections below relies on data collected by the World Bank team in
February-March 2018 (Annex 2B. Table 1). In each of the 35 counties under review, in the first stage, a
face-to-face interview was conducted with the Head of the Case Management Service or Family-Type
Placement (or similar) services within General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection,
in connection with county-wide practices. In the second stage, the census of family placements (PFam)
was supplemented, containing a small set of information. In the third stage, a sample of 774 PFam was
randomly selected, to which a questionnaire was provided in connection both with the foster family,
and with the children under their care.72 The questionnaires were filled out together with the
children’s case managers, within the General Directorate for Social Assistance an d Child Protection, in
reliance upon the data existing in their files. In the last stage, 1 to 4 case studies were selected from
each county, totaling 57, which were targeted by the social assistants within the World Bank team by
on-site visits conducted together with the case managers of the General Directorate for Social
Assistance and Child Protection.73

Data was collected by a team comprised of: 22 professional social assistants, members of CNASR, 24
sociologists and 23 research assistants. Furthermore, the collection of data was attended by 327

72
   In each county, 10-20 placements with relatives and 5-7 placements with other families or persons were selected, in reliance
upon statistic pitch. For questionnaire analysis, data has been weighted.
73
   Case studies were randomly selected from among the PFam selected in the sample.




                                                              77
specialists with the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, holding positions
such as head of department, inspectors, counsellors, case managers, clerks, social assistants and
psychologists.


2B.2. Family-type foster care network
The history of the PFam network: At the level of the 35 counties under review, the current network of
family-type foster care was set up in three stages. Starting from the date when they received the first
children under their care, the current PFam network (carrying for one or several children in February-
March 2018) developed at a slow pace between 1994 and 2004, until 7% of its current capacity. 74 The
growing pace of the network increased from 2005 until 2014, when it reached almost half of its current
capacity. Between 2015 and March 2018, the family-type foster care network virtually doubled and
reached the 11,300 foster families with 14,500 children under their care.

Figure 13: Year when family-type foster care active in February-March 2018 received the first children under
                                their care, broken down per types of PFam




Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=11,300 PFam).

Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.

Annex 2B. Table 3 illustrates that the county networks of family-type foster care have gone through
the same development stages. There are, however, differences between the networks which were set
up earlier - in the counties of Galați, Iași, Maramureș, Neamț, Sălaj, Teleorman and Vâlcea - and the
networks set up more recently, in particular in Dolj, Ilfov and Tulcea. Accordingly, the average period
spent by a child under family-type foster care is twice as long (around 6 years) in the counties where
networks were set up earlier, than in those developed after 2015 (where the average period is
approximately three years).

Figure 14: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on their length of service as PFam (from the time
  when they received the first child under their care until February 2018), broken down per types of PFam
                                                    (number)




74
  The first mixed foster care center (with several children, some of which under foster care with relatives and others with other
families/persons) was set up in 2001.




                                                               78
Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=11,300 PFam).

Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.

In total, at the level of the 35 counties under review, the length of service as foster family is of:

•    5.5 years, for relatives up to the fourth degree (minimum a few days and maximum 23 years),

•    4.4 years, for other families or persons (maxim 22 years), respectively

•    4.5 years, for mixed foster care (maximum 16 years).75

The structure of the PFam network, per types: the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child
Protection have taken different preference in developing certain types of family-type foster care
centers (Annex 2B. Table 4). As already indicated, in the 35 counties under review, out of the entire
PFam network: 72% were with relatives, 27% were with other families or persons, and 1% were mixed
foster care centers (with several children, some of which with relatives and some with other families).
Nevertheless, county networks widely varied from the network in the county of Covasna 76, which
comprised 89% PFam with relatives, 11% with other families/persons and no mixed foster care center
and the network in the county of Teleorman 77, where 50% of the placements were with other
families/persons, 48% with relatives and 1% were mixed. Mixed foster care centers are but a few
(maximum 5) in 26 counties among the 35; the other 9 counties have not used this type of PFam. 78

Groups of PFam and PFam with professional foster parent (PFP): the analysis conducted at household
level in foster care families and foster parents revealed that there are both households where several
PFam co-exists, and households of foster parents also providing care for children under family-type
foster care. Thus,

•  approximately 1% of PFam live in the same households as other foster care families.79 In general,
PFam groups also include children under the foster care of relatives.




75
   Corresponding standard deviations are of approximately 4.5 years for all types of PFam.
76
   A similar structure per types of PFam also existed in the county of Gorj.
77
   The counties of Bihor, Galați and Sibiu had a similar structure.
78
   Counties which, until February-March 2018 had not used mixed family-type foster care consisted of: AR, BH, BN, CS, CJ, CV,
IL, TL and VL.
79
   The maximum percentage of PFam living in households containing several foster care families was in February-March 2018 of
3.2%, in the county of Dâmbovița.




                                                             79
•  other 1% of PFam forming part of households of professional foster parents.80 Almost all
placements forming part of PFam groups with professional foster parents are placements with other
families or persons. Most often, they emanate from retired foster parents who have applied for
placement with other families/persons, in order to keep the child.

Groups of PFam and PFam with professional foster parents may be found in 29 out of the 35 counties
under review, as illustrated in Annex 2B. Table 5.81

Composition of the PFam network: According to applicable regulations in force, upon enforcing the
protection measure consisting of family-type foster care, the caregiver of the child shall be identified,
who may be a person or a family. Among all family-type foster care units in the 35 counties, in 57% of
the cases the caregiver is identified as a person and in 43% as a family. Practices vary, however, across
the counties. Thus, the percentage of foster care with a person varies between 35% (in the county of
Bihor) and a maximum of 86% (in Ialomița) ( Annex 2B. Table 6).

At any rate, irrespective of the caregiver identified upon enforcing this measure, most children live, in
actuality, in a family, as they are given in the care either of a couple, or of a married person.
Placements to other families or persons contain a significantly higher percentage of PFam where the
children live, in effect, in a family, when compared to placements to relatives up to the fourth degree
- 72% versus 63% (Annex 2B. Table 6).

Figure 15 reveals that in all counties, in more than half of foster care families, children live in a family
(with a maximum of 79% in the county of Bihor) (Annex 2B. Table 7).

     Figure15: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the caregiver of the child/children under
                                          special protection measures (%)




Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=11,300 PFam)

 The distribution of children among these types of family-type foster care is similar to the one in the
figure above.

As a generalized practice, when placement is concluded with a person (married or not), the caregiver
of the children/child is a woman (Annex 2B. Table 6). For this reason, women account for 89% of
placements to singles (not married, divorced, separated or widow) and 87% of placements to married
persons.

80
   The maximum percentage of family-type foster care in households containing groups of PFam and professional foster parents
was in February-March 2018 of 4.3%, in the county of Teleorman.
81
   The counties where, in February-March 2018, there were no such groups were as follows: AG, BN, CV, GL, GJ and PH.




                                                            80
Overall, the network of family-type foster care contains approximately 16,100 caregivers. More than
two thirds (66%) of them are women. The percentage of women is considerably higher (more than 75%)
in placements to a person and in two counties - Alba and Ialomița (please see Annex 2B. Tables 8 and
9).

The average age of caregivers in the family-type foster care network is 55 years,82 with a minimum of
17 years and a maximum of 90 years. While persons younger than 40 years of age account for 10% of
the total number, persons older than 60 years of age are four times as many. Relatively younger are
caregivers in the placements to other families/persons (as average, 52 years, as compared to 57 years
for placements to relatives), those in groups of PFam with professional foster parents (as average, 53
years) and in the four counties - Bihor, Ilfov, Satu Mare and Arad (51-53 years) (please see Annex 2B.
Tables 10 and 11).

Almost half of the caregivers have graduated no more than a high-school: 6% are illiterate, 16% have
only graduated primary schools, and 29% have graduated secondary schools. At the other end of the
spectrum, only 8% of caregivers have graduated an educational institution higher than high-school.83
The level of education is significantly lower for women, than for men.84

              Figure 16: Distribution of caregivers per gender and level of education (number)




Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=16,079 persons in PFam).

Additionally, the level of education is substantially higher in the network of placement with other
families/persons as compared to placement to relatives. The percentage of persons who graduated no
more than a secondary school is 26% in the network of placement with other families/persons than 61%
in the network of placement with relatives. The highest level of education is held by caregivers in
groups of PFam with professional foster parents, where the percentage of persons who graduated no
more than secondary school is only 11% (Annex 2B. Table 12).

Furthermore, the differences between county networks are considerable. As a general rule, older
county networks and those containing more women have an average level of education lower than
more recent networks or those containing fewer women. The network of family-type foster care in the
county of Covasna contains 77% of caregivers who graduated more than a secondary school, 22% who
graduated a vocational school or high-school and 1% with higher education. On the contrary, in the
county network in Vâlcea, the corresponding percentages are 34%, 54%, and 5% respectively. 85 Annex
2B. Table 13 illustrates the distribution of caregivers per levels of education and per counties.

In terms of ethnicity, as expected, in the PFam network, the Romanian or Roma ethnicities and the
Orthodox religion prevail.

82
   Standard deviation of 12 years.
83
   Furthermore, 22% of caregivers have graduated a vocational school, and 17% have graduated high-school. For approximately
1% of caregivers, there is no education information available.
84
   The percentage of persons who graduated no more than a secondary school is 55% for women, as compared to 45% for men.
85
   There is no education information available for 7% of the caregivers in the county of VL.




                                                            81
                     Table 17: Distribution of PFam depending on ethnicity and religion (% total)
                                                                Other                Not
                                   Orthodox       Catholic                                           Total
                                                               religion           disclosed
             Romanian                 72             1            3                  1                77
             Hungarian                0              2            1                  1                 4
             Roma                     11             0            3                  1                15
             Other ethnicity          2              0            1                  1                 4
             Not disclosed            0              0            0                  0                 1
             Total                   85              4            8                  3                100

Source: World Bank, QQ PFam Documentary assessment questionnaire for PFam (February-March 2018) (N=11,300
PFam). The data has been weighted.

Size of the PFam network: As already indicated, in February-March 2018, in the 35 selected counties,
there were 11,300 foster care families active (see Annex 2B. Table 2). The differences between the
counties were considerable, in terms of network size. The number of PFam in the county network
ranged between a minimum of 124 and a maximum of 705; two counties had small networks below 150
PFam, in particular Harghita and Teleorman, while other two counties had developed networks in
excess of 600 PFam (Constanța and Iași). 86

In February 2018, the PFam network provided care for approximately 14,500 children. Table 18 reveals
that more than 91% of PFam provided care for 1 to 2 children.

     Table 18: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the number of children in their care and on
                                           the type of PFam (% total PFam)
                                                                                          2           3         4-12
                                                                          1 child                                          Total
                                                                                      children    children    children

     Foster care with relatives up to the fourth degree                    55.7          12.4        2.7         1.1           72
     Foster care with other families or persons                            23.3          3.3         0.5         0.3           27
     Mixed foster care                                                      0.0          0.5         0.1         0.0            1
     PFam with a single (not married, divorced, separated, widow) –
                                                                           24.6          4.8         1.3         0.4           31
     woman
     PFam with a single (not married, divorced, separated,
                                                                            3.1          0.5         0.1         0.0            4
     widower)- man
     PFam with a married person or part of a civil union                   17.7          4.0         0.7         0.4           23
     PFam with a couple (family)                                           33.6          6.8         1.2         0.7           42
     Total                                                                  79           16           3           2            100

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=11,300 PFam).

Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.

Mention is to be made that foster care families with 6-12 children were only 18 in the 35 counties.
Among them, 7 were PFam with relatives and 11 consisted of foster care with other persons or
families. In fact, in certain counties, the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection
uses foster care with other persons as a way to place children under the care of NGOs/foundations
providing residential-type services (CTF or apartments), that do not hold a license. Therefore, at least
in some instances, foster care with other persons is merely a solutions for difficulties encountered in
the service subcontracting process by the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child
Protection to private bodies.

86
  The network contains 11 counties with 151-250 PFam, other 11 counties with 251-350 PFam and 9 counties with 351-450 foster
care families.




                                                             82
Monitoring methods for the PFam network at county level: Only few counties have a department or
office dedicated to family-type foster care. In most counties, the Case Management Department is in
charge of monitoring children given in family-type foster care. There is no social assistant or CM for
foster families or persons, as it happens in the case of professional foster parents.

The children living in the more than 11.300 PFam are monitored by 341 case managers (CM). The
number of case managers for children in PFam considerably varies from one county to the next,
between 2 CMs and 29 CMs (in the counties of Mureș, and Vâlcea respectively). 87 The ratio of children
in PFam per CM is 42, in average, but also widely varies, between 12 and 283 (in Ialomița, and Mureș
respectively). The data at the level of each county is available in Annex 2B. Table 14.

Case studies on PFam have revealed that less than one third of the foster care families have worked
with only one case manager since they received the child. The other foster care families have changed
between 2 CMs and 10 CMs over the time. Even in the past 12 months, 40% of PFam in our case studies
had changed between 2 CMs and 5 CMs (Annex 2B. Figure 1).

Territorial distribution of PFam network: Out of the entire PFam network under review, 45% is located
in the urban environment and 55% in the rural environment. Discrepancies across counties are
significant (Figure 17). The percentage of family-type foster care in the urban environment ranges
between 31% in the county of Dâmbovița and 78% in the county of Hunedoara.

         Figure 17: Distribution of family-type foster care per county and residence environment (%)




Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=11,300 PFam).

In the rural environment, there are significantly more placements with relatives up to the fourth
degree, which, upon setting up the protection measure, have indicated as caregivers either a family,
or a (married) man and they occurred between 2015 and 2018. On the contrary, in the urban
environment, there are significantly more arrangements occurred very early (1994-2004), in particular
placements with other families/persons which indicated a single woman as the caregiver. (please see
Annex 2B. Table 15)

It is to be mentioned that, in certain counties, there are children in family-type foster care living, in
fact, abroad, either with foster parents, or with the biological family, for which payment of foster
care allowance was suspended, but are still registered as active PFam. On the other hand,
approximately 1% of all PFam live in a county other than the one in which they were set up.

The professional foster parent network in the 35 counties is spread in 320 towns and municipalities and
in 1,930 communes. The network is highly concentrated as territory, both in the rural environment,
and in the urban one. Thus, 26 of the towns 88 host 44% of all family-type foster care in the urban

87
  The County of MM provided no information of CM for children in PFam.
88
  Towns in which there are 60 children or more placed with PFam (between 60 and 212 children). They are located in 24
counties.




                                                         83
environment and 44% of all children in PFam in the urban environment. Similarly, 170 of the
communes89 gather 26% of all family-type foster care in the rural environment and 29% of all children
in PFam in the rural environment. The lists of such localities are available in Annex 2B. Table 16.

Maps 4 and 5 illustrate the family-type foster care services at the level of the 35 counties. County
maps may be found in the 35 reports at county level.




89
   Communes in which there are 10 children or more placed with professional foster parents (between 10 and 45). These
communes are located in 32 counties. Among them, 20 communes are in the county of Iași, 16 in Constanța, 11 in Bihor and 10
in MureÈ™.




                                                            84
Map 3: Map of family-type foster care services for the 35 counties under review (number of PFam)




Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster parents (February-March 2018) (N=11,300 PFam).




                                                      85
 Map 4: Map of children under family-type foster care in the 35 counties under review (number of children)




Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (Febr-March 2018) (N=14,487 children in PFam).




                                                       86
2B.3. Profile of children in family-type foster care
Children placed in PFam are to an equal extent boys and girls, of all ages, particularly between 4 and
17 years of age. A percentage of 12% among them have one or several of the following special needs:
disabilities (9%), CES (7%) or other special needs (4%). The percentage of children with special needs is
significantly higher among children in the foster care of other families/persons (17% as compared to
10% among children in the foster care of relatives or in mixed foster care).

Approximately one third (35%) of the children in PFam have at least one sibling under the care of the
same center (please see and Annex 2B. Table 17). This percentage reaches 65% among children under
mixed foster care, 39% among children in the foster care of relatives up to the fourth degree and only
20% of children under the foster care of other families or persons.

  Table 19: Distribution of children benefiting from foster care in PFam in February 2018, broken down per
                                            gender and age (% total)
                                                  Boys       Girls     Total
                                   0-3 years        2          3         5
                                  4-10 years       14         14        28
                                     11-14
                                                   15         14        29
                                     years
                                     15-17
                                                   13         12        26
                                     years
                                   18+ years        6          6        12
                                     Total         50         50        100
Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster parents (February-March 2018) (N=14,487 children in PFam).

Irrespective of the type of family-type foster care, more than 73% of the children are provided with
care by relatives up to the fourth degree, below 1% by other relatives (a sister of their grandmother, a
cousin of their father, an uncle of their mother, etc.) and 26% were in the care of persons to which
they were not related. Most often, the grandparents (grandmother, grandfather) and aunts (more
seldom uncles) are the relatives up to the fourth degree who take the children under their care.

 Figure 18: Distribution of children benefiting from care in PFam in February 2018 depending on the kinship
                                              to the caregiver (%)




Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster parents (February-March 2018) (N=10,665 children to which care
is provided by relatives up to the fourth degree in PFam with relatives and in mixed PFam).




                                                        87
2B.4. Relevance of the professional foster parent network in
the process of closing the care homes for children
Family-type foster care depend on the existence of extended family for the child and on the efforts of
case managers to identify relatives or other families/persons willing to take the child in their care. In
that respect, the situation of children and youth in care homes is unfavorable. Many of them have
arrived in the protection system after having been abandoned after their birth in maternities. Others
have been in the system too long. In total, for less than one third (31%) of the children living in care
homes, a family has been identified for (re)integration purposes. Therefore, family-type foster care
services bear, most likely, little relevance for the closing of care homes for children, in the absence of
continued efforts by case managers.

The data on children who have lived in family-type foster care in the past 12 months has not been
recorded and subject to a consistent analysis by most General Directorates for Social Assistance and
Child Protection. In 10 counties, the heads of the Case Management Department (or of the PFam or
similar Department) who were interviewed could not provide any estimate in that respect.
Nevertheless, in 32 counties, information was delivered in connection with the children who left the
family-type foster care in the past 12 months. In the overall, 1,815 children and youth were reported
to have left family-type foster care. The vast majority (88%) have left the protection system, and 12%
were transferred to other services. Table 20 illustrates that most exits were upon the children turning
18 years of age (by socio-professional integration). At the same time, most transfers from family-type
foster care were to care homes for children.

  Table 20: Children who left family-type foster care in the past 12 months, depending on the exit method
 Among all children who were in family-type foster care in your county in the past 12
 months, not counting those still in PFam at present (February 2018), how may             Number     %
 children ...?
 Total                                                                                     1815     100

                 Reintegrated in their family or with relatives up to the fourth degree    388       21
 Left the
 protection      Adoption                                                                  169       9
 system
                 Socio-professional integration                                            1035      57

                 Transfer to a professional foster parent                                   63       3
 Transfer to
 another         Transfer to a residential-type service for children                       150       8
 service
                 Transfer to a residential-type service for adults                          10       1

Source: World Bank, Interviews with the Heads of Case Management Department or PFam (or similar) Department
within the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection (February-March 2018) (N=32). No
estimates were provided by the counties of Constanța, Harghita and Sălaj.

Only one of ten children and youth (9%) have left the system by adoption. On the other hand, less than
2% of current foster families have adopted or are in the process of adopting a child they had in their
care. Almost all of these cases are placements with other families or persons (6% of all PFam with
other families or persons), which comes to support the assertions of specialists within the meaning
that there are counties in which this type of foster care is used as a way to circumvent difficulties or
barriers relating to the adoption process.

Only one in five children and youth (21%) have left the system by reintegration in their families. As
deriving from the interviews with case managers, family reintegration is difficult to achieve for several
reasons.




                                                       88
•  67% of family-type foster care have been requested by the children’s relatives/families, in
particular from the need for a legal guardian for children whose parents are deceased, imprisoned or
have left abroad

•  only 57% of family-type foster care have been set up with the parents’ consent, 90 therefore, in
many cases, the relationship between caregivers and parents (mother or father) of the children is not
a good one and they do not allow visits.

•  Almost 20% of foster arrangements have been set up because the parents (mama or father) cannot
take care of the child or because they suffer from various illness impairing their parental capabilities,
or because they have no home or economic means to take care of the child. In such cases:

              “Mothers build other families, find other concubines, make other children and they are ok
              with the grandparents taking care of the children, while grandparents are content with
              the foster care allowance.� (Case Manager, county of Neamț)

              “Since the foster care allowance was increased, families prefer this alternative instead of
              reintegration� (Case Manager, county of Bistrița Năsăud)

              “Grandparents do not have a good relationship with the parents and do not allow them to
              see their children� (Case Manager, county of Suceava)

•  a small part of family-type foster care are maintained active, especially for 18+ years youth,
because in the absence thereof, the youth would no longer afford the necessary means to continue
their education.

Transfer from PFam to other services is most often brought about by the death or poor health of
caregiving grandparents, “behavioral disorders� associated to adolescence and health conditions of the
children (in particular, of children with disabilities).

              “A child living under the foster care of grandparents arrived in a care home because the
              mother refused to take responsibility for the child, did not wish to reintegrate them, and
              the grandmother gave up (the family-type foster care arrangement), as the child was
              older than 15.� (Case Manager, county of Iași)

              “A girl under family-type foster care with her former professional foster parent,
              everything seemed all right. But, when adolescence-related issues occurred, the lady no
              longer wanted to keep her. So, she had to be transferred to a residential-type OPA, this
              was the only alternative.� (Case Manager, county of Alba)




2B.5. Implementation of standards and case management to
professional foster parents
Family-type foster care is accredited as a department of the General Directorate for Social Assistance
and Child Protection only in 8 out of the 35 counties under review, according to the heads of Case
Management Departments (or for PFam or similar Departments) which we interviewed. In February-
March 2018, 14 counties had no written document approved/endorsed by the General Directorate for
Social Assistance and Child Protection, containing standards governing the family-type foster care. Out
of the other 21 counties that declared that they have such a document in place, only 14 could provide
it to the research team. At any rate, 34 counties declared that they developed, at the level of their


90
  Holding a maximum of 62% of foster care provided by relatives, 44% of PFam with other families/persons and a minimum of
35% of mixed foster care.




                                                           89
county, procedures and guidelines for the family-type foster care service. Case studies indicated that
at the question relating to operating documents and instruments conducted with a certain periodicity,
only 34 out of the 57 foster families envisaged could provide an affirmative answer, clarifying that
they referred to: certificates for the child from school, from the doctor, reports (or notebook) of
expenses, signing visit reports, monitoring reports and the statement to maintain the foster care
measure.

Different counties employ different practices in the management of family-type foster care.
Agreements between foster families and the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child
Protection are not concluded in 8 counties or are concluded at child level (for each child) in 18
counties or are concluded at the level of PFam (foster family for all children under their care) in other
8 counties.91 Among all family-type foster care, only 58% have an agreement in place with the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection concerning the care provided to the
child/children (40% have no agreement in place and 2% did not provide a reply), among which 48%
agreements at child level and 10% agreements at the level of PFam.

According to case managers, almost all children placed under family-type foster care arrangements
have benefited from initial or detailed assessment, before the protection measure was set up. 92
However, only approximately 26% of the PFam, according to the case managers within the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, more specifically 16%, according to the
statements of foster families, received a copy of that report.

Furthermore, almost all (97%) children under the care of PFam have a customized protection plan
(CPP). Nevertheless, the data in the documentary assessment poll for PFam families reveals that the
participation of foster families is rather low, irrespective of the type of foster care arrangement.

Only in 18 of the counties under review, does the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child
Protection also draw up customized services plans (CSP) to accompany the CPPs. For this reason, for
less than half (48%) of the children in PFam have CSPs been drawn up together with CPPs. The active
participation in setting up CSPs is very low for all kinds of family-type foster care.

At any rate, case studies have revealed that only 21% of PFam have received a copy of the CPP for the
children in their foster care. Similarly, only 6% of PFam have received a copy of the CSP. However,
case managers believe that 85% of the foster families (irrespective of their type) are aware of the
CPP/CSPs for the children under their foster care. On the other hand, foster families have assessed
their own knowledge about the CPPs/CSPs of children in their care with an average scoring of 6, on a
scale from 1 to 10.93

Table 21: Participation of foster families/persons in setting up the CPP and CSP for the children in their care,
                                      broken down per types of PFam (%)
                                                                                  Foster care
                                                                                  provided by
                                                               Foster care           other
                                                               provided by         families/            Mixed
                                                                relatives           persons          foster care   Total
     There are no CPPs                                                3                 3                           3
     PFam who have not taken part in setting up the CPP
                                                                     33                 37                 50       35
     for the children in their care
     PFam who have taken part in setting up the CPP,
     according to case managers, but there is no                     24                 20                 19       23
     document signed by them to attest to it


91
   One county did not provide a reply to this question.
92
   Only 1% of the children in PFam have not undergone any assessment, and for 3% this is unknown.
93
   Standard deviation of 4. A percentage of 11% of PFam in the case studies have replied “I don’t know�.




                                                               90
 PFam who took an active part in setting up the CPP
                                                           40             40              31           40
 and there are also documents attesting to it
 There are no CSPs                                         53             51              65           52
 PFam who have not taken part in setting up the CSP
                                                           22             24              25           23
 for the children in their care
 PFam who have taken part in setting up the CSP,
 according to case managers, but there is no               12             13               0           12
 document signed by them to attest to it
 PFam who took an active part in setting up the CSP
                                                           13             12              10           12
 and there are also documents attesting to it

Source: World Bank, QQ PFam Documentary assessment questionnaire for PFam (February-March 2018) (N=11,300
PFam). The data has been weighted.

Irrespective of the type of family-type foster care, case managers claim that both the implementation
of CPP, and monitoring the implementation of CPP are in charge of the General Directorate for Social
Assistance and Child Protection. Cooperation with local SPASs is limited to 23% of PFam, for CPP
implementation, and only 15% of PFam, for monitoring such implementation.

The social assistant or case manager for the child in PFam should monitor the child’s status by regular
visits, at least with a monthly frequency. Documentary assessment of family-type foster care services
reveals that most foster families/persons are paid at most one visit every three months (Figure 19).
Visits are recorded in visit or monitoring reports, which may be found in the child’s file, in most cases.
In approximately 3% of these visits, case managers report that they were faced with impending
jeopardy from the foster family, the neighbors or the community where it lives. On-site assessment in
case studies have revealed comparable results.

 Figure 19: Number of on-site visits at the domicile of the foster parent conducted by the CM in the past 12
                                                    months




Source: World Bank, QQ PFam Documentary assessment questionnaire for PFam (February-March 2018) (N=11,300
PFam). The data has been weighted.

Emphasis is to be placed on the fact that, even though CMs have visited 93% of the foster families at
least once, in the past 12 months, they have not had a face-to-face talk/played/interacted with the
child or youth in their care even once, by ensuring that the meeting was confidential (not allowing
other family members to be present) in 45% of PFam. They have interacted with the child once or
twice per year in 30% of PFam or 3 to 12 times in the past 12 months in 25% of PFam. This means that
on-site visits at the domicile of foster families are rare, and face-to-face interactions between the CMs
and the children are even rarer. The rules imposed by county guidelines/procedures (Table 22) are
breached in almost all counties.




                                                      91
        Table 22: County rules on the interaction between the CM and the child under family-type foster care
     How often is the CM obliged to talk                                                                       Number
     with the child in PFam (depending on                                                                         of
     their age and maturity level) about                                                                       counties
     how they feel in the foster family,        -   There is no obligation for the CM to talk with the child       1
     about how they are treated, about the      -   Once every 4 months                                            2
     observance of their rights, any intra-     -   Once every 3 months                                           30
     family conflicts or conflicts with their   -   Once every 1.5 months                                          1
     biological family?                         -   Once every month                                               1

Source: World Bank, Interviews with the Heads of the Case Management Department or of the Department for
PFam (or similar) within the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection (February-March 2018)
(N=35).

In respect of these interviews, case managers frequently bring up cumbersome communication and
cooperation with the foster families/persons, in particular when compared to professional foster
parents. In particular, cooperation is poor because of the little time for interaction able to build a
trusting relationship. For instance, the most recent visit in the past 12 months by case managers to
foster families in the sample lasted for approximately 30 minutes. 94 The little time, as the CMs claim,
is an effect of the “large number of cases�, o f long distances between the offices of the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection and the domiciles of many PFam and of
inappropriate transportation resources.

                  “Cooperation with foster families is different from that with professio nal foster parents,
                  they look at us like we are unwanted guests; they are working, children are at school, we
                  do not find them at home. We need forms, documents, we cannot find them. There are no
                  legal means to coerce them.� (Case Manager, county of Bihor)

                  “Our time on site is very short to be able to interact with the foster family – the
                  beneficiary. We are 5 case managers in one car, each having 4-5 cases. At the time of our
                  visits, children are at school.� (Case Manager, county of Prahova)

                  “At the time of our visit, PFam (the husband) had a swollen foot, bluish-red, it had broken
                  it. I would have expected the case manager to send him to a specialist. He had worked for
                  23 years with the Romanian Railways Company, he could have benefited from a partial
                  illness pension. The case managers only focus on children, on the forms, on what they
                  need in terms of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, and
                  ignore anything else related to the family, play no prevention role. Cooperation with SPAS
                  is also missing.� (Case study, On-site report of the social assistant with the World Bank
                  team)

                  “At the time of our visit, the child “had just left for school�, although we agreed with the
                  social assistant to choose the time of our visit in such a way as to be able to talk to the
                  child, too. From the very beginning, we faced resilience both from the head of the care
                  home, and from the social assistant in conducting the interview with the family. Whereas,
                  later, the head of the care home changed his mind and approved visits both in CTF, and
                  with family-type foster care, the social assistant told us that she knew nothing about any
                  visits to the family, that she had not been informed... We rescheduled the meeting for
                  the day of..., but I was told as soon as I entered the office that we had to hurry up, not to
                  go past 4:00 p.m., because she has other things to do.� (Case study, On -site report of the
                  social assistant with the World Bank team)


94
  The average duration of a visit ranges between 5 minute and 240 minutes. Standard deviation of 15 minutes. For
approximately half of the PFam, a visit lasted between 15 and 30 minutes.




                                                               92
Composition of households with PFam and their lodgings: The composition of households containing
foster families does not differ depending on the type of foster care, but widely vary between the rural
and the urban environments. The documentary assessment data reveals that, in the urban
environment, children in family-type foster care usually live in households consisting of 3 persons, as
average, of which 2 adults and 1 foster child. In the rural environment, the average size of households
is of approximately 4 persons, of which 2 adults and 2 children (biological and foster). Only one of five
PFam in the urban environment and one in four PFam in the rural environment also have biological
children in their care.

There are no standards for the lodgings of foster families. From one county to the next and from one
case to the next, the housing conditions requested for granting family-type foster care may vary.
Whereas, in the urban environment, the typical lodgings for PFam is a 2-3 room apartment in a block
of flats, in the rural environment, professional foster parents live in houses with 2 or more rooms.
Thus, in both residential environments, there is approximately 1.40 persons per lodging room (with a
minimum of 0.3 – namely three rooms per person - and a maximum of 7 persons per room).

Only 54% of foster families, in particular PFam with relatives in the rural environment, have made
various improvements to their house before receiving the child in their care, in particular renovation,
whitewashing and sanitation, changed joinery, doors, building an indoor bathroom, a new room or
annex, purchasing household appliances, heating plant or new furniture. One third (32%) did not make
any improvements to their house, either for lack of financial resources or manpower (in particular in
the case of grandparents), or because their lodging conditions were already good (in general, this is
the case of foster care with other families or persons). There is no information in that regard for 14%
of the PFam.

Table 23: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the members of the household and the number
                            of rooms, per residential environments (% total PFam)
          Total number of persons                 Biological                              Number of
          in the household, of                 children of the     Foster                rooms in the
          which:                      Adults    foster family     children                  lodging

          % PFam in the URBAN
          environment
          (N=5,104 PFam)
 0                    0                 0            80              14                       0
 1                    1                 24           13              70                       9
 2                   21                 49              4            13                       39
 3                   40                 20              2             2                       31
 4                   20                 4               0             0                       13
 5                    7                 1               0             0                       5
 6-11                10                 1               0             0                       1
 Total               100               100          100              100                     100

          % PFam in the RURAL
          environment (N=6,196
          PFam)
 0                    0                 0            75              10                       0
 1                    0                 18           14              66                       2
 2                   13                 54              8            16                       32
 3                   38                 19              2             4                       32
 4                   19                 6               1             1                       18
 5                   15                 1               0             1                       9




                                                   93
 6-16                  15                   2               0              1                          6
 Total                100                 100            100              100                       100

Source: World Bank, QQ PFam Documentary assessment questionnaire for PFam (February-March 2018) (N=11,300
PFam). The data has been weighted.

Note: PFam with zero children in there care are foster families who provide care to youth 18+ years of age.

Case studies reveal that approximately three quarters of the foster families to which visits were paid
own their lodgings, they afford to suitably heat it every day, it contains a number of rooms able to
satisfy the requirements of the household, have a separate kitchen equipped with all appliances
required for cooking, sufficient bedrooms, with beds completed with everything required (bedspreads,
blankets, pillows). The other approximately 20-25% of the foster families that were visited have
lodgings with relatively poor conditions, without utilities, poorly equipped and furnished, which face
difficulties in suitably heating their lodgings. In total, the World Bank experts and case managers of
the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection who conducted on-site visits have
granted average scores of 7.5-9 (on a scale of 1 to 10) for every aspect relating to the condition of the
premises, cleanliness, odors, hygiene items, children’s level of hygiene, condition of the children’s
clothing and footwear and overall assessment of the physical environment in which the children live
(warm, friendly, colorful, joyful, customized). Therefore, the standard of care provided by the
professional foster parent network seems to be satisfactory.

             “They have a shelter that it improvised to some extent, in a former pig farm o f the town.
             There is no running water or sewerage. The toilet is outdoor. They hope to receive, in the
             spring, a youth house from the town hall.� (Case Manager with the General Directorate for
             Social Assistance and Child Protection, county of Hunedoara)

             “The apartment is modest, crowded with many items and trinkets, with an obsolete air. It
             is visibly cleaned regularly, but the furniture and everything else is old and worn out. The
             temperature is extremely low in the whole apartment. Nevertheless, both the
             grandmother, and the grandchild seemed comfortable.� (Case study, county of Botoșani)

             “A simple country house, with a room for sleeping, meals and where the child does his
             homework and plays. The equipment in the house is the bare minimum, but everything is
             orderly and neat.� (Case study, county of Dolj)

             “There is mold in the child’s room. In fact, the child’s room is an extension of the
             bedroom, a passing room from the bedroom to the bathroom and consists in two bunk
             beds where the child and the daughter of the foster family sleep.� (Case study, county of
             Prahova)

             “I entered the only room of the foster family through a hallway, to the right there was a
             dish cabinet and a hotplate, and to the left there was simply a toilet and a basin. A
             curtain was there for intimacy. The only room of the foster family, measuring
             approximately 25-30 sqm, contained three beds – one bed for the child, one for the
             grandmother and one for the ill uncle. There was electricity, but in the entrance hall
             there was no functional bulb.

             The lodging was clean, as much as possible, but equipped with old, worn-out items, some
             of them torn (the bedspread). There was no table. There were no personal items of the
             child. There was a towel hung on a string running through the room. ... The entire block
             of flats was disagreeable, with a stale odor, a lot of dirt – garbage all around the blocks of
             flats. Heat was supplied by an electrical heater and there is only cold water in the shared
             bathroom on the floor. There is mold and dampness in the lodging, and the grandmother




                                                       94
                 told me that through the ceiling (there is no roof) water leaks whenever it rains, which
                 they gather in pots and bowls.� (Case study, county of Satu Mare)



Abuse, neglect and exploitation of children in PFam: A total number of 23
complaints/petitions/accusations were submitted against the foster families (irrespective of their
source), including cases of/suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation of the child, involving the
members of PFam, their relatives, neighbors or members of the community, in the past 12 months.
They were reported in 10 counties out of the 35 under review, 1 to 4 complaints/petitions per
county.95 Most frequently, the accusations concerned neglect and abuse against the child in the foster
family. Following the investigations conducted by the General Directorate for Social Assistance and
Child Protection, most of the accusations could not be confirmed.

Out of the 35 counties under review, 24 General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection
have declared that they have a clear and transparent procedure in place for cases where accusations
are raised against a foster family. This procedure is known and understood by the professional foster
parent network at a level of 7.3, on a scale from 1 to 10, according to the Heads of the Case
Management (or PFam or similar) Department within the General Directorate for Social Assistance and
Child Protection.

The county practices and methodologies for cooperation with foster families significantly vary between
counties in many respects. Nevertheless, in general, in the standard forms of monitoring, visit,
reassessment, etc. reports, the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection do not
request CMs to check and to record on a regular basis information on whether the following cases
occur or not: (i) potential cases of sexual abuse or “indecent� proposals, physical or emotional abuse,
from the members of the family, their relatives, neighbors or members of the community, (ii) any
intervention/interventions by the Policy in the foster family, (iii) any changes in the criminal records
of the persons living with the minor child, (iv) any case/cases of contagious diseases in the family or in
the community or (v) data regarding the psychological reassessment of the members of PFam. They
seem to be rare occurrences, in less than 3-4% of PFam, as deriving from the documentary assessment
data of PFam. Still, in 57 case studies in PFam, the research team identified 6 foster families where
the Police had to intervene, and 2 of them resulted in changes in the criminal records of a family
member.

It is assumed that the case managers conduct such verifications during their visits on site: “They
perform an assessment in reliance upon their knowledge of the f amily and its situation� (Head of Case
Management Department). However, they merely record in the reports a simple checking of the
alternatives “yes� or “no� opposite a field such as “High -quality care and appropriate protection is
provided to the child against abuse/neglect�, with no other details, or provide information in another
field, such as “Other information�. Or, as regards changes in the criminal records or psychological
assessment, it is possible that no information whatsoever is requested. For instance, in certain
counties, the psychological assessment of the foster family is conducted only before setting up the
protection measure, and never repeated. In other counties, psychological assessment “is conducted
only if necessary�, and in others every year, as part of the reassessment of the measure. Similarly, the
criminal records are requested twice a year in certain counties, and only when the measure is set up,
in other counties.

In other words, in general, the information referred to above is not part of the institutional memory, is
not clearly recorded in the file of the child or of the foster family. Its existence at the level of the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection depends on the skills, interests and
efforts of the CM. This is a sensitive issue of particular substance in developing a system responsible
for children wellbeing. Insofar as CM so rarely talks with the children, and clear and regular

95
     Heads of the Case Management Department in 2 counties provided no reply.




                                                              95
information, useful to identify risks of neglect, abuse and exploitation is not available, we can
consider that the system fails to provide appropriate protection for children deprived of parental care.

Services provided to children: Only in 16 counties out of the 35 de counties under review there is a
regulation in reliance upon which social services are provided at home for children under PFam. This
regulation is not, however, known to foster families in 3 of these counties and little known in the
other 13 counties (an average score of 6.5, on a scale of 1 to 10, granted by the Heads of the Case
Management or PFam Department for PFam’s familiarity with this regulation).

Nevertheless, in almost all counties, 96 the foster family is held accountable if one of the social services
included in the CPP/CSP is not provided to the child. Thus, PFam needs to provide the child with a
healthy, safe and stimulating environment, adequate healthcare, appropriate educational services,
support to maintain and build his relationships with the family and friends, but also to develop skills
for an independent life. Mention is to be made that, as regards disabled children under family-type
foster care requiring recovery services, therapy, special school, etc., the General Directorates for
Social Assistance and Child Protection declare that they have the ability to provide all (or a large part)
of such services. Thus, in all counties, the responsibility for bearing the costs of social services to be
provided to children in PFam, in observance of CPP/CSP, is borne between the foster family and the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection. And, in that regard, case managers
deem that 95% of foster families use the foster care allowance to ensure the wellbeing of the
child/children.97

In the case studies, in addition to satisfactory assessments of the physical environment provided to
children by PFam, the research team granted an average score of 8, on a scale of 1 to 10, for the
appliances existing for leisure-educational activities and noticed positive interaction between the
children and the foster family in 42 of the cases (out of 57), while signs of negative interaction or
indifference were only recorded in a single case.

The services pointed out as being more difficult to provide by the foster families relate to the goals
specified in CPP in connection with education and maintaining relationships with family and friends,
according to case managers. The goals relating to education are difficult to achieve, mainly because
foster families/persons themselves have a low level of edu cation, “do not put much price on
education�, “cannot help the child in that respect�. Maintaining and building relationships with family
and friends is difficult because parents are abroad, imprisoned, drunkards, do not wish to keep in
touch with the child, have conflicting relationships with the caregivers or face other various burdens.

In less than 5% of the family-type foster care arrangements, there were noticed cases of refuse to
allow the child’s access to certain social services, for financial reaso ns. The percentage thereof is
merely 2% of PFam in connection with healthcare or recovery services. On the other hand, other
barriers in providing the necessary services to children pertain to the unavailability of
services/specialists in the communities where children live in foster families, in particular in the rural
environment.

Support provided to PFam: None of the counties under review provided training for foster
families/persons in the past 5 years (2012-2017). The data collected for each PFam reveals that less
than 3% of such persons benefited from training, since the measure was first set up (since they
received the child in their care). These PFam are from different counties and received training as part
of various projects.

In addition to training, the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection also provides
the county professional foster parent networks with the following:

96
  Except for three counties - Buzău, Ialomița and Vâlcea, while the county of Constanța delivered no reply.
97
   Case managers were asked to assess for each PFam selected in the sample the extent to which it uses the foster care
allowance in order to ensure the wellbeing of the child, on a scale of 1 to 10. For 79% of PFam, case managers granted a score of
10. Other 11% of PFam were scored with 9 and 5% with 8.




                                                               96
•  Psychological counselling, in 31 out of the 35 counties - in total, in 2017, 30% of PFam benefited
from psychological counselling (once or several times)

•     Individual or group psycho-therapy sessions, in 4 counties

•     Support groups for PFam, in 9 counties.

Table 24 below illustrates the support received by foster families/persons from the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, as per the PFam’s statements. It may be noticed
that the most frequent type of support, and also the most required, relates to the provision of
information about the child, counselling and information on the services available. Furthermore,
certain foster families/persons might consider necessary to receive more support in relation to
educational services.

Table 24: Support received by PFam from the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection,
                                 in the past 12 months (number of PFam)
                                                                                    Support
                                                                                                  Support
                                                                                    received
                                                                                               considered by
                                                                                      in the
                                                                                                PFam most
                                                                                     past 12
                                                                                                 necessary
                                                                                     months
    Total family-type foster parents who took part in the case studies, out of
                                                                                      57            47
    which:
    a. Information about the children                                                 21            8

    b. Information about the services (location, access methods)                      27            15
    c. Mediating the relationship with healthcare services (specialized,
                                                                                      19            13
    dentistry, mental health services, recovery services, etc.)
    d. Mediating the relationship with educational services (school network,
                                                                                      20            18
    clubs, etc.)
    e. Counselling and support for parents/caregivers                                 28            15

    f. Respite care for the child/children                                             1            3
    g. Support groups of family-type foster parents, formal/informal associations
                                                                                       1            6
    of family-type foster parents
    h. Training and education courses                                                  1            7

    i. Psychological counselling                                                      22            15

    j. Individual psycho-therapy or group psycho-therapy                               1            3
    k. Support for maintaining the connection between the child/children and
                                                                                      20            7
    their biological/extended family
    l. Discounts                                                                       2            4
    m. I received no support whatsoever (the monthly cash benefit for the
                                                                                       2            16
    child’s upbringing not included)

Source: World Bank, SC PFam Case studies for PFam (February-March 2018).

Overall, in the case studies, foster families have considered the support received from the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection as “vital, we could not manage without it� or
“useful, but we would manage without it�, in almost equal ratios.




                                                           97
2B.5. Efficiency of family-type foster care
The PFam network saw a positive evolution over time, in particular in terms of the financial and
economic conditions and housing conditions of foster families. Given the significant percentage of
grandparents, it is understandable that the health condition worsened for 11% of the PFam.

 Figure 20: Situation of foster care in February 2018 as compared to the time when the foster care measure
                                 was set up (when the first child was received)




Source: World Bank, QQ PFam Documentary assessment questionnaire for PFam (February-March 2018) (N=11,300
PFam). The data has been weighted.

The performance of child care achieved by the family-type foster care network is good, being assessed
between 7.6 and 9.8 (on a scale of 1 to 10), in connection with all types of needs and by all appraisers
– Heads of CM/PFam (or similar) Department within the General Directorate for Social Assistance and
Child Protection, CM monitoring the children in PFam or the foster families/persons themselves (Figure
21).

The General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection neglect to regularly measure the
level of satisfaction of children and of foster families. Only 5 counties have declared that they
measure satisfaction in any way, but even in these cases references were to a questionnaire not
applicable to children and not applied on a regular basis. However, the social assistants in the research
team who conducted the case studies performed assessments similar to those in Figure 21, further to
their talks with foster families and with the children in their care. The general conclusion reached was
that, in almost all cases, “children are well taken care of, benefit from affection, feel good bine, even
when they live in relatively poorer conditions, even if their life is no stranger to want and accent is not
placed on education�.

The risk for a caregiving family/person to give up the family-type foster arrangement is no more
assessed by the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection. As deriving from the
statements of the case managers, in February-March 2018, only approximately 2-3% of family-type
foster care arrangements faced such a risk. On the contrary, out of the 57 case studies, 8 declared
that they have decided or are thinking to put an end to the foster arrangement. One of the main
reasons brought forth was the fact that, because of the foster care allowance, the caregivers may not
receive unemployment benefits, which comes with medical insurance. Especially when there are
medical issues, the fact that the foster care allowance is not also accompanied by medical insurance
could jeopardize the wellbeing of children under family-type foster care.




                                                    98
 Figure 21: Assessment of actions and activities conducted by PFam in order to satisfy the children’s needs,
                                      broken down per types of needs




Source: World Bank, (*) Interviews with the Heads of the CM/PFam (or similar) Department within the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection on county-wide practices in connection with PFam
(February-March 2018) (N=35). (**) QQ PFam Documentary assessment questionnaire for PFam (February-March
2018) (N=11,300 PFam). The data has been weighted. (***) SC PFam Case studies for PFam (February-March 2018)
(N=57).

Note: Average scoring calculated depending on valid replies. The child’s needs, in accordance with Order no.
286/2006 of 06 July 2006, approving the Methodological Guidelines for drawing up the Service Plan and the
Methodological Guidelines for drawing up the Customized Protection Plan, published in Official Gazette of
Romania, Part I no. 656 of 28 July 2006.




                                                     99
As for the costs relating to PFam services, direct expenses are declared to be equal to the value of the
foster care allowance, while estimates for indirect expenses range between RON 70 and RON 5,000 per
child per month.

Approximately 45%98 of the Heads of CM/PFam Department within the General Directorate for Social
Assistance and Child Protection consider that additional monthly financial support is required. As for
the value of such financial support, however, opinions widely vary, between RON 100-200 per month
per child to RON 1000-2000. The same opinion is also acquiesced to by 20-25%99 of the CMs, and by
most foster families. Nevertheless, in their case, estimates on the value of the required support vary
to a too large extent. In most cases, additional support is requested with a view to covering current
expenses - food, clothing, hygiene and lodgings.

At any rate, in order to improve the standard of care for professional foster parents, all actors
involved agree that, apart from the money, there is a dire need to develop services in the community,
close to PFam, in particular daycare centers, recovery centers/services and afterschool facilities.




98
     Out of the 35 counties, 5 delivered no replies and 14 claimed that additional financial support is not necessary.
99
     Among CMs, 6% delivered no replies and 69% did not consider that additional financial support is required.




                                                                  100
Best and worst practices
At the stables

The on-site visit paid to PFAM at 1 Fabricii St., “At the stables� was the visit that emphasized the
inability of the system and of the State to take care of the children. The “Stables� commissioned as
social housing in 2001, now shelter more than 200 children and their families, who live in
unimaginable conditions. The foster family – the girl’s grandmother – lives in a room that is
simultaneously bedroom, kitchen, place for homework and bathroom … with a toilet out in the field
and a dirty water pump from where they take their drinking water. There is no toilet/bathroom
fitted indoors – they wash in a basin or go to a neighbor to wash themselves. Their toilet is the
“field� around the stables or the “water closets� of other neighbors. Furthermore, there are no
toiletries (soap, shampoo). They have an aunt where the child is washed now and then.

The grandmother is in charge of the granddaughter’s raising and care, but the financi al resources
for household needs are insufficient, and access to information, support pensions from the local
authorities is scarce/ insufficient. The grandmother’s concerns for raising her granddaughter relate
to the risks of the environment in which they live (there are minor mothers, children who do not
attend school, adults and children who use drugs, pre-school children, there are rapes, aggressive
stray dogs).

The safety and protection of the girl reflect, in the grandmother’s belief, in the need to l ive in
another part of the town, but although she repeatedly insisted, did not receive an audience with
the Mayor of the town... The grandmother is considering, for reasons pertaining to her health, to
give up the foster care and the girl to be reintegrated in her family, who lives “several stables
away� – the girl’s mother and father, together with 6 other siblings, between 11 years and 3
months of age.

In reality, the girl spends a lot of time with her younger siblings and with her family. We talked
with her in an area of the Daycare Center within the School... The girl was waiting for her younger
siblings for two more hours, to ride home together on the bus and did not seem to mind that she
starved until 2:00 p.m. for them. She never read any books, was never on any trips, summer
camps, to any other town, but says that she is happy. She gave a score of 10 for the relationship
with her family, the reason being that “it’s my family�. She wishes that her aunt “sweeps the
street�, although, from talking to her, I believe she could do more. She has no role models (her
mother is not a role model for her, she disapproves that she also has other relationships, aside from
her father). Her world is comprised of her grandmother and little siblings, she does not dare look
“beyond the stables�. She would like to do better in school, but finds reading difficult (she
repeated a grade) and her grandmother cannot help with her homework.

(Case study PFam, county of NeamÈ›, On-site report by social assistant Mihaela Zanoschi)



The „mother� from the family placement

The car stops right next to the last house on the street. It is in a part of a village from Oltenia that
has opulent houses and, here and there, a poor one, like the one we have to visit. The wide open
door hangs on an old wooden fence.

In the yard we encounter a skinny dog too busy fighting a piece of dry flatbread baked on the hob
in order to pay more attention to us.

A woman seeming to have the age of 60 invites us smiling in a two-room house, that doesn’t have
a porch. The kitchen has a separate entrance and is rather an improvised annex of the house. The
blue gaze on the beautiful face of the little boy who greets us and watches us with curiosity,
waiting, strongly contrasts the poverty and simplicity around.




                                                    101
Both of them know the social worker who is accompanying me, but this does not seem to reassure
them. Both of us are smiling a lot, one of us sits on the bed, next to the child, the other on an old
chair, we explain and try to relax the atmosphere.

In the room there is a bed covered with a blue blanket, next to an old dressing table with a large
mirror. There are some cars and robots on it. Next comes a table along the wall on which there is
an old TV. The clear side of the table serves as a desk for doing homework and as a dining table.
At the foot of the bed there is a stove with a hob, and in front of it, by the door to the other
room, an armchair covered with a blanket.

On the floor are overlapping carpets and mats that strive to leave no space uncovered. It's clean,
tidy, a bit cool. The fire is not yet made in the stove. The woman remains standing in the frame of
the open door, I do not know whether it is out of respect or due to anxiety, but she rejects any
invitation to take a seat on the stool near the table.

We talk a lot, I ask, reformulate, she answers, she relates. She tears up when she remembers how
she took him in: "When she died, he hadn’t seen her for more than a year. I went to pick him up
from an old Romanian woman, a neighbor who had taken care of him since his mother left for
Spain. I still remember how the old woman was stood, supported by her cane, and how she wept
after him. The boy thought I was his mother and he kept asking why I had aged, why I had white
hair, why I had teeth like that (she has a couple of teeth covered in golden metal). He did not
know his mother anymore."

For two years, the child believed that his maternal grandmother's sister was his mother, and it was
hard for her to tell him that his mother had died. His father told him, father who makes sure to
denigrate his deceased mother at every meeting with the child at DGASPC (where he does not find
any pretext of not coming, as he usually does).

I'm trying to access the question about the stressors she had in the past twelve months as a person
that has a child in family placement:

-        „What worried you? What would you have needed? Did it happen not to have any money
for fire wood, food, something for the child?

The child intervened:

-       Maybe she needed something more, I haven’t.�

He is happy with what he has and is very aware of the fact that the old woman leaves herself aside
for him.

The child’s uncles and aunts help buy the fire wood: "In August each one gives me: one 20 euros,
one 30, as much as they can. I save the money and they are enough for me to buy wood. They buy
clothes for him, and they give me some of theirs. They always call us.�

There are a few things upsetting her: she has no medical insurance, has no well or water pump in
the yard and her washing machine broke ("It's the old kind, three water buckets go into it, but it
stopped working.")

We talk to the boy, who tells us that he is very pleased with everything that "mother" offers him.
His face lights up at every answer he gives us. He tells us that he was sad to hear that his birth
mother had died, but not very sad, as he does not remember her and he already has a "mother".
He's upset with his father for talking badly about his mother, and he does not think he's interested
in him. He would not want to be with anyone other than his "mother."

After we leave, the neighbor across the street, whom we found at the gate of a large, two-storied




                                                  102
house, and who has been patiently waiting for us to leave, curiously asks:

-       Did they come to take him away from you?

We can’t hear the answer. I am thinking where would it be better for this child? Where would he
be just as loved?

(Case study PFam, Dolj county, Field report social worker Emilia Sorescu)




                                                  103
                             Part 2 (C)


                  ALTERNATIVE SERVICES
                        TO CARE HOMES


Small-Sized Residential-Type Facilities




            104
PART 2C. SMALL-SIZED RESIDENTIAL-
TYPE FACILITIES: FAMILY-TYPE HOMES
AND APARTMENTS
In Romania, small-sized residential-type facilities include:

•    apartments (APs) and

•    family-type homes (CTFs)

According to official statistics, between 2010 and 2017, both the number of institutions, and the
number of institutionalized children living in small-sized residential-type facilities have decreased, as
illustrated in Figure 22 and Annex 2C. Table 1.

    Figure 22: Evolution in the number of children and youth in small-sized residential-type facilities, broken
                       down per types, between 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2017


    440                                                                       6000
    430
                                                                              5000
    420                                                                                    Number of public
                                                                                           institutions AP
    410                                                                       4000
    400                                                                                    Number of public
                                                                              3000         institutions CTF
    390
    380                                                                       2000         Number of children in
                                                                                           public institutions AP
    370
                                                                              1000
    360                                                                                    Number of children in
                                                                                           public institutions CTF
    350                                                                       0
                  31-Dec-11
          31-Dec-10               31-Dec-13
                          31-Dec-12               31-Dec-15
                                          31-Dec-14               31-Dec-17
                                                          31-Dec-16



Source: www.copii.ro, National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption (NAPRCA)
(2010-2017).

This Part 2 (C) of Output #4 contains an analysis of public small-sized residential-type facilities existing
in the 35 counties where there are care homes for children. In February 2018, these General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection services included 311 apartments (APs) and 347
CTFs, hosting a total of 4,835 children and youth (please see Annex 2C. Table 2).

                                                                                           Number de children
                                                                    Number of public            in public
                                                                      institutions            institutions

    At ...            level ...                                       AP          CTF        AP            CTF

    31-Dec-17         National                                       383             427    2225           4619




                                                        105
Feb-Mar-18   35 counties where there are care homes       311   347   1341   3494

             The 35 counties under review % at national
                                                          81    81     60    76
             level




                                              106
2C.1. Data
The analysis detailed herein below relies on the data collected by the World Bank team in February-
March 2018 (Annex 2C. Table 3). In each of the 35 counties under review, in the first stage, a census
was conducted in relation to small-sized residential-type facilities (AP and CTF), containing a small set
of information. In the second stage, a sample of 96 AP and 266 CTFs was randomly selected, to which a
documentary assessment questionnaire was applied. 100 The questionnaires were filled out together
with the representatives (heads, social assistants, counsellors) of AP/CTF/ care homes or of the
service compounds to which they are attached. In the last stage, 1-2 CTFs were selected for case
studies in each county, totaling 50, case studies which were conducted by the social assistants of the
World Bank team by on-site visits, together with the case managers of the General Directorate for
Social Assistance and Child Protection. 101 The methodological report sets forth the research
instruments used.

Data was collected by a team comprised of: 22 professional social assistants, members of CNASR, 24
sociologists and 23 research assistants. Furthermore, the collection of data was attended by 327
specialists with the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, holding positions
such as head of CM or Residential Departments within the General Directorate for Social Assistance and
Child Protection, heads of care homes/compounds, inspectors, counsellors, case managers, clerks,
social assistants and psychologists.


2C.2. Network of small-sized residential-type facilities
The data deriving from the census of small-sized residential-type facilities (RezMic) conducted in
February-March 2018 took into account all apartments (APs) and family-type homes (CTFs) within the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, irrespective of whether they hosted
children and youth at the time of the research or not. Thus, out of all existing services, 98% of the
CTFs and 73% of the APs were in operation (please see Annex 2C. Table 2).

History of the RezMic network: In the 35 counties under review, the current AP/CTF network was
created in three stages. In the first stage, between 1990 and 2000, it developed at a very slow pace,
when the network grew merely up to a capacity below 10% of its current size. In the following seven
years (2001-2007), the network was substantially extended, up to 77% of its current number of CTFs
and 84% of apartments. Starting from 2008, the development pace reverted to that of the first stage.
Some APs/CTFs were even closed (in general, because their operation was too costly).

                     Figure 23: Year of first certification for small-sized residential-type Facilities




100
    In each county, 5 AP and 10-20 CTFs were selected, in reliance upon a statistical pitch. If, in a certain county, the number of
AP/CTF was smaller than the threshold, them all AP/CTFs in that county were included in the sample. For questionnaire
analysis, the data has been weighted.
101
    Case studies were randomly selected from among AP/CTFs selected in the sample.




                                                               107
Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

Only 12 out of the 35 counties set up small-sized residential-type facilities during this stage.102 The
other counties set up the first such facility no earlier than after 2001. At any rate, irrespective of the
year when the first facility was created, depending on the pace at which they developed over time,
county networks widely vary in terms of their average service life. Even if a county has developed the
first facility at the beginning of 1990s, its county-wide network may have an average or even relatively
short service life, if it set up several such facilities more recently. Therefore, the age of county
network ranges between a maximum of 19 years in the county of Călărași and a minimum of 7 years in
Vâlcea and Bistrița-Năsăud, with an average service life of 13 years. 103

  Figure 24: Distribution of county networks of small-sized residential-type facilities (AP/CTF), depending on
                   the average number of years for which they operated until February 2018




Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018) (N=311 APs and 347
CTFs).

Size of the RezMic network: Annex 2C. Table 2 reveals that CTFs may be found in 33 counties out of
the 35 under review,104 while APs operate in 24 counties. In February-March 2018, there were
considerable differences as regards the size of county networks. In 12 counties, there were less than 5
CTFs in operation, while in MaramureÈ™, there were 27 CTFs, in MureÈ™ 36, and in Harghita there were 39
CTFs. These three counties alone gather 29% of all CTFs available.

The situation is similar in the case of apartments. In addition to the 11 counties where there are no
APs, other 6 counties only had 1-3 APs, while in Teleorman there are 64, in Mehedinți 32, in Caraș -
Severin 31, and in Botoșani 29. In fact, these 4 counties alone cumulate half of all APs available.

  Figure 25: Distribution of small-sized residential-type facilities depending on their capacity, as declared by
                  the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection (number)




102
    The 12 counties were: AR, IS, AB, TR, CL, SJ, DB, BH, MM, SV, BZ and CT.
103
    Standard deviation of 7 years.
104
    The two counties where there are no CTFs are Ilfov and Mehedinți.




                                                              108
Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018) (N=311 APs and 347
CTFs).

According to the capacity declared by the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child
Protection, most CTFs may hold 10-12 places (Figure 25). There are, however, (23%) CTFs with a
capacity of 5-9 places, but also (18%) CTFs with 13 up to 32 places. In theory, in February-March 2018,
the number of available places in CTFs was 3,922.

As regards apartments, their capacity may vary between 0 and 12 places. Most of them, however, have
a capacity of 6 places (Figure 25). The total number of available places in APs was 1,859.

Manner in which the RezMic network is used: Residential-type facilities (AP, CTF or care homes) are
sometimes used at full capacity, however, there are also cases or periods when they operate above or
below their designated capacity. The data of February-March 2018 (Table 25) reveals that the
percentage of overcrowded facilities was 17% of CTFs and 10% of APs, while the percentage of
facilities with vacancies was 55% of CTFs and 31% of APs. Only approximately one in four CTFs and one
in three apartments operated at full capacity. The total number of available places in the RezMic
network amounted to approximately 1,100 places in apartments and CTFs.

 Table 25: Manner in which the small-sized residential-type facility network is used, broken down per types,
                                          in February-March 2018
                                                                                 Number       Capacity
                                                                                 of filled   (number of   Number of
                                                                 Institutions     places       places)    vacancies

                                                               Number       %

  CTF           Out of operation                                   6        2       0            46          46

                In operation and overcrowded                      58        17     750          649          NC

                In operation 100% filled                          93        27     979          979           0

                In operation with vacancies                      190        55    1765          2248         483

                Total                                            347       100    3494          3922         529

  AP            Out of operation                                  84        27      0           387          387

                In operation and overcrowded                      30        10     269          229          NC

                In operation 100% filled                         102        33     599          599           0

                In operation with vacancies                       95        31     470          644          174

                Total                                            311       100    1338         1859         561

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

Note: Number of filled places = the number of beneficiaries subject to a special protection measure at the time of
our research in that residential-type facility (children and youth actually present were counted, plus those who
were temporarily at school, treatment or absent for various other reasons). Number of vacancies = Capacity -
Number of filled places. NC = not applicable, negative values. Please also see Annex 2C. Tables 6 and 7.

The vast majority of small-sized residential-type facilities are mixed, containing places both for girls,
and for boys. There are, however, 11 counties in which some or all of the services are dedicated
exclusively to girls - 4% of CTFs and 3% of APs – or exclusively to boys - 7% of CTFs and 4% of APs.105




105
      These counties are: AR, AG, BH, BV, CJ, DB, HR, MH, MS, VL and CL.




                                                               109
2C.3. Groups of small-sized residential-type facilities
In addition to the concentration of RezMic facilities in certain counties (Annex 2C. Table 2), 18 General
Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection have also developed small-sized residential-type
facilities in the close proximity of other services. Thus, communities of service beneficiaries were
created with more or less territorial or social segregation. 35% of CTFs and 10% of APs are located in
such groups, either together with services such as care homes, daycare centers, multi-purpose centers,
special schools, institutions for adults etc., or with other APs/CTFs.

Table 26: Distribution of small-sized residential-type facilities individually or in communities of social service
                                                  beneficiaries
                                                                                CTF                       AP

                                                                              Number           %       Number          %

      Total                                                                     347            100       311          100

      Individual AP/CTF                                                         241            69        279           90

      AP/CTF in groups of care homes or services other than AP/CTF               18             5          0            0

      AP/CTF in groups of AP/CTF, potentially together with other
                                                                                 88            25         32           10
      services

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

Note: A group of services involves close proximity - in the same courtyard, in the same building or next building.
By definition, a group contains 3 or more CTFs. In respect of apartments, a group means that they occupy whole
floors or entrances in a block of flats. If the AP are mixed with apartments owned by households of the general
population, they are not construed as a group, irrespective of the number of APs.

The largest groups of RezMic are located in the county of MureÈ™ - 11 CTFs106 (83 children and youth, in
Sâncraiu de Mureș) and in the county of Mehedinți - 21 apartments (with an overall capacity of 48
places, where only 5 children were living at the time of our research, in Drobeta Turnu-Severin).


2C.4. Territorial distribution of small-sized residential-type
facilities
A percentage of 69% of the CTFs network is located in the urban environment and 31% in the rural
environment. Whereas, in 14 counties, the entire CTF network is located in the urban environment, in
the county of Călărași the corresponding percentage is a merely 15%, while in Iași 25%. 107 The CTF
network covers 33 counties, being spread in 73 towns and municipalities, but also in 63 communes.
The network is characterized by a high degree of territorial concentration, both in the rural
environment, and in the urban one. A number of 16 towns/municipalities 108 gather half of all children
and youth living in CTFs, in the urban environment. Similarly, 16 of the communes 109 host half of the
children and youth living in a CTF. The list of these localities is given in Annex 2C. Table 4.

The network of apartments is almost entirely located in the urban environment. There are only two
counties which set up AP in the rural environment, too, in particular Botoșani and Iași. The AP network
contains 41 towns and municipalities and 3 communes, in 24 counties. In the urban environment, more
than two thirds of all children and youth living in AP may be found in 9 towns/municipalities (please
see Annex 2C. Table 5).




106
    At the time of this research, one CTF was not in operation.
107
    The other counties have corresponding percentages of 42-93%.
108
    The towns with more than 50 children living in CTFs (between 52 and 98 children and youth). They are located in 13 counties.
109
    The communes where there are 20 children or more living in CTFs (between 20 and 103). These communes are located in 11
counties.




                                                              110
      Table 27: Network of small-sized residential-type facilities, broken down per types and residential
                                                environments
                                                             Number of
                                                                                                                  Number of
                                                              localities
                                                                                                                   localities
                                                           (Administrativ
                                         Number of                                              Number of       (Administrativ
                           Number                               e and           Number
                                        children and                                           children and          e and
                           of CTF                            Territorial         of AP
                                        youth in CTF                                           youth in AP        Territorial
                                                                Units)
                                                                                                                     Units)
                                                             containing
                                                                                                                containing AP
                                                                CTFs


               Numbe
  Urban                       239              2397               73              306               1314               41
               r


               Numbe
  Rural                       108              1097               63                5               27                  3
               r


               Numbe
  Total                       347              3494               136             311               1341               44
               r


  Urban        %              69               69                                  98               98


  Rural        %              31               31                                   2                2


  Total        %              100              100                                100               100


Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).




2C.5. Profile of children living in small-sized residential-type
facilities
The beneficiaries of small-sized residential-type services are more boys than girls, mostly between 4-
17 years of age. Disabled children account to more than one third of the children and youth living in
CTFs and 19% of those living in apartments. As a general practice, among the children and youth with
disabilities, children with severe disability certificate are preponderantly in CTFs and those with mild
or medium disability in apartments.110 Moreover, approximately half of both CTFs and APs do not host
disabled children. At the other end of the spectrum, one quarter of CTFs and one in ten apartments
host exclusively disabled children.

          Table 28: Characteristics of children and youth living in small-sized residential-type facilities
                                                                  CTF                          AP

                                                         Number            %         Number              %

                                       Total               3494          100            1338          100

                     Gender            male                1932           55            706              53


110
   Disabled children and youth in CTFs are distributed as follows: 50% with severe disability certificate, 15% with high degree of
disability and 35% with mild or low degree of disability. Conversely, the corresponding percentages for disabled children and
youth in AP are: 22%, 17%, 61%. Source: World Bank, QQ RezMic Documentary assessment questionnaire for RezMic (February-
March 2018) (N=266 CTFs and 96 APs). The data has been weighted.




                                                              111
                                       female               1562           45           632            47

                      Age              0-3 years             27            1             11            1

                                       4-17 years           3029           87          1035            77

                                       18+ years             438           13           292            22

                      Health           Disabled
                      condition        children             1184           34           251            19

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

In February-March 2018, bedridden children and youth were 4% of those living in CTFs and 2% of those
living in APs. On the other hand, merely 11% of CTFs and 4% of APs hosted between 1 and 18 bedridden
children and youth.

Children and youth with special educational requirements account for 29% of the beneficiaries living in
CTFs and 13% of those living in apartments. At the time of this research, the children and youth with
special educational requirements could be found in 57% of the CTFs and 42% of the APs.

Children and youth with legal issues or risky behavioral types accounted for 3% of the beneficiaries
living in CTFs, respectively 7% of those living in APs. These children and youth lived in every other six
CTF and in every other four APs.

Groups of siblings may be found in approximately three quarters of the CTFs and in almost half of the
APs. More than one third (35%) of the beneficiaries living in CTFs had one or several brothers/sisters in
the same CTF. More generally, half of the children and youth hosted in CTFs had brothers/sisters in
the protection system, either in the same CTF, or in other facilities. The situation of children and
youth in apartments was similar: 28% had brothers/sisters in the same apartment and, in total, 44%
had brothers/sisters in the system.


2C.6. Relevance of the network of small-sized residential-
type facilities in the process of closing the care homes for
children
Small-sized residential-type facilities are not alternative family-type services. Nevertheless, when
compared to care homes, APs and CTFs provide children with conditions much more similar to a family
environment.

In consideration of (i) the low capacity of current networks of alternative services (PFP and PFam) to
take over children and youth from the care homes scheduled to be closed, (ii) the insufficient number
of system exits (through reintegration in the family and adoption), but also (iii) the prevailing profile 111
of children and youth in care homes, the network of small-sized residential-type facilities is, most
likely, the most relevant alternative in the process of closing the care homes.

As already indicated in section 4.2, the total number of vacancies in the RezMic network (totaling
1,100 places in apartments and CTFs) is however insufficient, while the geographical distribution
thereof – with large concentrations in several counties, localities and groups – is rather unfavorable.
The distribution of vacancies per counties is illustrated in Annex 2C. Tables 6 and 7.




111
   Most of the children in care homes (which are intended to be terminated, as part of the deinstitutionalization process) are
older than 11 years of age, while one third are 16 or older, more than half of them have a disability certificate or are constantly
monitored for a severe chronic illness and 41% have brothers/sisters in the same center. Data from Output #3 within the SIPOCA
2 project (World Bank, 2017d). Furthermore, Output #1 (World Bank, 2017b) revealed that only 31% of the children and youth in
care homes have known families, where they may be reintegrated.




                                                               112
The analysis of entry-exist flows in CTFs in the past three years (2015-15 February 2018) reveals that
the number of children and youth leaving the system is approximately equal to the number of those
entering it, around 1,700 in total in the reference period. More than 90% of entries were children
between the ages of 4 and 17. Youth 18+ years of age accounted for a mere 3% of all entries.
Conversely, half of all exits were youth 18+ years of age. Correlatively, the most frequent exit
methods consist of the expiry of the protection measure, when turning 18, reintegration in the family,
transfer to a care home or to an institution for disabled adults. For instance, in 2017, approximately
650 children and youth left the network of CTFs, among which 33% upon reaching the age of 18, 20%
were reintegrated in their families, 16% were transferred to care homes for children, and 10% were
transferred to institutions for adults. All other exit methods from the CTF network accounted for less
than 5% of all exits.

 Table 29: Children and youth who left the network of small-sized residential-type facilities in 2017, broken
                                         down per exit method (%)

                                                                           CTF    AP

                   Total exits, out of which:                              100    100

                   Reintegration in their family                           20     28

                   Adoption                                                1      0

                   Foster family                                           2      1

                   Transfer to public or accredited private entity (OPA)
                   services, in particular:                                38     25

                    - - - PFP                                              4      6

                    - - - CTF/AP                                           16     10

                    - - - care homes for children                          4      0

                    - - - other services for children                      4      10

                    - - - institution for adults                           10     0

                   Death                                                   1      0

                   Reaching the age of 18                                  33     43

                   Other methods                                           1      1

Source: World Bank, QQ RezMic Documentary assessment questionnaire for RezMic (February-March 2018) (N=266
CTF and 96 APs). The data has been weighted.

Similarly, in case of the apartment network, exists and entries were approximately equal between
2015 and 15 February 2018, with a total number of around 1,100 children and youth. Most entries were
children 4-17 years of age, while youth 18+ years of age accounted for approximately one third of all
entries. Simultaneously, almost 70% of all exits were youth 18+ years of age. The most often exit
methods were similarly to the CTF network. For instance, in 2017, approximately 370 children and
youth left the AP network, among which 43% upon reaching the age of 18, 28% were reintegrated in
their families, 10% were transferred to care homes for children and other 10% to other facilities for
children.


2C.7. Care environment in small-sized residential-type
facilities
Most (90%) of the CTFs operate in separate buildings, owned by the General Directorate for Social
Assistance and Child Protection, the County Council or an accredited private entity (OPA), having an



                                                        113
average useful area of 23 square meters per beneficiary. Approximately one in four CTFs did not
undergo, between 2015 and February 2018, any consolidation, extension, overhaul or upgrading works,
either because there were recently built, or because of lack of funds.

The apartments form part of residential buildings, usually blocks of flats, and are owned by the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection or by the County Council. The average
useful area per beneficiary is 14 square meters, and 90% have undergone, in the past three years,
overhaul or upgrading works.

At any rate, mention is to be made that there is no clear definition for each type of residential-type
service. Consequently, on site, between the counties, and even inside the same county, there is a
variety of ways in which CTFs and apartments are designated, declared and registered. Thus, our
research team found that the following are designated and registered as CTFs: a group consisting of
ground floor and the 2nd floor of a building (please see photo), cabins, wooden huts, duplex houses or
even apartments in blocks of flats. This flexibility allowed by the relevant regulations in effect is
useful in the current operation of the General Directorates for Social Assistance and Child Protection,
in order to be able to apply various standards (quality, cost and personnel) to local, often difficult,
conditions (insufficient personnel, insufficient financial resources, etc.). At the same time, however,
practices with such variety result in ambiguity and the impossibility to draw up policies with a
significant potential impact. It is impossible to draw up an effective policy to encourage the
development of CTFs, for instance, when the standards do not support such an approach and it is
unclear what a family-type home consists of.

Isolation, segregation, increased access: One in four CTFs and one in five APs face the risk of space
isolation, in particular, they are located more than 1.5 km or more than a 15-minute walk, at the same
time, from: (1) the nearest school/educational institution, (2) the nearest hospital/doctor and (3) the
town hall/center of the locality.

In 5% of the CTFs and 8% of the apartments, beneficiaries have reported that they suffered
discrimination or an abuse from their neighbors or members of the community outside the CTF/AP
and/or the compound of which the CTF/AP forms part. On the other hand, the neighbors filed
complaints (written or verbal, including by telephone) against the beneficiaries living in 6% of the CTFs
and 14% of the apartments, in the past 12 months (between 1 and 40 complaints per CTF/AP).

               A CTF made up of ground floor + the 2nd floor of a boarding room type building




                                                    114
CTF Case study, Dâmbovița County

Infrastructure: As a matter of rule, CTFs have 3 to 4 bedrooms 112 with an average surface area of 16
square meters,113 in which 3 beds are available,114 including 2-3 bathrooms,115 permanent cold water
and hot water supply, a room to play/activities/entertainment/living room 116 and an area where the
children and youth eat their meals.117 Although most CTFs meet all modular requirements proposed in
Output #1,118 a percentage of approximately 8% of CTFs only fall in the category “partially
modulated�.

A typical apartment contains 3 bedrooms 119 with an average surface area of 10 square meters, 120
where 2 beds are available,121 with 2 bathrooms,122 permanent cold water and hot water supply, a
room to play/activities/entertainment/living room 123 and an area where the children and youth eat
their meals.124 Consequently, most apartments satisfy all modular requirements proposed in Output
#1,125 nevertheless, approximately 15% of the APs only fall in the category “partially modulated�.

The 50 case studies on CTFs have revealed that, in one third, children did not have a personal area
outside their bed (shelf, wardrobe, nightstand, office, etc.) and also in one in three CTFs under review
the children’s area were not individualized with any photos, posters or drawings on the walls near
their bed. However, at the general level, the social assistants in the World Bank team together with
the case managers of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection, who were on
site, granted average scores of 9 (on a scale of 1 to 10) for everything relating to infrastructure:
condition of the area where the children were accommodated, the available area in the bedrooms
(spacious or overcrowded), the general appearance of bedrooms (they are bright, colorful, agreeable
or not) and the overall impression of the physical environment in which the children live (warm,
friendly, customized, colorful, joyful, clean or not).

Health and security of children: A percentage of 5% of CTFs and 1% of APs face one or several of the
following issues: dark bedrooms, no natural light, leaking roofs, damp walls, worn out joinery in need
of replacement, cracked walls and/or old paint. And the area available to children and youth is
declared by the representatives of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection
to be insufficient in respect of 5% of the CTFs and 10% of the APs.

Appropriate heating, annual medical examination, permanent access to fruit or snacks are provided in
the largest part of the small-sized residential-type facilities. The assessments contained in the case
studies have revealed that everything relating to the children’s health and security was awarded
average scores between 9 and 9.5 (on a scale of 1 to 10) – general cleanliness indoors, around the
building and in the courtyard, in toilets and bathrooms, odors, children’s level of hygiene, the
condition of their clothing and footwear and toiletries (towels, toothbrushes, soap, etc.).

Personnel: The average number of personnel actually working in a CTF is 11 persons, 126 with a
minimum of 2 persons and a maximum of 45 persons. Consequently, the ratio employees/beneficiaries


112
    The number of bedrooms in a CTF ranges between 2 and 10.
113
    Standard deviation of 8 square meters. The average surface area varies between 8 and 50 square meters.
114
    Standard deviation of 0.8. The number of beds per bedroom in CTF ranges between 1 and 6.
115
    The number of bathrooms in CTF ranges between 1 and 15.
116
    A number of 12 CTFs contain no such room.
117
    In 27 CTFs, meals are not served inside the CTF, even partially.
118
    World Bank (2017b).
119
    The number of bedrooms in an AP ranges between 1 and 4.
120
    Standard deviation of 4 square meters. The average surface area varies between 7.5 and 23 square meters.
121
    Standard deviation of 0.8. The number of beds per bedroom in AP ranges between 1 and 4.
122
    The number of bathrooms in AP ranges between 1 and 2.
123
    A number of 42 APs (or 14%) contain no such room.
124
    In 13 APs, meals are not served inside the AP, even partially.
125
    World Bank (2017b).
126
    Standard deviation of 6 persons.




                                                             115
is an average of 1.2.127 Furthermore, in February-March 2018, in one third of the CTFs, there were also
1 to 20 volunteers. Women are a percentage of more than 80% of all personnel.

In apartments, the total personnel per AP is approximately 8 persons in average. 128 There are around 2
employees per beneficiary.129 In 28% of the APs, at the time of our research, there were 1-20
volunteers per AP.

The personnel shortage, however, is considerable. In respect of 35% of the CTFs and 33% of the
apartments, the representatives of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection
declared that there is an alleged shortage of teaching and caregiving personnel. Moreover, a shortage
of specialists was pointed out for almost 40% both of the CTFs and of the APs. Finally, the personnel is
believed to be a “weak point� in one in five CTFs, APs respectively.


2C.8. Efficiency of small-sized residential-type facilities
The quality of services provided to the children living in small-sized residential-type facilities (similarly
to care homes) is determined not solely by the physical environment, but also by the interactions
between the various actors involved in the caregiving. Irrespective of how good the physical conditions
available in the CTF/AP or in the care home are, children may however face risks of abuse, and their
development may be impaired as a result of their interaction with caregiving personnel, with the other
children living in the same residential-type facility, with their brothers and sisters (institutionalized or
at home), with their family, with their schoolmates and with their teachers and other persons in the
community, which they meet in their everyday life.

This chapter analyzes the quality of caregiving in three tiers: (i) services and activities available in the
AP/CTF for child development, (ii) interactions between children and personnel and (iii) case
management implementation.

Services and activities available in the AP/CTF for child development: Many CTFs/APs provide various
types of services, depending on the specific needs of their beneficiaries, to the extent of the human,
material, financial and institutional resources at their disposal. The absence of such services deprives
the children from the opportunity to develop their full potential. On the contrary, other institutions
treat children without any discrimination and only provide accommodation and food, but not the type
of stimulating environment required for child development. Thus, the fewer the services and activities
available to the children in a CTF/AP, the greater the limitations for the children’s appropriate
development, and, consequently, the lower the quality of services supplied by that AP/CTF.

•     73% of CTFs and 67% of APs were licensed, at the time of this research

•  APs/CTFs provide almost all children with access to appropriate educational services, but in 30% of
CTFs and in 38% of APs there is at least one beneficiary who, in the academic year 2016-2017,
repeated the year, flunked certain subjects, abandoned their education or left school.

•     Recovery/rehabilitation services are provided to children and youth in 44% of CTFs and 33% of APs.

•  In more than three quarters of CTFs, there are homework activities and at least some of the
children go on trips and summer camps, and birthdays are celebrated for each child. Furthermore,
more than two thirds of the CTFs contain especially arranges areas to facilitate visits, have diversified
books, games and toys, at least one working TV, a computer and Internet connection. Additionally,
more than 90% of CTFs have a courtyard, a playground outdoors, garden or other means for spending
their time outdoors. In total, the research team and the case managers of the General Directorate for


127
    Standard deviation of 0.9. Minimum of 0.3 and maximum of 6.33.
128
    Standard deviation of 4 persons. Minimum number is one person and maximum number is 24 persons.
129
    The employees/beneficiaries ratio ranges between 0.25 and 10, with a standard deviation of 2 persons.




                                                             116
Social Assistance and Child Protection granted average scores of 8.6 to the existing facilities for
leisure-educational activities and for the manner in which they are actually used by children.

• In order to supply high-quality services, three quarters of the CTFs cooperate with one or several
NGOs.

•  Case studies in CTFs have revealed that activities for the development of independent life skills are
conducted only in some of the CTFs with children and youth who are 14 years of age and older (Table
30). Furthermore, the Children’s Council is only organized in certain CTFs, not all.

 Table 30: Activities for the development of independent life skills in the CTFs reviewed as part of the case
                                          studies (number of CTFs)
Children and youth who are 14 years of age      CTFs with      No         No, the      Yes,    Da, all    Total
and older in CTF take part in...                    no       reply        children    some     childre
                                                 children                  do not    childre    n 14+
                                                   14+                   take part    n 14+
a. ... menu selection                                3             1        8          15         23       50


b. ... food preparation and serving                  4             1        6          19         20       50


c. ... cleaning of CTF/AP                            4             2        4          12         28       50


d. ... washing and ironing of clothes                4             1        18         14         13       50


e. ... put their own clothes and personal items      4             1        3          16         26       50
in wardrobes

f. ... decisions on how to arrange the lodgings,     4             1        9          13         23       50
rooms and playgrounds

g. ... use the cooker                                4             1        16         20         9        50


h. ... use the stove                                 5             1        18         19         7        50


i. ... use the washing machine                       4             1        20         12         13       50


j. ... know the risks relating to using              4             1        8          11         26       50
household appliances (microwave,
refrigerator, etc.)

k. ... go shopping and choose their own              4             1        14         14         17       50
clothing or footwear

l. ... go shopping for current items alone,          4             1        20          9         16       50
when necessary

m. ... have an allowance and know how to use         4             1        11          8         26       50
money, to ask for change, receipt, etc.

Source: World Bank, Case studies for CTFs (February-March 2018).

Interaction between children and personnel: As regards the interaction between children and
personnel, social assistants in our research team have, by direct observation, written down in the on-
site reports signs of positive interaction in 40 out of the 50 CTFs they visited. In the other 10
institutions, negative interaction or indifference was noticed.

              “I liked the children’s appearance very much, the interaction between children and
              personnel, the children’s easy manners. Children and youth were very clea n, wore



                                                     117
             modern, age-appropriate clothes. They were very talkative, offered flowers and cards to
             the head of the compound and to the case manager, and unreservedly embraced and
             kissed them, they seemed to have a positive relationship.

             What I did not like, however, was the lack of personal items in the area. The children’s
             photos were affixed to the walls only in the living room, any decorations for the walls was
             contributed by the personnel. ... The main children’s dissatisfactions concerned the
             amount of food, but also the fact that their preferences were disregarded. They said they
             liked it better when food was cooked in CTF because they played a part. Now they cook
             pancakes, cookies with ingredients bought from their own money or brought by the
             personnel from home. Later, the head of the compound was asked about this matter, and
             she said: “Catering is better. When they cooked at home, they finished the ingredients
             too quickly. They often ran out of carrots, onions, because they liked eating onion or
             garlic for every meal.� (Case study PFP, county of Argeș, On -site report social assistant
             Emilia Sorescu)

Cases of suspected abuse were recorded in the past three years (2015-February 2018) in the Register
for Incidents. Special incidents were reported by 7% of CTFs and 2% of APs. There was a higher
percentage of cases of suspected abuse brought to the attention of Police or Prosecutor’s Office, 12%
for CTFs, and 4% respectively for APs. Finally, in the same period, in 16 CTFs and 3 apartments, there
were employees who were dismissed, seconded, held under disciplinary or criminal liability for child
abuse.

Case management implementation: Case management in the network of small-sized residential-type
facilities is provided in 17% of CTFs and 40% of APs, by the representatives of the institutions who also
supply the services. In other words, there is no independent monitoring and assessment in respect of
the quality of services supplied to children and youth in these APs/CTFs. In addition, Table 31
illustrates that case management standards are only partially in place, and consequently, in more than
half of the APs/CTFs, the prevailing cases are children and youth whose families have not been
identified for (re)integration purposes, including for transfer to family-type foster care with relatives
or with other families/persons.

                   Table 31: Case management for children and youth in APs/CTFs (% total)
                                                                                            CTF   AP

                                                        Total    N                          347   311

                                                                 %                          100   100

                                                        Head, social assistant, teaching
                                                                                            17    40
                                                        personnel in CTF/AP

 Who provides case management for children and          CM in the General Directorate for
 youth in CTF/AP                                        Social Assistance and Child         82    60
                                                        Protection

                                                        CM other cases                       1     0

 Children and youth in CTF/AP with PIS                  None                                 0     5

                                                        50-90%                               6     9

                                                        All children and youth in CTF/AP    93    86

                                                        None                                12    17
 Children and youth in CTF/AP to whom a case
                                                        50-90%                               5     8
 manager is assigned
                                                        All children and youth in CTF/AP    84    76

 Children and youth in CTF/AP, the families of which    None                                26    35




                                                       118
 have been identified (name, address) for a potential    1-30%                              27     13
 reintegration/integration (there are negotiations in
                                                         31-90%                             29     24
 progress with the family or reintegration chances
 are a known fact)                                       All children and youth in CTF/AP   18     28

Source: World Bank, QQ RezMic Documentary assessment questionnaire for RezMic (February-March 2018) (N=266
CTFs         and        96        APs).        The         data         has         been         weighted.




                                                        119
Best practices

A CTF like a big family

“I can compare our visit to this CTF to a visit to a family with many children. Promoting a family -type
care environment, the children’s affection for the personnel, the interaction between them, the
leisure activities, partnerships with NGOs or volunteers, individualization of the house with the
children’s photos place it in a positive light and is an example of best practice. Each summer, the
children go to the seaside, on trips to various sights, and every child’s birthday is cel ebrated with
enthusiasm in various locations out. One child’s story was emotional, who, only 9 years of age had
celebrated their birthday for the first time. Mention is to be made that many of the activities referred
to above were possible with the sponsors’ support (acquaintances, friends of the employees).

The children’s satisfaction with the food, clothing they received, their delight in talking about the
personnel were also reflected in the 10 + scores they gave in the game. To the question what they
would like to be when they grow up, most children associated the job to a representative person in
their life (one child paints beautifully, he is talented, every week he attends painting classes with a
volunteer, and therefore he wishes to become a Painter; another girl wants to become a teacher
because she loves her teacher and is among the best students in her class and so on).

CTF personnel promotes and supports the continuation of personal relationships by children and their
direct contact with parents, relatives, but also with other persons to which the children grew attached.
For instance, every summer holiday or shorter holidays, two families in Italy take the children to Italy.
... I hope that the high-quality life which these children have in this CTF, the way in which they are
prepared for an independent life is also repeated in other institutions across the country.�

(Case study PFP, county of MaramureÈ™, On-site report social assistant Mihaela Motoc)



A CTF with PFP

“At the location CTF 3 lives a family, husband - wife, both PFP, who have 4 children under their foster
care.... The PFP family has lived in this CTF since 2006, all utilities are paid for by the General
Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection.

Upon the last PSI (Emergency Inspectorate) inspection in the autumn of 2017, it was found that this
house fails to meet the necessary requirements and that a fine would be imposed unless the concerns
pointed out in the inspection report are remedied. In order to receive the PSI permit, the family
needed smoke sensors and repairs to the heating system. The General Directorate for Social Assistance
and Child Protection could not pay the fine, and as such the CTF was scheduled to be closed (November
2017). For the 4 children, 2 families of PFP were found (3 girls with one family and the boy to another
family) in the same locality. For all of the 4 children, their transfer files to another PFP are pending. In
April, all children will be relocated. To that purpose, the children had a meeting with a psychologist
and several meetings with the case manager. Furthermore, the children were taken on an adjustment
visit to their new PFP families. They say they like it there, that the rules are the same, but they have a
hard time parting after a “life� spent with the family M, which they regard as friends and parents. The
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection proposed the PFP family in the CTF to
continue their activity and for the children to be left under their foster care, but at their domicile.
They refused and requested their certificate to be withdrawn, so that they may be registered as
unemployed. At present, they own a house nearby, recently purchased. At any rate, everything we
have seen here meets the requirements for PFP and not for this facility to be classified as CTF.�

(Case study PFP, county of Bistrița-Năsăud, On-site report – Social Worker Nicoleta Pop-Soroceanu)

CTF Case Study, Dolj County




                                                    120
A young man with delinquent behavior living in a small group home

We visit a small group home, located in the outskirts of the county and the outskirts of the country,
that seems like a holiday home or a place from where you can’t leave by foot.

Thirteen children live in a building with cheerfully painted walls, with clean rooms and equipped with
everything they need for daily living.

Beautiful, unselfconscious, neatly-dressed children surrounded us quickly and with curiously. The
curiosity was reciprocal, but from the very first minutes, when the sweets brought by the visitors were
placed on the table, we began to doubt that everything was in order here: one of the boys, tall and
robust, rushed and filled his pockets: "These are for me, I like these, I eat them all."

The group discussion was difficult to carry, the aggressive tone of the young man dominated the
discussion, he came out and returned repeatedly. In his opinion, everything in the house is ugly, the
food is bad, it is dirty. Anyone who tried to express another opinion was immediately silenced with a
high-tone reply, and a sharp look, sometimes accompanied by a threatening position.

We want to photograph his bedroom as the bedroom with the smallest number of children. He's the
only one who does not share the room with anyone. There are two other rooms, one with 4 girls and
one with 4 boys, the latter being quite small. He sits in the doorway, with arms wide open: "You will
not take any pictures here. Do not come in here!". I manage to take a glimpse: the room is spacious,
bright, has its own balcony, the walls are painted light green, everything is clean and tidy. No trace of
dark walls or dirt, as the young man said in the group discussion.

Our questions have been further clarified by the personnel: abandoned from birth, coming from a
family whose adult members are either still in prison or have transitioned through it, the 17-year-old
has committed about 300 crimes. He was sentenced to 2 years and six months imprisonment, of which
he executed 6 months, being recently released for good behaviour. Returned to the child protection
system, he was accommodated in this isolated house, chosen on the grounds that it does not offer the
opportunity to practice theft and breaking into cars.

Instead, there are other victims within reach: colleagues of the small group home. He steals their
personal belongings, aggresses them, harasses them, does not allow them to have opinions that are
different from his. The two girls aged 10 and 12 do not manage to deal with him. They are his favorite
victims: he throws their food on the floor, intimidates them, and shoves them. He became an informal
leader of the boys, who, on one hand, fear him, on the other hand, imitate him and obediently
execute his orders.

In order to limit his "show" during meal time, it was decided that the meals would be served in the
series, in the kitchen, so that the girls could eat quietly.

The two younger girls sit next to me during the group talk. They seem to be looking for shelter,
particularly the youngest. Towards the end she approaches me and asks, whispering, "Are we allowed
to have a puppy in the room? We want a puppy very much." She is the only child out of three brothers
present who would like to return home if their parents would have a place to live and if it would be
together with her brothers. She hugs me, despite the fact that we first met one hour before...

Outside, our young man is sitting ostentatiously with two other beneficiaries on the hood of the car we
are supposed to leave with, as pressure upon the case manager, to make sure that the case manager
will not leave without being handed the complaints that the young man has made in writing.

Both the young man with delinquent behaviour and the victims among his colleagues are the results of
a child protection system that fails on this mission, lacking the necessary services. There is no
communication between the justice system and the child protection system; specialists’ opinions are




                                                  121
not requested, and the community resources and its ability to provide the necessary services are not
taken into account by the court.

The young man needs multiple services and specific interventions: to prevent relapse by eliminating
risk factors (entourage, opportunities to commit crimes) and enhancing protection factors (therapy,
education, secure environment, engagement in long-term projects), awareness of the consequences of
delinquent behavior, personal development (learning social skills, management of aggressive feelings
and behaviors, increase of self-esteem), behavioral change in order to put an end to the criminal
career. Unfortunately, there are no such community services in Romania.

On the other hand, all children in the small group home should be given the necessary conditions to
develop in a protective environment so that they feel safe and develop to their own potential.
Otherwise, institutional abuse will also be added to the history of abandonment, neglect and abuse
that these children experienced in their families.

(Case Study, small group home, Dolj county, Field report social worker Emilia Sorescu)




CTF Case Study, MureÈ™ County




                                                 122
123
                 Part 3


      CHILD PROTECTION
      CASE MANAGEMENT




124
PART3.  CHILD   PROTECTION                                                                 CASE
MANAGEMENT IN ROMANIA
Part 3 of Output #4 analyzes the case management, more precisely the capacity of the current
network of case managers to ensure the timely delivery of good-quality services that meet the needs
of children and youth in special care. The whole analysis looks at all 35 Romanian counties with at
least one placement center for children.


3.1. Data
The analysis we present here draws upon the data collected by the World Bank team in February-March
2018. Data were collected by a team of sociologists, through face-to-face interviews.

For the collection of data on case management implementation at county level, interviews were
conducted with DGASPC management representatives (35 interviews with DGASPC directors) and with
case managers. In this research, case managers were selected for interviews based on two criteria: (1)
the case manager has at least one active case of a child with a special protection measure in place and
(2) the case manager is not the service provider. We could exemplify the second criterion as follows: a
case manager who is also the head of center is both a case manager and a service provider to those
children; instead, a case manager who has active cases of children in residential care, foster care and
family care and is also a social worker for those in residential care meets the criterion. Using these
two criteria, 785 case managers were identified, but face-to-face interviews were conducted with only
675 of them (see the interview guide IntMc in the methodological report). Statistical data regarding all
the case managers from the special care system were collected based on a standardized form – the MC
List.

                Table 32: Case manager network and interviewed case managers, by county
                     County      Total number of      Number of         % of all
                                  case managers      interviewed     interviewed
                                      (MCs)         case managers        MCs
                                                         (MCs)
                      AB                28                25               3.7

                      AR                19                19               2.8

                      AG                19                19               2.8

                      BH                29                27               4.0

                      BN                11                11               1.6

                      BT                20                19               2.8

                      BV                26                25               3.7

                      BZ                22                17               2.5

                      CS                16                16               2.4

                      CJ                24                20               3.0

                      CT                16                16               2.4




                                                  125
                      CV                  14                 12           1.8

                      DB                  28                 22           3.3

                      DJ                  23                 22           3.3

                      GL                  33                 32           4.7

                      GJ                  19                 17           2.5

                      HR                  21                 16           2.4

                      HD                  22                 17           2.5

                      IL                  26                 25           3.7

                      IS                  47                 35           5.2

                      IF                  20                 13           1.9

                      MM                  21                 21           3.1

                      MH                  16                 14           2.1

                      MS                  18                 10           1.5

                      NT                  32                 20           3.0

                      PH                  28                 19           2.8

                      SM                  16                 16           2.4

                      SJ                  10                 10           1.5

                      SB                  18                 18           2.7

                      SV                  25                 21           3.1

                      TR                  18                 13           1.9

                      TM                  32                 31           4.6

                      TL                  14                 11           1.6

                      VL                  30                 28           4.1
                      CL                  24                 18          2.7
                      Total              785                675          100

Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018


3.2. Case manager network
The census of case managers carried out in February-March 2018 by the World Bank identified a
number of 785 case managers who met the aforementioned two criteria – having an active case of a
child with a special protection measure in place and not being a service provider. Interviews were then
conducted with 675 case managers. The information included in this section and in Annex 1 Part 3
presents statistical data for the entire network of case managers, whereas the information in sections
3.3 and 3.4 shows the findings relating to the 675 case managers that we interviewed.

Size of the MC network: At county level, the largest networks of case managers (over 30 MCs) are
found in the counties of Iași (47 MCs), Galați (33 MCs), Neamț and Timiș (with 32 MCs eac h) as well as
Vâlcea (30 MCs). Only three of these counties (Iași, Neamț, and Vâlcea) have a considerable number of



                                                    126
placement centers.130 The smallest MC networks operate in the counties of Sălaj (10 MCs) and
Bistrița-Năsăud (11 MCs).

Composition of the MC network: At national level, the network of case managers is predominantly
female (92%) and over three quarters of its members are 30 to 49 years old. Ten of the 35 researched
counties have all-female networks of case managers: Arad, Bistrița Năsăud, Cluj, Constanța,
Dâmbovița, Hunedoara, Mureș, Prahova, Tulcea, and Călărași. More than half of case managers have a
social work degree and 16% of them have a higher education degree in other fields. In seven counties,
over 90% of case managers have completed tertiary education in social work. These are: Alba, Bihor,
Caraș Severin, Cluj, Iași, Ilfov, and Sălaj. In addition, nationwide, almost a quarter of all case
managers have a postgraduate degree in social work. Under Order No. 288 of 6 July 2006, SMO 9
concerning the recruitment and employment of case managers stipulates that for someone to work as
a MC, they have to: (i) be a social worker as prescribed by Law No. 466/2004 on the professional status
of social workers, with at least two years’ experience in ch ild protection services; (ii) hold a higher
education degree in humanities, social sciences or health care and at least three years’ experience in
child protection services; (iii) hold a higher education degree in fields other than humanities, social
sciences or health care, a postgraduate degree in social work and at least five years’ experience in
child protection services. Nonetheless, the census of case managers identified 59 case managers who
did not meet the conditions for employment as a case manager or a case handler.

Countrywide, more than half of case managers hold at least 11 years’ experience in child protection
services. Only 64 case managers have worked in a SPAS/DAS/DAC at local level.

Organization of the MC network: Most of the researched counties (20 counties) have case manager
networks organized by service, not by child. This organizational structure impinges on case continuity
for if the service changes, so does the child’s case manager. This organizational structure is sometimes
maintained even in the case of siblings, where the prevailing criteria are the time of entry into care
and the service assigned at that time – “They have the same MC if they enter care at the same time;
but if one of the siblings has disabilities and is referred to another service, s/he will have a different
MC even if they were taken into care at the same time. In residential care however, siblings are placed
together and have the same MC�. Still, some of the counties which have networks organized by service
answered that they “try as much as possible to appoint the same case manager for groups of siblings�.

Workload of the MC network: On average, a case manager works with a number of 50 children, which
is more than what is stipulated under the compulsory minimum standards (SMO) with regard to the
number of active cases. Equal proportions of case managers are responsible for 31 to 50 children and
51 to 80 children with special protection measures, respectively. The compulsory minimum standards
prescribe that the number of MCs within a child protection service or the total number of MCs
available for the service provider must be high enou gh to meet customers’ needs, to accomplish the
mission of the service and to ensure that a MC gets a maximum of 30 active cases. Active cases are
considered those which stay open until the post-service monitoring stage; referred cases and those in
which the MC devolves some or all of the responsibilities are not considered active cases. The highest
number of cases of children with special protection measures assigned to a case manager is 185 and
the lowest is 0, in the case of recently appointed case managers. There is a significant variance across
counties as well (see the map below).




130
   See Annex 1 Table 2, Placement centers for children in Romania, by county and closure status (as of February 2018, in Part 1
of Output #4.




                                                             127
          Map 5: Average number of children with a special measure per case manager, by counties




Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018




The information relevant to PIP/PIS objective/goal achievement requires a better systematization.
Some of the case managers (40) do not know the number of indirect MC beneficiaries – parents of
children with special protection measures who are currently active cases. Moreover, only one third of
the interviewed case managers have a list of parents of children with special protection measures who
are active cases. One in ten case managers does not know the number of indirect beneficiaries –
grandparents, aunts and other relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity for the children with
special protection measures who are currently active cases and only 14% of all the interviewed
managers have a list of those relatives. The case studies conducted by randomly selecting a child from
each case manager’s child list confirmed these findings. Almost a third of the interviewed case
managers are unable to promptly identify key information about the child and need more time to
consult with colleagues/get an answer from the case handler.

                                  Table 33: Case managers’ characteristics
                                                             Number of case          % of case
                                                             managers                managers

Total                                                        785                     100

Gender
male                                                         59                      8




                                                    128
                                                                Number of case   % of case
                                                                managers         managers
female                                                          726              92

Age
<30 years                                                       43               5
30-39 years                                                     273              35
40-49 years                                                     357              45
50-59 years                                                     103              13
60-69 years                                                     9                1

Education
no higher education                                             7                1
in social assistance                                            490              62
in sociology or psychology                                      161              21
medical education                                               1                0
other specializations                                           126              16

MC/ RC type (education and accumulated service)
MC who fulfill the standards, of which:                                  657            84
  Social assistance (AS) and 2+ years of accumulated service             452            58
   Humanities and Social Sciences 3+ years of accumulated
service                                                                  146            19
  other fields of higher education, post-university AS and 5+
years of accumulated service                                             59              8
high-school and 2+ years of accumulated service (RC)                     69              9
not fulfilling the requirements for MC, or for RC                        59              8

Accumulated service in child care services
0-2 years                                                                61              8
3-5 years                                                                68              9
6-10 years                                                               125            16
11-15 years                                                              242            31
16+ years                                                                289            37

MC type (provision of services)
MC who is not also the service provider                                  709            90
MC who is also the service provider                                      76             10

Number of active cases of children under a special
protective measure (February 2018)
0–30 cases                                                               161            21
31-50 cases                                                              272            35
51-80 cases                                                              271            35
81+                                                                      81             10

Average No of cases under protective measure                              0

Minimum No of cases under protective measure                             185




                                                       129
                                                             Number of case             % of case
                                                             managers                   managers

Maximum No of cases under protective measure                            50

Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018

Note: Case managers who were at the time of the census on parental leave were not included




                                                     130
3.3. Implementation of standards and case management
Case managers mentioned the following case management problems/difficulties related to the current
implementation of PIP, PIS, PS (service provision) aimed at ensuring the achievement of PIP/PIS
objectives/goals:

•   Heavy workload/high caseload. Work overload is due to the high number of cases, the large amount
of documents to be completed (a lot of red tape, short timeframes between re-evaluations),
concurrent functions/positions (“We are both case managers and case handlers�), and to certain
responsibilities which should be assigned to other levels (for example, the initial evaluation contains
little information and has to be supplemented/redone, hence the need to extend the timeframe to 30
days; lack of professionals or inefficient collaboration within the multidisciplinary team – “I am the
team�). Heavy workload is also fed by the absence of preventive services in the local communities, a
systemic shortcoming which keeps the number of children in special care high.

            “We don’t implement case management by the book because we have a combination of
            mixed cases/case managers for some cases and case handlers for completely different
            cases.�

            “You don’t have a team and you are the only one responsible for everything, you are the
            case manager and the case handler and the social worker and a civil servant; you make
            the decisions, but you can’t mention that in the PIP because it would show the limited
            resources of the institution.�

•  Challenging cooperation with parents because of distance (parents who work abroad), lack of
interest, low level of education a s well as difficulties in identifying the parents’ current address. The
latter problem is caused by the feeble collaboration with other institutions, especially with population
registration offices. Moreover, some case managers also suggest “setting an int ermediate goal to
address parents’ lack of interest if the goal aims at family reintegration and that is impossible to
achieve�.

            “Even if we submit requests to population registration offices, parents don’t actually live
            at that address, so we call for a social inquiry; we sometimes have to request that for
            months, even for a year; I have a case where I have been asking for an inquiry for three
            years and I always get the same answer, namely that the person does not live there.�

•  Difficult collaboration with the multidisciplinary team. The idea that “usually, the multidisciplinary
team is comprised of a single person� was mentioned by case managers from different counties. Where
the multidisciplinary team, however, includes several professionals, it is very difficult to cooperate
with family physicians and teachers. As regards mainstream education, case managers mentioned
teachers’ discrimination of children from the special care system. Regarding family physicians, it was
pointed out that medical certificates/documents were issued depending on beneficiaries’ income.

            “Case managers are on their own: they are the ones doing all the writing and the talking
            and nobody listens to them; the instructors from residential care facilities ignore the
            recommendations and the outcomes are bad�.

            “Some children diagnosed with disabilities but without an established disability level have
            difficulties in coping with the demands of mainstream education and doctors don’t
            support them in getting curriculum adaptations, saying that the child is lazy�.

•   Biological family’s poverty, including precarious housing conditions. In most cases, these
circumstances are permanent and hinder the achievement of the PIP goal aimed at family
reintegration. In addition, this setback is also generated by the weak collaboration with SPAS – local
authorities don’t provide enough support to the families that would like to take their children back.




                                                   131
                “Major lacks – as regards parents: modest people, low IQ, outcasts in the society for
                various reasons, minimum resources, no jobs, emotional indifference, disinterest �.

•  Difficult collaboration with local authorities. This is a major difficulty mentioned by case managers
from various counties. It could be explained by a lack of social work professionals at local level (and
hence of prevention case handlers 131 at SPAS), an excessive bureaucratization of their work, the
accumulation of social work responsibilities and other mayoralty-specific tasks, and a certain
organizational culture “in some mayoralties – they talk to each other and if one of them does not run
the social inquiry, the other one won’t either�.

                “Collaboration with the services available in the local communities (their involvement); it
                is unacceptable that I, a county representative, have to go there and point them where a
                certain family lives�.

                “Communication and support between us as a county institution and SPAS – what they
                write on paper, like when they carry out the inquiry - if they actually do it, is inconsistent
                with what we find out. They do nothing for children’s families to facilitate their
                reintegration�.

                “This division into localities makes up for the staff shortage at SPAS. Being positioned in a
                poor county means lack of funding�.132

•  Lack of transport resources – insufficient number of vehicles (“we only have one car for 100 case
managers�, “we have two cars available, but we can only use one of them�) , insufficient fuel
resources. This leads to a greater number of cases having to be visited over a short period of time and
to other constraints regarding visiting times.

                “Fieldwork time is too short to interact with the placement family – the beneficiary. We
                are five case managers, with 4-5 cases each, traveling in the same car. During our visiting
                times, children are at school�.

•  Lack of services for youth leaving care, especially as regards the PIP goal aimed at social and
professional integration – “Employers refuse to hire young people from public care. I accompanied
many of them to the job fair and young people leave their resumes but are never contacted.
Employers justify their decision saying that young people from public care are harder to integrate�.
Access to housing is also mentioned as problematic for youth leaving the special care system.

•  Tough collaboration with beneficiaries (children) because of a difficult relationship with
adolescents, a certain dependence of the beneficiaries on the services provided by the system,
language barriers in some ethnic communities, children’s lack of desire to continue their education. At
the same time, this issue is also explained by the deficient collaboration with placement center
employees, in particular with educators.

                “Our beneficiaries have a certain underdog mentality – we can’t do that, they expect to
                get things and have things done for them; children in residential care are used to a certain
                way of doing things, they have no plans for the future and they barely get involved unless
                they are motivated, accompanied�.

•  Lack of services and professionals at local level, which is relevant in particular for children in
family or foster care in rural areas. Case managers mention as problematic the lack of services for

131
    Under Order No. 288/2006, the prevention case handler is a professional who meets the conditions set out in these standards
and coordinates the social assistance activities performed for the best interests of the child living with the family, working to
draw up and implement the service plan for the prevention of the child’s separation from his or her family. The prevention ca se
handler is employed by the public social assistance service (SPAS). In the case of communes, this role is fulfilled by the social
assistance clerk if they meet the conditions specified in these standards. In the case of Bucharest City districts, this professional
is employed by the DGASPC.
132
    A view expressed by a DGASPC management representative.




                                                                132
parents (counseling, family planning, parent education), of respite centers for AMPs, of psychologists,
case handlers (at the DGASPC and prevention case handlers at SPAS), of neuropsychiatrists or school
counselors.

•  Difficult collaboration with placement families – also explained in section B of Output #4 regarding
the network of family placements with relatives and other families or persons (PFam). Case managers
think that it is difficult to reach PIP objectives related to education, partly because of placement
persons’ low level of education, just as it is to reach the goal of family reintegration (given the
generous placement allowance, placement persons’ bad relationship with children’s parents, the
grandparents who do not communicate relevant information about the parents, etc.).

•  Deficient collaboration with placement center employees, in particular with educators. Case
managers recommend investing in staff training courses at the level of residential care services as “the
needs are changing fast and experts are falling behind �. In some counties, case managers also
mentioned the lack of clear procedures for specific intervention programs (PIS). Anyways, lack of
training is reflected in the formal development of PIS.

             “Placement center employees don’t formulate the PIS as they should, they write them
             late, with a copy-paste approach, using vague, generic sentences, instead of personalizing
             them to each child. Placement centers don’t really have specialists or, if they do, those
             don’t take an interest in all that�.

             “PIS have always posed problems because, until recently, we didn’t know who was
             supposed to write them. There were no clear procedures; they are normally prepared by
             the employees who work directly with the child, but in our county that was not clear �.

•  Lack of time. Correlated with heavy workload, the small number of case managers compared to the
number of active cases, the large amount of documents requested and insufficient transport resources,
case managers mention lack of time as one of the difficulties related to PIP or PIS implementation:
“the ideal would be for me to have time to go and see them, talk to them�. Also, allocating more time
for individual discussions with beneficiaries was identified by case managers as something they could
have done better in their case management work.

•   The difficult collaboration with other institutions is mentioned by case managers, not only in
relation to SPAS but also to population registration offices, schools which “automatically label those
placed with different carers� or, more generically, from public care, or institutions from their county
as well as from other counties. Regarding the institutions from other counties, the difficult
collaboration with other DGASPC is also due to case managers’ different work practices – “we do things
differently�. Apart from the difficult collaboration with other institutions, case managers also draw
attention to the tough cooperation with services from within the same institution, for instance
insufficient information included in the initial evaluation made by the Emergency Service or the long
time taken by the Comprehensive Evaluation Service to process the documents.

The difficulties most frequently mentioned by case managers are related to the challenging
collaboration with parents, mayoralties and the multidisciplinary team. Other setbacks concern:

•   Lack of logistical resources at the DGASPC (computers, printer – “we lack equipment at work�);

•  Non-correlation of laws on the compulsory minimum standards for case management in the field of
child rights protection with laws on education and health care (“PIS are not designed as working tools
for educational and medical institutions.�)

•   Lack of legal provisions meant to improve the relationship with the parents who are not interested
in family reintegration (“no legal framework is in place to make them fulfill their duties; parents are
uncooperative and there is nothing you can do for reintegration.�)




                                                  133
•  Shortage of training for both case managers and AMPs. The recommendations for professional
development also include experience exchanges with experts from other counties and courses on PIS
and PIP development and implementation, held in a different format where “we can talk about the
actual challenges we are facing�.

•  Lack of case management continuity (“the case gets fragmented all the time�), the lack of real
case monitoring by the case manager (“PIP is not prepared and monitored by the person who signs it�),
legal changes required for streamlining the preparation of documents for children with disabilities.

DGASPC directors also mentioned difficulties related to SMO 9, Recruitment and Employment –
unattractiveness of vacant case manager posts (“a lot of responsibility for low pay�) given the low
wages paid to civil servants (big pay differences between civil servants and contractual personnel),
lack of professionals (“we don’t manage to find candidates to fill the vacancies�), staff count
limitations (“when two people leave, only one gets hired�), poorly prepared candidates compared with
MC requirements (“none of those candidates fulfilled the MC standards�). Problems were also
mentioned with respect to:

•   High staff turnover;

•   Wide dispersion of cases across the county;

•   Lack of a training budget and the bad quality of the training courses delivered;

•   The need to standardize costs for outsourced MCs;

•  The need to develop a unified pay system in the fie ld of social work (“we have a problem if a
county council thinks that the social worker is not important and pays the professional the minimum
wage�);

•  Centralization focused on document review, not on the quality of the services delivered – “All
inspections from whatever institution are not interested about how children are doing. If your papers
are in order, your work is good, otherwise, it is not. We don’t have time to write so many papers.�;

•   Differentiated funding of social services – the difference between the multidisciplinary team which
is funded from the county council budget and placement centers and other services which are funded
from the state budget;

•   The need for legislative clarifications so as to organize case management by child, not by service.

As a conclusion, case managers identified problems/difficulties in reaching PIP/PIS objectives/goals,
especially those related to family reintegration. Case management practitioners mention the following
specific situations: (i) difficult collaboration with the family, particularly when they lack interest and
move frequently, which is also relevant when it comes to reaching the PIP goal aimed at adoption –
“the mother does not give her consent for adoption even if she knows that she will never take the
child back�; (ii) difficulty in reaching the objectives related to education, especially for children with
SEN or in the case of family placements with less educated persons or because of the difficult
collaboration with the school/discrimination in school; (iii) difficulties related to social and
professional integration generated by employers’ refusal to hire young people from public care; (iv)
difficulty in reaching the objectives related to health care for children with disabilities, also linked to
a lack of local services/professionals; (v) difficulty in reaching the PIP goal related to adoption,
especially for children with health problems.




                                                   134
Still, some case managers did not identify any setbacks for the achievement of the objectives. This
may be explained by the proper organization of county DGASPC as well as by case managers’ lack of
responsibility related to the writing/implementation of PIP/PIS – “As a case manager, I have no stress,
because I do nothing besides signing. My real work is that of a ca se handler�.

The compulsory minimum standards that MCs fulfill best are SMO 7 concerning monitoring and
reevaluation and SMO 4 concerning the detailed/comprehensive evaluation. Apart from these, other
standards mentioned as being properly fulfilled were SMO 3 concerning case identification, initial
evaluation and takeover and SMO 6 concerning the individual care plan and the service plan.

At the other end of the spectrum, the compulsory minimum standards for case management in the
field of child rights protection most difficult to fulfill are Standard 5 regarding the multidisciplinary
team and Standard 8 concerning the post-service monitoring and case closure. Both are regarded as
falling outside the case manager’s control.

  Table 34: Compulsory minimum standards (SMO) fulfilled best and most difficult to fulfill by the network of
                                           case managers (%)
                                                          Fulfilled best by MCs       Most difficult to fulfill
                                                                                               by MCs
                                                                          First        2nd option         First        2nd option
                                                                         option                          option

  1. Conditions for method implementation                                   4               1               3                2

  2. Case management stages                                                 12              5               4                2

  3. Case identification, initial evaluation and takeover                   18              9               8                6

  4. Detailed/comprehensive evaluation                                      15              15              9                8

  5. Multidisciplinary team                                                 6               7               22               9

  6. Individual care plan and service plan                                  13              15              7                7

  7. Monitoring and reevaluation                                            18              25              8                7

  8. Post-service monitoring and case closure                               1               7               13              13

  9. Recruitment and employment                                             0               1               3                5

  10. Role and place of the case manager and of the                         1               0               1                3
  prevention case handler

  11. Initial/induction and continuing training                             1               1               2                4

 12. Supervision                                                            0               1               3               4
 Total MCs with    non-response133                                         71              93             108             209
 Total MCs                                                                100             100             100             100
 N                                                                        675             675             675             675

Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018. N=675 MCs. Unweighted data.

Note: SMO pursuant to Order No. 288 of 6 July 2006.

The difficulty of fulfilling SMO 5, related to the multidisciplinary team, comes from the poor
cooperation with disciplinary team members due either to lack of professionals ( “we don’t have a

133
   They are not familiar with the Order, they don’t think standards are properly fulfilled or difficult to fulfill or they don’t have
a second option.




                                                                135
multidisciplinary team, we are the team�), to the difficulty of scheduling joint meetings with all the
professionals or to unresponsiveness, especially that of healthcare and teaching staff. In other cases,
professionals are available but their number is too small to cover the actual needs - “we turn to a
psychologist only when there is an urgent need, when it is already too late and there is not much we
can do anymore� or “the case manager does the doctor’s job, too; they have children cared for in
different localities where the doctor goes only twice a week and they are very busy and have no time
for filling in the papers and discussing the cases�.

“For the service plans, we don’t work with doctors, they don’t get involved and they don’t sign an y
document, they are not bound to sign; we don’t even ask them to come because they never come
anyway; we work with the psychologist and the placement family�.

The problems related to the implementation of SMO 8 concerning post-service monitoring and case
closure arise from the difficult collaboration with the local authorities, the lack of social work
professionals in local communities or the parents’/children’s change of address, especially when they
move abroad. This is actually the main explanation mentioned by case managers for the difficult
implementation of standards.

“SPAS don’t monitor the cases after reintegration and don’t respond to requests; monitoring findings
are not available because no monitoring is performed; monitoring is irrelevant since the case manager
cannot intervene�.

“If it is post-service, it means that it is no longer in our records and that the mayoralty is in charge of
monitoring; many times, even if we submit written requests for 3-6 months, we don’t really get an
answer and we don’t have enough time to go and check on them post -service�.

In general, the explanations provided for the difficult implementation of standards are similar to case
management difficulties related to the implementation of PIP, PIS, PS (service provision). Moreover,
other problems are mentioned in relation to responsibilities shared with other colleagues/professionals
(it is not only the MC’s responsibility), lack of professional development courses , lack of external
supervision, lack of case file documents, difficulty in identifying the child’s relatives.

      Figure 26: Explanations for the difficult fulfillment of SMO by the MCs in their everyday work (%)




Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018. N=675 MCs. Multiple answers

The causes/reasons why case managers have had to take/accept other measures/decisions than those
that they first identified/planned and that they considered best for the child are related to young



                                                     136
people who want to leave public care when they turn 18, children with behavioral disorders, changes
in family circumstances (paternity test, biological family members’ loss of income), parents’ non -
involvement hampering the successful reintegration and, hence, having to change the goal from
reintegration to adoption. Almost half (46%) of the interviewed case managers stated that, in the
previous 12 months, they had had to take/accept such measures/decisions.

Within the same context, it is important to mention that there are also case managers who are not
familiar with SMO provisions although they say that they know them. The most frequent
inconsistencies are noticed in the open answers related to SMO 9 concerning recruitment and
employment (case manager and prevention case handler). A few case managers brought up difficulties
in finding a job for young people in public care during the discussions about SMO 9: “recruitment and
employment were not successful for any of the children; they are frustrated children lacking self-
confidence; you hire them, but they give up easily and want another job� or, also in relation to the
same standard, “youth employment is difficult because young people are not willing to search for a
job and they are also coddled by their placement families�. Still, those difficult ies were also
mentioned by other case managers with regard to the achievement of the goal aimed at social and
professional integration (but not in regard to the implementation of SMO 9).

        Table 35: Assessment of the DGASPC’s provision of the resources needed for case management
                                              implementation
                                                                                         No.   of Mean
                                                                                         valid     score*
                                                                                         answers


Sufficient number of case managers (meeting conditions for appointment) for children in   669      7
special care


Sufficient number of case managers for ethnic communities in the county who know the      357      5
language and culture of those communities


Means of transport (car or reimbursement of travel expenses) for field visits             673      8

Logistics (computers, printer, copy machine, phone, etc.)                                 675      8

Working procedures and methodologies                                                      674      9

Network of professionals for the multidisciplinary team                                   670      8

Map of current social services at county/national level                                   608      8

Dedicated areas for the confidential archiving of case files                              666      8

Decent salaries for case managers                                                         670      8



Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018

Note: * For valid cases

The lowest rated resources provided by the DGASPC are those related to the sufficient number of case
managers for ethnic communities in the county who know the language and culture of those
communities and the sufficient number of case managers (meeting conditions for appointment) for
children in special care. This last resource is relevant to the difficulties mentioned in relation to the
case managers’ heavy workload (bureaucracy, concurrent responsibilities, lack of the required data,
absence of preventive services in local communities, etc.). The lowest scores regarding a properly



                                                          137
sized network of case managers for the number of children in special care are reported in the counties
of Satu Mare and CaraÈ™ Severin, having 16 case managers each. Still, neith er of these two counties
record the highest mean caseload/MC.


3.4. Evaluation of case management per-formance
On the whole, case managers’ superiors and case managers themselves rate case management
performance at institutional level as good (scores above 8). Moreover, case managers rate individual
performance slightly better than institutional performance. When it comes to case management
effectiveness at the level of the MC’s institution, scores vary from 6.5 in the county of Brașov to 9.31
in the county of Dolj. As for the self-assessment of individual performance, the case managers from
the county of Constanța give the lowest mean score and those from the county of Ialomița, the
highest.

      Figure 27: Evaluation of case management performance by case managers and DGASPC management




    Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers and Interview with DGASPC Director, February-March 2018
To improve case management performance, a number of recommendations should be formulated
based on the implementation of standards which are not among those that are best fulfilled/hard to
fulfill, but which could considerably contribute to building the capacity of the current case manager
network. We are referring here to SMO 11 related to Initial and Continuing Training and SMO 12
concerning Supervision.

About SMO 11, the general perception is that “initial training should improve and that continuing
training is not available�. Consequently, although “any type of training is most welcome�, case
managers identified many specific training needs:

•   Domestic violence, crisis management, communication with beneficiaries

•  Child psychology, handling adolescents, children with behavioral disorders, and alcohol, tobacco,
drug addictions

•   Supervision

•  Case studies, social work methods and techniques for managing difficult cases, efficient procedures
and working methods

•   Computer use, ECDL

•   Experience exchanges with other counties

•   Training on project proposal writing



                                                   138
•   Procedures for starting the adoption process

•   Law amendments

•   Communication in certain communities, for instance Roma communities

•   Time management

•   Stress management

•   Case management in general as well as focused on specific areas, such as parent counseling

•   Case-related tools, working methods

•   Children’s rights

•   Personal development

•   Training on PIP and PIS writing.

The development of case managers’ skills, however, requires an institutional training plan in each
DGASPC to change the current situation where “managers do not get any training un less they handle it
on their own�. Nevertheless, DGASPC directors included among problems the poor quality of the
training courses delivered, insufficient training budgets as well as the difficulty of selecting a high-
quality training offer under the current public procurement procedure.

Supervision related to the implementation of SMO 12 could efficiently improve the quality of case
managers’ work. According to SMO 12, case managers and case handlers benefit from supervision from
adequately trained and experienced experts, which allows services to work well. In practice however,
at present:

“On the ground, you have to make decisions by yourself, you don’t know if those decisions are right
and your signature can change the course of a child’s life�.

In this context, DGASPC directors aim to optimize the implementation of the following case
management standards through institutional development plans by 2020:

•  SMO 1. Improving conditions for method implementation through software development for the
registration of all children with special protection measures and/or improving working procedures.

• SMO 5. Improving collaboration with the multidisciplinary team, including through more frequent
meetings with CP/AMP teams.

•   SMO 6. Raising the targets set for case managers for starting the adoption proceeding.

•  SMO 9. Expanding the organizational structure by hiring more case managers and meeting the
caseload standard, ensuring a more balanced area coverage or setting a new threshold, closer to the
standards (“each MC should work with 50 beneficiaries at most�); filling vacancies; hiring case
managers in accordance with SMO; as regards the deinstitutionalization process, the AMP networks
could develop, which would lead to a larger team of MCs available for children placed with AMPs.




                                                   139
•  SMO 10. Changing the organizational chart by setting up a MC service or reorganizing the MC into a
single structure so that a child can have one MC during the entire time spent in special care; clearly
separating MC responsibilities from service provision; restructuring the organizational chart based on
the recommendations formulated by a Committee of Social Workers and Psychologists responsible for
the human resources required for Pfam and AMP (recruitment, evaluation, certification, monitoring).

•  SMO 11. Developing initial and continuing training though experience exchanges, various
professional training courses, including in the field of supervision, case management, social service
quality – “no plans until 2020, only continuing training�. Some directors also mention the necessity to
train mayoralty employees as well as the need for burnout prevention training (“after a while, they
turn into robots, like they are on an automatic mode�). Also motivated by the lack of a training
budget, some DGASPC directors suggest experience exchanges to discuss exceptional cases with
colleagues from other services.

•  SMO 12. Improving MC supervision, “now it is not enough; it may be useful to have more experts or
to contract out these services�.

Other suggestions made by the DGASPC management concern the direct involvement in the cases of
children faced with dropout and violence problems, better prevention, law amendments – “we have to
make the 288 a reality�, closer examination of family plac ement alternatives, involvement in specific
cases of children faced with dropout and violence problems, MC involvement in the communities by
putting up community-based teams of volunteers for leisure activities and for the activation of
Community Advisory Structures (“SCC should not only stay on paper, [but used] to facilitate
reintegration and set up services at local level�).




    Good practice

    Given the lack of space at the DGASPC offices, we were invited to work in the office of the
    Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Division. Thus, we witnessed the work carried out by that
    division.

    During the time spent there, two cases came in: a 13-year-old girl who, the night before, had
    physically assaulted her family because they had refused to give her money for cigarettes. At
    the beginning of the conversation with the social worker, the grandmother was aggressive,
    shouting and determined to leave the girl right there, in the office. When she heard her
    grandmother, the 13-year-old child shouted at her: “Here you go again?!�. The grandmother
    and the niece shoved each other between the desks full of papers as another case came in: a
    mother with her 6- or 7-year-old girl. She was shouting, saying that she could no longer look
    after the child and that she wanted to place her in special care for at least three months until
    she managed to get back on her feet and find a job. The psychologist explained to the mother
    how complicated it would then be to take her back home, how complicated and unnecessary
    the entire procedure would be (as it also involved a court of law), and that she would try to
    find an alternative. The mother continued to sit on a chair, trying to convince the psychologist
    that that was the best solution for her. The psychologist looked for colored pencils and paper
    to distract the little girl from the discussion given that she started to cry, scared that her
    mother would leave her there. She begged her mother, shouting, not to desert her. The
    mother took her in her arms and completely changed her attitude, comforting her, but went
    back to her initial attitude once the little girl started to color, thinking or behaving like the
    child could not hear her.

    We tried to finish up work as quickly as possible. We realized how useful a play area would be
    for the children coming to the DGASPC with their carers or parents.

    Source: Field report prepared by researcher Andreea Stănculescu


                                                   140
                   Part 4


      SOURCE COMMUNITIES
           FOR THE CHILD
      PROTECTION SYSTEM




141
PART 4. SOURCE COMMUNITIES FOR THE
CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM
By definition,134 „source communities� (rural and urban) are areas at locality and sub -locality level
from where, in comparison with other localities/areas, a significantly higher number of children enter
public care. Sub-locality type areas may refer to a neighbourhood, but also to a street, a group of
houses and/or blocks, in urban areas, and to a whole village, to a settlement or just a group of houses
in rural areas.

In this chapter we show how we carried out the selection of source communities for the diagnosis of
prevention services for the separation of children from their families. Then, in the selected
communities we identify the main vulnerable groups of children and young people and we analyze the
effectiveness of prevention services and support for children and families available in February-March
2018.


6.1. Selecting the source communities
When discussing the negative impact of separation from parents and how it may be limited, one of the
hypotheses is that preventing the entry into the system is more cost-effective than treating the
effects of separation. Regardless of how tempting this principle is, in theory, the measures taken to
prevent a child’s entry to public care and their effectiveness depend on the geographical distri bution
of children at risk of separation. The resources that the child protection system should mobilize and
the actions that it should take would be completely different if they were distributed equally across
the country, as opposed to the situation where the families at risk are concentrated in compact
communities. The multiple situations that may arise from one county to another, or even within the
same county, represents one of the reasons why it is difficult to carry out cost-benefit analyses of
prevention measures, for them to be extrapolated to other territories. Therefore, the way in which
the risk of separation is concentrated or spread at the level or within localities is essential for the
formulation and ex-ante evaluation of prevention measures.

A recent study135 has already shown that, based on CMTIS data, 136 14% of children in public care come
from source communities. Most of them come from rural areas (60%), from all counties, but Brașov,
Constanţa, Covasna, Sibiu, Vâlcea and Vaslui prevail.137

In the present research, we resumed the analysis of source communities using the data from the
diagnosis of the placement centers, presented extensively in Results # 1 and # 2 of the current
Agreement.138 Within the diagnosis study of all placement centers in the country, the locality (and the
village where applicable) of origin was registered for each of the children and young people in these
centers at 31.10.2016. From the analysis of these data we identified the source communities, meaning
the communities with a higher probability of sending children to the child protection system.


134
    Stănculescu et al (2016).
135
    Idem.
136
    The Child Monitoring and Tracking Information System (CMTIS) is the information system for the management of the child
protection system in Romania, managed by ANPDCA.
137
    From source communities more boys than girls (54%), of all ethnicities, are coming into public care, but the percentage of
Roma people is above average (15% compared to the 10% average).
138
   The Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement, signed between the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development and the National Authority for the Protection of Children Rights and Adoption (ANPDCA) on May 12,
2016. The agreement relates to the “The Development of Plan for the De-Institutionalization of Institutionalized
Children and their Transfer to Community Based Care� - code SIPOCA 2, implemented by the ANPDCA and financed
from the European Social Fund, under the Administrative Capacity Operational Programme.




                                                            142
(1) In the first step, the number of mothers with children in placement centers at the level of
territorial administrative unit was aggregated. It was not possible to also aggregate at component
locality (village) because this information is often not filled in the children's files as shown in Table 36.

 Table 36: Data on the localities where the mothers of the children from the placement centers in
                                          the country live
Total number of children in placement centers in the country                                                           6.514
Number of children for which there is information on the territorial administrative unit in
                                                                                                                       4.190
which the mother currently lives
Number of mothers for whom there is information about the territorial administrative units
                                                                                                                       2.964
where they live, of which:
         - urban                                                                                                       1.017
         - rural                                                                                                       1.947
Number of mothers for which there is information about the territorial administrative units
                                                                                                                       2.741
in which they live – out of the 35 counties with plasma centers, of which:
         - urban                                                                                                         908
         - rural                                                                                                       1.833
Number of communes/localities where the 1.833 mothers live                                                               994

Source: World Bank, Census of child placement centers (October 2016) (N=167 centers with 6.514 children).

In total, we identified 994 communes in which mothers of children from placement centers in the
country live. Most of these communities have only 1-2 mothers.

  Table 37: The distribution of communes in which mothers of children and young people living in
             placement centers in the country are according to the number of mothers
 Number            of
 mothers                1      2       3       4       5      6       7       8       9       10      11     12      Total
 Number            of
 communes               573    227     99      43      22     11      7       5       2       2       2      1       994
 % communes             58     23      10      4       2      1       1       1       0       0       0      0       100
Source: World Bank, Census of child placement centers (October 2016).

Because the information was extremely poor, we tried to identify other options through which we
could improve the identification of the communities in which intervention was first needed. To this
end, we also added information on the existence of marginalized communities and the percentage of
people in marginalized communities in each of the 994 communes. Marginalized areas represent highly
disadvantaged areas where the population has at most gymnasium education, earns informal income
(especially from agriculture), and lives in precarious housing even after rural standards, which
generally have little access to infrastructure and basic utilities (overcrowded houses and/ or lack of
access to water or electricity). These marginalized areas are considered "problematic" due to a
combination of factors, namely the high number of low income households, the low level of education
and skills required on the labor market, the prevalence of single mothers, the high number of children
and the high rate of petty crime. To a greater extent than other communities, especially in rural
areas, marginalized areas are characterized by poor physical accessibility, unpaved roads,
inappropriate housing, exposure to environmental risks (floods, landslides, etc.) and poor quality or
absence of public services.139




139
  Swinkels et al. (coord.) (2014) Atlasul Zonelor Urbane Marginalizate and Teșliuc et al. (coord.) (2015) Atlasul Zonelor Rurale
Marginalizate.




                                                             143
We have introduced this selection criterion on the basis of our previous study 140 which has proven that
there is a strong association between the number of mothers with children in public care and the
existence of a marginalized community in the commune.141 Thus, according to Figure 28, only 17% of
the communes without mothers whose children are in public care include at least one marginalized
area, but the probability of such an area to exist is much higher in the communes where there are at
least 11 mothers (65%).142

      Figure 28: The proportion of communes with marginalized areas according to the number of
                       mothers in the commune with children in public care (%)




                  17                                  34                            65                            34

                   0                               1-10                            11+                           Tota l
                       Numă rul de ma me di n comună ca re a u copi i în s i s temul de protecți e s peci a l ă
                              Number of mothers in the commune with children in public care
Source: CMTIS. Note: The analysis excludes the counties where only a small number of mothers had their
addresses registered in CMTIS (Bistrița-Năsăud, Botoșani, Harghita, Ialomița, Mureș, Olt, Sălaj, Teleorman,
Călărași and Giurgiu).

Also, at village level, as Figure 30 indicates, the higher the number of mothers in a village who have
children in public care, the higher the probability of having a marginalized area in that village.

  Figure 29: Proportion of villages with marginalized areas according to the number of mothers in
                           the commune with children in public care (%)




            11                 16                22                30                 44                46                74

            0                  1                  2                 3                    4               5          6 s a u ma i
                                                                                                                   mul te ma me
                       Numă rul de ma me di n s a t ca re a u copi i în s i s temul de protecți e s peci a l ă


Source: CMTIS. Note: The analysis excludes the counties where only a small number of mothers had
their addresses registered in CMTIS (Bistrița-Năsăud, Botoșani, Harghita, Ialomița, Mureș, Olt, Sălaj,
Teleorman, Călărași și Giurgiu). Percentage was estimated for mothers whose village name was
registered with CMTIS.

By introducing the additional criterion for the existence of a marginalized area, we notice that there
are marginalized communities in 42% (or 420) of the 994 communes where mothers with children in
placement centers live.



140
   Stănculescu et al (2016).
141
   The analysis of CMTIS data shows that there is a concentration of mothers who have children in the child protection system in
several rural localities. Of the total of 2,111 communes included in the analysis, in 59 there are concentrated at least 16
mothers mothers with children in the protection system, while in 103 localities the number of mothers varies between 11 and
15. These 162 rural localities, although only 8% of the total analyzed communes, send 28% of the children that are currently in
public care.
142
   The relationship is also confirmed by the correlation between the aggregate percentage of people living in all
marginalized areas at the commune level and the number of mothers in CMTIS, aggregated at the same level. For
example, in rural communities with less than 2000 inhabitants and with more than 10 mothers having children in
public care, 27% of people live on average in marginalized areas, while in the localities with the same sizes, but
without children in public care, the percentage of people in marginalized areas is on average only 2%.




                                                                   144
      Table 38: The distribution of communes where mothers of children in placement centers live
      according to the number of mothers and the presence of a marginalized area in the commune
                                  Number of            % communes                                     % Population in the
                               communes with           with one or              Average               marginalized areas/
  Number      Number of          one or more               more            population number           areas in the total
  of          commune           marginalized           marginalized         in marginalized            population of the
  mothers     s                     areas                 areas               areas/ areas                 commune
  1           573                      224                    39                    218                           6
  2           227                       92                    41                    287                           7
  3           99                        46                    46                    300                           7
  4           43                        22                    51                    294                           6
  5           52                        36                    69                    734                           13
  Total       994                      420                    42                    272                           7

Source: World Bank, Census of child placement centers (October 2016).

Using the data in Table 38, we grouped the communes in which mothers of children from placement
centers live into three categories of source communities:

                   Communes with 5 mothers or more than 5 mothers
                   Communes with 3-4 mothers and at least a marginalized community
                   Other communes (either with 1-2 mothers, either with 3-4 but without a marginalized
                    community).

                                                          Communes with 3-4
                                      Communes
                                                             mothers and                  Other           Total
                                       with 5+
                                                            marginalized                communes        comunes
                                       mothers
                                                             community

            Number of
                                             52                      68                      874            994
            communes:



Annex 4. Table 1 shows the distribution of communes by counties and by the three categories of source
communities. It can be observed that in the counties with more children in placement centers (the 35
county counties studied) the number of communes is relatively higher, which could be expected
considering the data from which we started (regarding the children and youth from the placement
centers).

According to the agreement, 30 communities had to be selected out of all the source communities
identified in order to produce maps of prevention and alternative services. 143

The limitations of the method used to identify the source communities come from the fact that the
data used were only for children and young people in placement centers and not for all protection
services. For this reason, identified communities represent source communities for placement centers
(and not for the entire child protection system). Additional information was needed to overcome the
limitations of available data. Thus, we adopted a participatory method for selecting the 30 source


143
   Also, in the future stages of the project, data will be collected in these communities for each of the children (to identify
those at risk) and a plan to develop services to prevent child separation from the family at community level will be elaborated.




                                                             145
communities. Namely, we included a separate chapter on community selection in interviews with
DGASPC directors (see the Methodological report).

DGASPC directors were asked to choose between the source communities identified in the county,
taking into account: (1) the communities from where more children are entering the system than from
other rural communities in the county (in any protection service), and (2) where DGASPC plans to
intervene or believes that the development of community-based support and community-level services
targeting the separation of children from their parents would be more stringent. As a rule, if in a
county there were communes from the first category - communes with 5+ mothers - the DGASPC
director was asked to choose between those. If there are no communes of the first category in the
county, the DGASPC director was asked to select from the communes in the second category -
communes with 3-4 mothers and a marginalized area. If there were no such communes, to select any
commune in the third category - other communes.

In cases where the DGASPC director considered that there are other communes in the county than
those on the list that have sent a larger number of children and young people in public care (regardless
of the protection service), then, after verifying the option, this new community could be selected.
This was the rule especially in the case of counties with few placement centers but with numerous
alternative services (AMP, family placements). For example, in Bihor conty, Tinca commune was not
on the initial list of source communities, because all children in the system coming from Tinca are in
an alternative service and not in a placement center. After checking with DGASPC Bihor, it became
obvious that Tinca, with over 140 children sent to the system, is the best choice.

In this way, 32 source communities from 32 counties were selected (of the 35 counties with placement
centers).144 In addition, Tinca commune was added to Bihor County, as was explained earlier. And in
the counties of Caraş-Severin and Constanţa, a community has been added. Unlike the other
communes, these two communes - Mehadica and Cogealac - are source communities identified by
DGASPC (not included in the initial source community lists) and, at the same time, represent
concentrations of child protection services, meaning they are communes where DGASPC has developed
a large number of AMPs and family placements. So, finally, 35 source communities were selected in 32
counties, out of which 2 are also concentrations of child protection services.

                               Table 39: List of selected source communities
                                                                                                    Percentage of
                                              The commune                                           the population
                                   Number                                          Population in
                                               has at least                                         in         the
                                      of                                                the
                                                   one                                              commune that
                                   mothers                                         marginalized
                                              marginalized                                          lives in the
                                     with                                           area in the
                                               community                                            marginalized
                                   children                          Total           commune
                                      in          1 - yes          population       (number of      area
 County    Commune                 centers        0 - no         (2011 Census)        persons)
           CETATEA DE
 AB                                   1              1               2930               699               24
           BALTA
 AR        VLADIMIRESCU               2              0              10710                0                 0
 AG        CALINESTI                  3              1              10872              1139               10
 BH        DRAGESTI                   3              1               2586               704               27
 BH        TINCA                      2              1               7793              1117               14
 BT        COPALAU                    4              1               4053               242                6
 BV        APATA                      5              1               3169              1604               51
 BZ        VERNESTI                   7              1               8633               736                9

144
   Source communities were not selectedin counties Bistrița-Năsăud, Ilfov and Suceava. In Ilfov, no potential source
communities were even identified.




                                                         146
 CL       SPANTOV                   4            1               4605                1262           27
 CS       BERZOVIA                  1            0               3891                 0             0
 CS       MEHADICA                  0            0               870                  0             0
 CJ       MINTIU GHERLII            1            0               3746                 0             0
 CT       PESTERA                   6            0               3307                 0             0
 CT       COGEALAC                  2            0               5039                 0             0
 CV       VALCELE                   7            1               4475                2176           49
 DB       I. L. CARAGIALE           1            1               7697                927            12
 DJ       ORODEL                    3            1               2731                332            12
 GL       MASTACANI                 4            1               4606                198            4
 GJ       BUSTUCHIN                 5            0               3376                 0             0
 HR       CIUCSANGEORGIU            3            1               4839                316            7
 HD       TURDAS                    2            0               1801                 0             0
 IL       TRAIAN                    3            1               3168                605            19
 IS       VOINESTI                  5            1               6815                3218           47
 MM       RUSCOVA                   1            0               5541                 0             0
 MH       SIMIAN                    1            1               9650                473            5
 MS       ALBESTI                   1            0               5345                 0             0
 NT       VANATORI-NEAMT            8            1               7595                537            7
          VALEA
 PH                                 7            0              10657                 0             0
          CALUGAREASCA
 SJ       NUSFALAU                  3            1               3600                379            11
 SM       BOTIZ                     3            1               3622                237            7
 SB       ROSIA                     7            0               5241                 0             0
 TR       BRANCENI                  1            1               2881                245            9
 TM       SANPETRU MARE             5            0               3145                 0             0
 TL       TOPOLOG                   5            1               4698                782            17
 VL       RACOVITA                  1            1               1822                307            17

Note: The colored lines show the source communities indicated by DGASPC that were not included in the initial
source community lists for the placement centers.

Out of the 35 source communities, 11 are represented by communes with 5+ mothers with children
placed in the special protection system, 10 are represented by the second category – communes with
3-4 mothers and marginalized areas, and 14 are represented by communes with 1-2 mothers with or
without a marginalized area. Most of the selected source communities – 21 communes – include one or
several marginalized areas.

 Table 40: Distribution of selected communes by categories of source communities and depending
              on the presence of a marginalized area within the respective commune

                                                                Number of selected communes
                                                              Without        Without
                                                            Marginalized   Marginalized     Total
                                                               Areas          Areas
         Communes with 5+ mothers of children placed in
                                                                  5              6           11
         the protection system




                                                     147
          Communes with 3-4 mothers and marginalized
                                                                    0                 10   10
          area
          Other communes                                            9                  5   14
          Total communes                                           14                 21   35

Source: World Bank, Census of Foster Care Centers for Children (October, 2016).

Note: “Other communes� refers to communes with 1-2 mothers of children placed in Foster Care Centers or 3-4
mothers without marginalized areas.

Functional micro-area

In order to map prevention services and alternative services in the 35 selected source communities, we
introduced the functional micro-area concept. The functional micro-area contains the selected
commune and the accessible area within a radius of approximately 30 minutes with some means of
transport or possibly by car. So, 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.

The actual delimitation of the functional micro-area for each source community followed three steps.
In the first step, the research team compiled an exhaustive list of localities (administrative territorial
units and adjacent villages) neighboring the commune selected as a source community. In the second
step, an exhaustive list of localities was discussed in the interview with the Mayor of the source
community (Deputy Mayor, City Hall Secretary) to identify all the villages in the accessible area within
about 30 minutes. Because the selection from the exhaustive list was made at village level, the
number of villages contained by the functional micro-areas is lower than the total number of villages
in the corresponding ATUs.

In step three, the functional micro-area was mapped and all the data collected referred to:

    −   source community – selected commune
    −   the rural micro-area that contains all the neighboring villages that are accessible within a
        radius of about 30 minutes
    −   the urban micro-area containing the neighboring cities or municipalities, including villages tied
        to them administratively.

   Table 41: The distribution of selected source communities according to the type of functional
                                             micro-area
                                                                             Number
                         Commune with rural micro-area only                       9
                         Commune with urban micro-area only                       1
                         Communes with urban and rural micro-areas                25
                         Total                                                    35



In total, the 35 source communities (with 172 villages) correspond to 151 communes (with 477
villages), in rural micro-areas, and 30 cities and municipalities (which have 83 localities) in the urban
micro-areas.


6.2. The data
The analysis presented below is based on the data collected by the World Bank team in February-
March 2018. In each of the 32 counties where source communities were selected, the team started
with an interview with the DGASPC director regarding the selection of the source community. Then,



                                                      148
within the DGASPC (i) the list of children in public care (regardless of service) in February 2018
originating from the selected source community and was filled in (ii) an interview with the DGASPC
specialist / specialists responsible for the selected community was conducted, regarding:

a. Evaluation of services in the selected source community from the DGASPC perspective

b. List of new services that should be developed in the selected source community, in the opinion of
DGASPC

Then, during field visits in each of the 35 selected communities, the research team along with the
DGASPC specialists designated for this activity conducted:

a. Interview with the mayor (deputy mayor or mayor's secretary)

b. Interview with SPAS, which also included a list of all mothers who sent children in public care in the
last 5 years and a check of the list of children who are currently in the system

c. Interview with the coordinating school principal

d. Interview with the family doctor (or community nurse)

e. Interview with the SCC (Community Consultative Structure) representatives or any other local actor
(priest, informal group, policeman, etc.) with initiatives to prevent child separation or protection of
the child

f. Sheets for social services identified in the community or in the functional rural micro-area that have
only children or adults and children among the beneficiaries.

In total, in 32 DGASPCs and in the 35 source communities, 233 interviews were carried out involving
276 specialists, as shown in Figure 30. The interviews lasted 75 minutes on average.

Moreover, to complement the Social Service Sheets, the social workers part of the research team
carried out another 69 interviews with representatives of social services identified in the source
communities or their rural micro-areas. 145 The data collection was carried out by a team of 19
professional social workers, members of the CNASR.

      Figure 30: Number of participants in interviews conducted in DGASPC and source communities




The data collection was carried out by a team of 19 professional social workers, members of the CNASR. As an
additional indicator of the research effort, the research team travelled more than 6,500 km for the field trips.




145
   Sheets did not have to be filled in for social services identified in the urban micro-area or for services that do not have
children among the beneficiaries.




                                                            149
6.3. Source Communities and Child Welfare Services
The relationship between source communities and the child welfare services is a rather dual one. On
one hand, the source communities send children and young people into the protection system at a
rather higher rate than in the case of other local communities. Therefore, both services on the
development of prevention of child separation from family and on working with families so as to
reintegrate the children already in the protection system should be prioritized. On the other hand, the
County General Directorate for Social Welfare and Child Protection (DGASPC) has established
protection services (AMP, family placement, CTF, AP, and Foster Care Centers) within certain source
communities, where children from other communities and sometimes from the same community are
placed under care. The following sections are covering these two dimensions of the relationship
between source communities and child welfare system.

6.3.1. Children from Source Communities, placed in the Special Protection System

The data used herein are taken from the Lists of Children from the Special Protection System, children
that are coming from the selected communities. Out of those 35 selected communes, over 1000
children from all source communities’ categories, with and without marginalized areas (Table 42) are
coming from the protection system, on February 2018. The number of children per source community
varies from 3 (Brânceni Commune, Teleorman County) to 145 (Tinca Commune, Bihor County). In fact,
only 3-14 children and young people are coming from 10 communes, while 12 communes have sent into
the protection system between 30 and the maximum number of 145 children and young people.

    Table 42: Distribution of the children in the protection system coming from these communes, by
     source community and by the presence of a marginalized area within the respective commune
                                                            Number of children in the protection system
                                                               coming from the selected communes
                                                              Without        Without        Without
                                                            marginalized   marginalized   marginalized
                                                               area           area           area
        Communes with 5+ mothers of children placed in
                                                                120               232          352
        the protection system
        Communes with 3-4 mothers and marginalized
                                                                 0                205          205
        area
        Other communes                                          315               132          447
        Total communes                                          435               569         1004

Source: World Bank, Census of Foster Care Centers for Children (October, 2016).

Note: “Other communes� refers to communes with 1-2 mothers of children placed in Foster Care Centers or 3-4
mothers without marginalized areas

In order to organize an efficient intervention, it is essential to learn if children separated from their
families coming from these communes are spread between the villages or they are concentrated only
within some of the villages. Out of the 35 communes:

•  6 communes have only one single village and they have sent 143 children into the protection
system. In the case of such communes, it is improper to discuss the spread or concentration of the
children presence at village level.

•  8 communes have several villages under their administration (45 villages in total), but there are no
available data on the origin of the children. 296 children are coming from these communes into the
protection system, but there is no information on their concentration at village level.




                                                      150
•  7 communes have several villages each (50 villages in total), and the 139 children entering the
protection system from these communes are spread within all or most of their villages.

•  14 communes that include in total 71 villages are characterized by a high concentration of children
within several villages. Thus, almost 80% of the 426 children separated from their families are coming
from 20 such villages (i.e., 325 children and young people).

To conclude, within the source communities, over half of the children and young people from the
protection system (569 children and young people) are coming only from 26 villages of 20 communes.
Other 139 children and young people are spread within almost 50 villages from 7 communes and in the
case of the remaining 296 children and young people, a more thorough research is required to be
developed within their 8 communes (totaling 45 villages) so as to identify the concentration level on
each village.

The status at the level of source community, and, if that is the case, the list of the villages where
children and young people separated from their families are concentrated, are both supplied under
Annex 4. Table 4.

On February 2018, children and young people from source communities included in the protection
system were spread within all types of special protection services. Although the source communities
have been established only by starting from children existing in the Foster Care Centers, Figure 31
shows that the number of children from such communities entering the protection system is higher.
Only one out of five children that entered the protection system is located within a Foster Care
Center, while the other four are mostly placed under a family care service - either AMP or PFam.

    Figure 31: Distribution of children in the protection system coming from the surveyed source
                             communities, by types of protection services

                                                                     4. Placement
                                                                    with families up
                                                                    to the Ivth level
                                                                      of kindship
                                                                          23%
                                         3. AMP                                 5. Placement
                                          36%                                     with other
                                                                                  families or
                                                                                  individuals
                                                                                      8%

                                                     1. Placement         6. Other
                                                        centers           services
                                  2. CTF/AP               21%          (CPRU, CM, etc.
                                      9%                                      )
                                                                             3%


Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018 (N=1004 children and young people).

The over 1000 children and young people included in the special protection system that are coming
from source communities are represented by girls and boys of all ages, as presented in Table 43.

    Table 43: Children and young people from the protection system that are coming from the 35
                                       source communities
                                          Number                                         %
                                Girls         Boys       Total           Girls         Boys     Total
              0-3 years          55           45          100              5             4       10
              4-10 years        165           137         302              16            14      30




                                                      151
             11-14 years               151   152            303               15          15        30
             15-17 years               111   102            213               11          10        21
              18+ years                46    40                86             5           4          9
                                       528   476           1004              53           47        100

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.

93% of the children and young people in the protection system that are coming from source
communities had their mothers known and alive. The mothers of the remaining 7% have been
deceased, unknown or missing. In total 586 mothers were known and alive, out of which over two
thirds had one child placed in the protection system

    Table 44: Children and young people in the protection system that are coming from source
   communities and their known and alive mothers, depending on the number of children in the
                                     system of one mother
                        Number of children                                Children and young
                         in the system per              Mothers                 people
                              mother               N                %        N            %
                                1 child           375               64      375           40
                                   2              135               23      270           29
                                   3               40               7       120           13
                             4-11 children         36               6       169           18
                                                  586           100         934           100

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.

Note: The 70 children and young people with their mothers deceased, unknown or missing are not taken into
account.

Most of the mothers are still living within the source community, but one out of three either moved
somewhere in the country (usually, within a major city), or left the country to live abroad or, in rare
occasions, their current address is unknown. The distribution of children and young people in the
protection system that are coming from source communities as per the actual home address of their
mothers is presented under Annex 4. Table 5.

  Figure 32: Distribution of known and alive mothers depending on their actual home address, in
                                        February 2018 (%)


                                               Mother still lives in the origin commune
                       64%
                                               Mother moved into another locality of Romania

                                               Mother is living abroad

                             24%               Mother is known and alive, but her whereabouts are
             5%                                unknown or she has changed her address
                  7%


Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018 (N=934 mothers known and alive).

Annex 4. Table 6 shows that the percentage of mothers still living within the commune varies from 0%
to 100%, with significant differences between source communities. The number of mothers with
children placed in the protection system was already low within 10 communes, and after some of the
mothers moved to other localities or abroad, the number dropped to less than five mothers. In other
words, out of the 35 selected source communities, there are 10 communes that couldn’t have been
considered as source communities in February 2018. Other 5 communities had only 5-6 mothers per



                                                         152
commune, also following the departure of some mothers. Finally, in the case of the remaining 20
source communities, the situation varies between full or halving the number of mothers with children
placed in the protection system, but the number is sufficient for such communes to be qualified as
source communities.

Over half of children and young people from source communities (51%) had unknown or deceased
father. Only 30% of the children have fathers who were still living within the source community in
February 2018. The other children had their fathers moved to other localities (14%) or abroad (2%). 146
The distribution of children and young people in the protection system that are coming from source
communities by actual home address of their fathers is presented under Annex 4. Table 7.

Figure 33: The distribution of children and young people in the protection system that are coming
                         from source communities by status of parents (%)

                                        Mother and Father are deceased, unknown, or abroad, with unknown
                                        address
             22%                        Mother still lives in origin commune, but Father is deceased or unknown
                         38%
           9%                           Mother left the origin commune, Father is deceased or unknown

                 31%                    Mother and Father still live in the origin commune




Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018 (N=1004 children and young people).

Only 22% of children and young people from the protection system that are coming from source
communities had their parents still living within the commune in February 2018. And 31% have only
their mother living in the commune.

6.3.2. Child Welfare Services in the source communities

The selected communes are source communities, but at the same time they are included in the
DGASPC county networks of child welfare services. Thus, 700 children and young people (most of them
from other communities) placed in family care type protection services (AMP and PFam) or in small
residential type protection services (CTF) are living together with the children and young people from
families from source communities.

      Table 455: The protection services and the children and young people in protection services,
                              within source communities, February 2018
                                    Number of children and young
                                                                                      Number of services
                                   people in protection services ...
                                    AMP         PFam          CTF/AP           AMP           PFam          CTF
                    Source
                                     380         287              27            380          287             3
                  Community
             Urban Micro-area        733        1166            802             733          1166           133
                Rural Micro-area     441         650            100             441          650            13

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




146
   3% of the children and young people have known and living fathers, but their actual home address is unknown or the home
address is frequently changed.




                                                            153
6.4. Groups of children and young people from source
communities, under difficult situations
Aside the children and young people which have been separated from their families and have been
included in the protection system, children and young people under difficult situations are also living
within the source communities. In order to learn which the vulnerable groups of children and young
people from each source community are, we have collected information on 35 such groups during
interviews.147

At the level of the 35 selected source communities, the following vulnerable groups of children and
young people have been mentioned by over half of the interviewees from all respondent groups, more
than three quarters of school principals and family doctors respectively:

  Vulnerable groups of children and young people,                           With an average estimated
  predominant within source communities                                     frequency of ...

                                                                   120-160 children and young people per
 •   Children in poverty (including families with many
                                                                   community
  children, single parent families)

                                                                   6-100 children and young people per
 •   Children and young people from marginalized
                                                                   community
  areas

                                                                   43 children and young people per community
 •    Children with parents abroad

                                                                   8-39 children and young people per
 •    Minor mothers                                                community

                                                                   20 children and young people per community
 •    Children with disabilities

                                                                   20 children and young people per community
 •    Children with Special Education Needs

                                                                   15 children and young people per community
 •    Children that have abandoned or left school


 •   Children of 6-15 years of age, with school                    25 children and young people per community
  abandonment risk


 •   Children     and    young     people      requiring           68 children and young people per community
  transportation to school from other localities


 •   Children and young people requiring support to
                                                                   57 children and young people per community
  prepare the necessary documentation so as to
  receive the decision on their disability degree

                                                                   13 children and young people per community
 •    Children between 1 and 10 years of age that are

147
  The interviews have been conducted with the representatives of DGASPC, mayor/deputy mayor/mayoralty secretary,
Community Consultative Structure (SCC), SPAS, principal of coordinating school, family doctor/medical nurse. Out of the 35
vulnerable groups, the respondents were asked about only 20, while the remaining 15 included vulnerabilities related to
education or health.




                                                          154
    not meeting the development standards

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.

However, that data supplied during interviews are rather “weak�, being merely estimations due to
lack of solid information. That is why, in order to base a development plan for the prevention and
support services within a community, it is critical to conduct a systematic assessment of the groups of
children and young people exposed to different types of vulnerabilities, especially the risk of family
separation.


6.5. Efficiency of prevention and support services within
the source communities
Pursuant to the provisions of art. 112,paragraph (3), letter a) of the Social Assistance Law no.
292/2011, subsequently amended and supplemented, the local public authorities - DGASPC, the county
authorities and commune mayoralties shall “prepare in compliance with the national strategies and
identified local needs, the county strategy, and local strategy on the development of social services on
medium and long term, after consulting the public and private suppliers, the professional associations
and the organizations representative for beneficiaries, and they are responsible with enforcing such
strategies�. Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions under letter b) of the abovementioned
art.:“following consultation with public and private suppliers, professional associatio ns and
organizations representative for beneficiaries, (the authorities) shall prepare annual action plans on
social services as managed and funded by the budget of county, local, or Bucharest councils, which
include detailed data on the number and categories of beneficiaries, existing social services, social
services proposed for funding, the schedule of contracting social services from public funds, estimated
budget and funding sources.�

Therefore, all the authorities of the local public administration have the duty to learn and consider the
existing social services while preparing their mandatory local strategies. To this very aim, as part of
services mapping, this section presents a summary analysis of the prevention and support services both
for child and family, as existed within the selected source communities, in February-March 2018. The
analysis is organized by social, educational, and medical services, each of them being seen either as
centers or as interventions/actions. Detailed analyses at the level of the community are available
within the county authority’s own reports.

6.5.1. Social Services

The social services centers are rare within the source communities and within their accompanying
rural micro-areas. In total, among the 35 source communities and 151 communes from the rural micro-
areas (that include a total of 649 villages), the following facilities were operational in February-March
2018:

•  3 day care centers (one to support integration/reintegration of a child with his/her family, and two
for the development of independent life skills),

•    1 counseling center for abused, neglected, and exploited children, plus

•  7 institutions for adults (two within the source community and five within the rural micro-area.
(please see Table 46)

The centers are rather numerous within the urban micro-area of those 35 selected micro-areas.
However, their number is still low considering the fact that the urban micro-area includes a total
number of 30 towns and cities.



                                                   155
The social services, as interventions or actions that may be developed by any
institution/organization/units (to include centers) are more, but they are accessible to a limited
number of source communities and their accompanying functional micro-areas. Among these services,
the poorest represented ones are the social trade enterprises and assistance services aimed at
aggressors (please see Table 47).




                                               156
   Table 466: Center-type social services located within source communities and rural/urban functional micro-area (number of source communities)
                                                                           Source Community                                   Rural Micro-area    Urban Micro-area
                                                                  DGASPC                                  SPAS                                                           Are they
                                                               If NOT,                                                                                                    present
                                                                                       If NOT,
                                              Are they   Is DGASPC willing                               Are they                                                       within the
                                                                                 Should they be                               Are they present?    Are they present?       Source
                                              present?    to develop such                                present?     YES
                                                                                   developed?                                                                           Community
                                                             facilities?                                            DGASPC/
                                                                                                                     SPAS                                              or the micro-
                                                                                                                      Yes                                               area (rural
                                                                          I do                    I do                                             I do
                                              Yes   No   Yes    No        not    Yes    No        not    Yes   No             No   Yes     No      not    Yes    No     or urban)?
                                                                         know                    know                                             know                   I do not
                                                                                                                                                                           know
 5. Maternal Center                                      1      26        8      1      26        8                    0      0    28       6      6      10     10         6
 6. Other residential services for children
                                              0     35   1      25        9      1      25        9      0     35      0      0    29       5      7      11     8          7
 (CPRU etc.)
 7. Day Care Center for supporting
 integration/reintegration of child in        0     35   4      23        8      4      23        8      1     34      1      0    30       4      3      11     12         4
 family
 9. Day Care Centers for developing
                                              1     34   2      24        8      2      24        8      2     33      2      0    28       6      1      13     12         3
 independent life skills
 10. Centers for guidance, surveillance,
 and support of social reintegration of a
                                              0     35   1      25        9      1      25        9      0     35      0      0    27       7      1      16     9          1
 child that has done criminal acts and is
 not legally liable
 11. Counseling Centers for abused,
                                              0     35   2      25        8      2      25        8      1     34      1      0    28       6      4      12     10         5
 neglected, and exploited child
 13. Protected dwellings                      0     35   1      26        8      1      26        8      0     35      0      0    27       7      5      12     9          5
 14. Institutions for adults (CITO, CRRN,
 CIA, medical-social unit, residential        1     34   1      26        7      1      26        7      2     33      2      5    24       5      9      9      8          12
 center for palliative care services etc.)
 15. Day and Night Shelters                   0     35   2      26        7      2      26        7      0     35      0      0    27       7      8      10     8          8
 16. Centers for prevention, assessment
                                              0     35   0      26        9      0      26        9      0     35      0      0    27       7      4      12     10         4
 and counseling against drug abuse

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.
    Table 477: Interventions/actions-type social services, within source communities and Rural/Urban Micro-areas (number of source communities)
                                                                                                                            Are they present within the Source
                                                                                              Rural Micro-   Urban Micro-
                                                                       Source Community                                        Community or the functional
                                                                                                 area            area
                                                                                                                               micro-area (rural or urban)?
                                                                                              YES (SPAS or   YES (SPAS or
                                                                      YES (DGASPC or SPAS                                   (YES, in at least one from the other
                                                                                                School          School
                                                                       or School Principal)                                                 three)
                                                                                               Principal)     Principal)
 25. Services on prevention of abuse, neglect and exploitation                 4                   2              5                          8
 26. Services on counseling for the prevention and fighting against
                                                                               11                  5              7                         15
 family violence
 27. Services for the assistance of aggressors                                 1                   0              0                          1
 28. Food Services – on wheels or social cafeteria                             2                   1              4                          7
 55. Social Trade Enterprise                                                   0                   0              1                          1
 71. Social dwelling services (National Housing Agency dwellings,
                                                                               5                   3              7                         10
 social dwellings, necessity dwellings, etc.)
 72. Support for renovation or development of their homes                      8                   0              1                          9
 81. Legal services                                                            3                   4              6                          7

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                                                    158
6.5.2. Educational Services

The status of education services is better than the status of social ones (Table 48). Pre-schools,
primary, and secondary schools are found almost in every source community. A high-school or a
vocational high-school is located within the functional micro-area for 21, and for 25 source
communities respectively. The educational support services 148 or integrated special education services
at the level of primary or secondary schools are available for children from almost half of the selected
source communities. Moreover, children from 13 communities have access to a special school existing
within the functional urban micro-area.

Counseling and guidance services, as well as sports or club activities are found within more than 30
source communities. After-school services are available within more than a half of the studied
communes, and almost one third of these services are “second chance� and services connecting
education and labor market (Table 49).

6.5.3. Medical Services

The medical facilities available within source communities and functional rural micro-areas are fewer
than the schools, but they are more than social services centers (Table 50).Among these communities,
the most frequent ones (but still very few) are the so-called permanent medical centers and the multi-
functional centers. Only half of the source communities have access to hospitals and clinics within the
urban micro-area. Addiction Rehabilitation Centers, therapeutic community centers, home care
services for children, and mobile units are scarce both within rural and urban areas.

Family planning, sexual education for young people, psychological and speech-language pathology
services are available within 19-24 source communities. Moreover, only a third of the communities can
access kinesiotherapy, and recovery/rehabilitation services, together with parents’ education services
and home care services for children/families with children, especially within Urban Micro-area. (Table
51).

6.5.4. Experts from the community

The SPAS census conducted by World Bank in 2014 (Social Services within communities) has already
emphasized the existence of a serious deficit of human resources within the SPAS units from rural
localities and from smaller urban ones.149The data collected within the source communities in February
– March 2018 appear to indicate the fact that the situation has not improved much. Table 52 presents
that only 24 out of 35 source communities have a Public Social Welfare Service (SPAS), only 14 have at
least one professional social assistance and there isn’t at least one individual with social assistance
duties available in all units.




148
   The education services for the support of the integration of children/students/young people with special education needs are
supplied by itinerant and supporting teachers, together with all involved factors. Usually, the beneficiaries of such educational
services are: (1) children/students with school and vocational guidance certificates issued by the School and Vocational
Guidance Committee of CJRAE; (2) parents; (3) teachers; (4) children/students with learning, development or school adaption
difficulties, which are found at a certain moment under schooling failing situation, school abandonment and they benefit from
remedial education/psychological-educational counseling services, as provided by teachers/school counselor/speech-language
therapist, etc. Depending on the evolution of the student, the teachers that worked with that student may recommend his/her
assessment in front of the School and Professional Guidance Committee of CJRAE, in order to ensure the provision of an itinerant
and support teacher.
The support educational services from CJRAE provide: (a) preparation/review of the curriculum adaptation, specific intervention
plan, together with the teacher of the student; (b) educational and therapeutic – recovery assistance for children/students with
special education requirements as integrated in the regular schools; (c) Compensation with specific therapies for
children/students with learning and adaption difficulties, behavioral disorders, or mental, physical, neurological, and sensorial
deficiencies, etc.; (d) information and counseling the families with children that have special education requirement on the
issues related to the education of their children; (e) information and counseling the teachers on the inclusive education field.
149
    Teșliuc, Grigoraș and Stănculescu (coordinator, 2015).
             Table 488: Schools existing within source communities and functional rural/urban micro-areas (number of source communities)


                                                          In Source Community                In Rural Micro-area        In Urban Micro-area       Are they present
                                                                                                                                                   within Source
                                                                                                                                                   Community or
                                                                            I do not                        I do not                   I do not   within the micro-
                                                         Yes        No        know      Yes          No       know     Yes      No       know           area?
                  51. Kindergarten                        35         0         0         31          0             3   17       1         8              35
                 52. Primary School                       31         3         1         30          2             2   17       2         7              32
     53. Primary School with support educational
                                                          10        25         0         7           17        10      10       2         14             18
        services/integrated special education
                54. Secondary School                      31         4         0         26          3             5   17       0         9              33
    55. Secondary School with support educational
                                                          7         28         0         4           24            6   11       3         12             15
         services/integrated special education
                  56. Special School                      0         35         0         1           29            4   13       9         4              13
                   57. High-School                        2         33         0         5           26            3   19       3         4              21
              58. Vocational High-School                  11        24         0         11          19            4   16       3         7              25

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018. Interviews of principals of coordinating schools.
 Table 499: Interventions/actions-type educational services developed within source communities and in Rural/ Urban Micro-areas (number of source
                                                                   communities)
                                                                                                                                      Are they present within the Source
                                                                                                   Rural Micro-
                                                                            Source Community                      Urban Micro-area    Community or the functional micro-
                                                                                                      area
                                                                                                                                            area (rural or urban)?
                                                                                                   YES (SPAS or
                                                                          YES (DGASPC or SPAS or                    YES (SPAS or      (YES, in at least one from the other
                                                                                                      School
                                                                             School Principal)                    School Principal)                   three)
                                                                                                    Principal)
 19. School Counseling and Guidance Services                                       24                  15                18                           32
 20. Profession/Vocational Counseling and Guidance Services                        18                  12                16                           26
 21. Support educational services                                                  17                   6                7                            19
 41. Afterschool Services                                                           7                   8                14                           19
 42. “Second chance�                                                                2                   5                9                            13
 51. Services on assessing the skills required to secure a job position             4                   6                9                            14
 52. Services on labor market counseling and mediation                              3                   4                11                           14
 53. Support provided for finding a job, including going together
                                                                                    2                   2                5                             7
 with the individual
 54. Adults vocational training services                                            3                   4                13                           14
 61. Actions of school sports club, football team, and alike                       25                  18                16                           30
 62. Children Club activities, folk group, other relevant activities to
                                                                                   26                  19                17                           31
 be developed during free time

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                                                        161
       Table 50: Medical Units existing within source communities and within rural/urban functional micro-areas (number of source communities)
                                                                                                                             Are they present within the Source
                                                                                              Rural Micro-   Urban Micro-
                                                                        Source Community                                        Community or the functional
                                                                                                 area            area
                                                                                                                                micro-area (rural or urban)?
                                                                       YES (DGASPC or SPAS    YES (SPAS or    YES (SPAS or
                                                                                                                             (YES, in at least one from the other
                                                                         or Medic/medical    Medic/medical   Medic/medical
                                                                                                                                             three)
                                                                              nurse)             nurse)          nurse)
 8. Day Care Centers for children with disabilities                            1                   0              13                         13
 12. Day Care Centers for counseling and support provided to parents
                                                                               2                   0              6                           7
 and children/pregnant women under difficult conditions
 17. Addictions Rehabilitation Centers                                         0                   2              3                           5
 18. Therapeutic Community Centers                                             0                   1              4                           5
 19. Multi-functional Centers/Services                                         5                   0              6                          11
 21. Integrated Services Community Centers                                     3                   4              6                           8
 22. Permanent Medical Centers                                                 11                  9              6                          18
 71. Home Care Units for Children                                              1                   2              5                           7
 72. Mobile teams                                                              2                   1              4                           6
 73. Hospital, clinic                                                          2                   2              14                         17

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.
   Table 51: Medical Services of intervention/action-type existing within source communities and within rural/urban micro-areas (number of source
                                                                     communities)
                                                                                                                                    Are they present within the Source
                                                                                               Rural Micro-       Urban Micro-
                                                                      Source Community                                                 Community or the functional
                                                                                                  area                area
                                                                                                                                       micro-area (rural or urban)?
                                                                                                YES (SPAS or       YES (SPAS or
                                                                                              School Principal   School Principal
                                                                                                                                    (YES, in at least one from the other
                                                                     YES (DGASPC or SPAS             or                 or
                                                                                                                                                    three)
                                                                     or School Principal or    Medic/medical      Medic/medical
                                                                     Medic/medical nurse)          nurse)             nurse)
 14. Parents’ Education Services                                              10                     5                  7                           14
 15. Family Planning Services                                                 17                    13                 15                           24
 16. Sex Education Services for Young people                                  19                    11                 11                           23
 17. Home Care Services for children/families with children                    9                     6                 10                           14
 18. Psychological Counseling Services                                        12                     8                 16                           22
 22. Speech-language Therapy Services                                         10                     6                 15                           19
 23. Kinesiotherapy Services                                                   5                     5                 16                           16
 24. Other Recovery/Rehabilitation Services                                    4                     1                 11                           14
 29. Social Ambulance                                                          0                     1                  6                            6

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                                                   163
                                Table 52: Types of experts existing within source communities (number of source communities)
                                                          DGASPC            SPAS                  School Principal         Medic/medical nurse   YES
                                                                                                                                                 DGASPC/SPAS/
                                                                     I do                                I do
                                                                     not                                 not                                     Director/Medic
                                                          Yes   No   know   Yes        No   Yes   No     know        Yes   No    Yes    No       I do not know
1. Public Social Welfare Service (SPAS, DAS, DAC etc.)    23    12   0      11         21   3                                                    24
2. Professional Social Worker (one or several)            13    21   1      8          26   1                                                    14
3. Individual responsible for social assistance duties
                                                          29    5    1      28         6    1                                                    32
(one or several
4. Professional foster care giver(AMC)                    17    9    9      16         18   1                              14    15     6        20
5. Sanitary Mediator                                      5     16   14     7          27   1                              10    23     2        11
6. Family doctor                                          34    1    0      33         1    1                              34    1      0        35
71. Medical Nurses                                                                                                         33    1      1        33
72. Speech-language Therapist                                                                                              3     29     3        3
73. Chiropractor                                                                                                           3     28     4        3
74. Occupational therapists                                                                                                0     32     3        0
7. School Mediator                                        7     14   14     11         23   1     12     23          0                           15
51. School Counselor                                                                              12     22          1                           12
52. Itinerant and support teacher                                                                 14     20          1                           14
53. Speech-language teacher                                                                       4      30          1                           4
54. Teacher for special needs children (other than the
                                                                                                  0      34          1                           0
speech-language teacher)
8. Community Mediator or facilitator                      0     20   15     3          31   1     2      33          0                           5
9. Community Consultative Structure - SCC (or
                                                          13    13   9      15         17   3     13     19          3     8     22     5        18
Community Consultative Council - CCC) -functional
10. Support groups for vulnerable children and families   3     20   12     3          29   3     5      27          3     3     24     8        9
11. Religious groups for vulnerable children and
                                                          13    10   12     13         17   5     17     17          1     12    18     5        24
families
12. Charity Groups                                        4     12   19     9          24   2     7      26          2     2     24     9        14
13. Child Protection NGOs                                 9     19   7      8          24   3     9      22          4     3     22     10       12


                                                                                 164
Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018. Note: gray cells indicate information that was not requested from the respective respondents.




                                                                                  165
•  The poor development of social care services within the community explains why a SPAS
representative has visited at least once in the last 12 months only 56% of the children and young
people included in the protection system at the home address of the family (including the extended
family). The number of visits per family varies from 1 to 12, with an average of 3-4 visits and with
significant differences between communities where an average number of 2 visits is registered and
others with an average number of 6 visits paid per year for each family.

•  Beside these home visits, SPAS worked with the family “somehow less� (22%) or “at great extent
(18%) for even less children and young people separated from their families, after such child left
his/her home, so as to increase his/her chances of returning into that family.

•  The percentage of children and young people included in the protection system for which SPAS has
offered its support during the last 12 months for their families so as to support the reintegration of the
respective child, drops even further down to 29%. In most cases, the support offered to these families
consisted in granting some benefits (especially VMG and ASF), supplying information and counseling.

Among the health care experts, only family doctor is present in the surveyed source communities. The
second in this presence hierarchy are the medical nurses and (only in 10 cases) the community medical
nurses.

The experts in the field of education are also scarce. A school mediator and/or a school counselor
and/or a support teacher have been reported in only 12-15 communities. Although the Law no.
272/2004 and Governmental Decision no. 49/2011 clearly stipulate the duty of local authorities to
establish Community Consultative Structures (SCC),150such structures are operational only in half of the
source communities. In general, several recent studies have shown that the SCCs do not provide a
suitable answer on preventing child separation from his/her family and they are not sufficiently active
and efficient in supporting the reintegration process of such children into their families. However,
aside SCCs, only religious groups that provide support for vulnerable children and families are
somehow higher in number.




150
   Law no. 272/2004 and Governmental Decision no. 49/2011 stipulate the duty of local authorities to establish informal groups
for supporting the social protection actions, during the process of identifying the community needs and addressing the social
issues of children at local level. Among the members of such SCCs there are some local decision-making factors, like the mayor,
the deputy mayor, the mayoralty secretary, social workers, medics, police officers, school representatives and priests.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.    ANPDCA – National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption (2014) National
      Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights 2014-2020. Available from:
      http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/index.php/ro/transparenta/proiecte-in-dezbatere/3172-2014-02-03-
      proiecthg-strategiecopii
2.    ANPDCA (2010-2017) Buletin statistic în domeniul muncii şi protecţiei sociale. Evoluţii în domeniul
      protecţiei                        copilului.                         Available                        at:
      http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/index.php/ro/transparenta/statistici/buletin-statistic
3.    World Bank (2016) Supplemental Concept Note Romania, Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) on
      Development of Plans for De-Institutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their
      Transfer to Community-Based Care.
4.    World Bank (2017a) Progress Report No. 1. Reporting Period: May 12, 2016 - November 30, 2016,
      January 2017, Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) on Development of Plans for De-Institutionalization
      of Children Deprived of Parental Care and Their Transfer to Community-Based Care.
5.    World Bank (2017b) Output #1: Descriptive Report on the Evaluation of the Existing Resources of
      Residential Centers, February 2017.
6.    World Bank (2017c) Output #2: Operational Plan for the Closing of Residential Centers, May 2017.
7.    World Bank (2017d) Output #3: 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, November 2017, Reimbursable Advisory
      Services (RAS) on Development of Plans for De-Institutionalization of Children Deprived of Parental Care
      and their Transfer to Community-Based Care.
8.    European Commission (2013) 2013/112/EU: Commission Recommendation of 20 February 2013 Investing
      in Children: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
      content/RO/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H0112&from=RO
9.    Dărăbuș St., Pop, D., Stegeran, B. and Tohătan, R. (2017) Închiderea instituțiilor pentru copii.
      Intervenție, implementare și plan de acțiune, HHC Romania Printing House. Available
      from:https://childhub.org/ro/biblioteca-online-protectia-copilului/studiu-hhc-inchiderea-institutiilor-
      pentru-copii-interventie.
10.   EEG - European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care (2012)
      Common European Guidelines on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care. Brussels.
      Available from: http://www.deinstitutionalisationguide.eu/
11.   Mulheir, G. and Browne, K. (2007) De-institutionalizing and transforming children’s services. A guide to
      good practice. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
12.   Paulhus, D. L. (1991) “Measurement and control of response bias�. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L.
      S. Wrightsman (Eds.) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59), San Diego,
      CA: Academic Press, Inc.
13.   Stănculescu, M. S. and Marin, M. (2012) Helping the Invisible Children. Evaluation Report. UNICEF,
      Bucharest: Vanemonde. Available from: http://www.unicef.org/romania/Raport_HIC_engleza.pdf
14.   Stănculescu, M.S., Grigoraș, V., Teșliuc, E. and Pop, V. (coord.) (2016) România: Copiii din sistemul de
      protecție a copilului. Bucharest: Editura Alpha MDN. Available from: http://www.unicef.ro/wp-
      content/uploads/Copiii-din-sistemul-de-protectie-a-copilului_UNICEF_ANPDCA_BM_2016.pdf
15. UN - United Nations (2010) Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children . Available from:
    http://www.unicef.org/protection/alternative_care_Guidelines-English.pdf




                                                      167
      ANNEXES




168
ANNEXES

ANNEX Part 1: Statistical data
        Annex 1. Table 1: Placement centers for children in Romania (as of February 2018)
Code   County          Locality      Name of residential 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
                                      PiteÅŸti

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", PiteÅŸti

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    BISTRIÅ¢A         Beclean       Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru copii din cadrul CPC
       NÄ‚SÄ‚UD                         Beclean

602    BISTRIŢA         Năsăud        Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru copii din cadrul CPC
       NĂSĂUD                         Năsăud




                                                169
603     BISTRIŢA        Bistriţa     Centrul de Plasament de tip familial pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi
        NĂSĂUD                       din cadrul CPC Bistriţa

701     BOTOÅžANI        BotoÅŸani     Centrul de plasament Prietenia

702     BOTOŞANI        Pomarla      Centrul de plasament Dumbrava Minunată

703 *   BOTOÅžANI        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     BRAÅžOV          Jibert       Complex de servicii "Dacia"

808     BRAÅžOV          Rupea        Centrul de Plasament "Casa Ioana" Rupea

810     BRAŞOV          Săcele       Centrul de plasament Ghiocelul - Complex de Reabilitare Şcolară
                                     Brădet

811     BRAÅžOV          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    CARAÅž SEVERIN   CaransebeÅŸ   Centrul "Bunavestire" CaransebeÅŸ fost Complexul de servicii sociale
                                     "Bunavestire" CaransebeÅŸ - 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

1201    CLUJ            Cluj         Complexul de servicii destinat protecţiei copilului nr. 2-Centre
                        Napoca       rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii



                                               170
                                 săi: centre de plasament


1202   CLUJ        Cluj          Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea copiilor cu handicap uÅŸor ÅŸi
                   Napoca        mediu nr. 9 "Ţăndărică"- Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul separat
                                 temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi

1203   CLUJ        Cluj          Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea copiilor cu handicap
                   Napoca        neuropsihic sever nr. 10 "Pinochio" - Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul
                                 separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi: centre de plasament

1301   CONSTANÅ¢A   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   CONSTANÅ¢A   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.           Centru de plasament "Borsnyay Kamilla" Tg Secuiesc
                   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

1801   GORJ        Tg.           Centrul de Plasament destinat protecţiei rezidenţiale a copiilor -
                   Cărbuneşti    din cadrul CSC-CD Tg-Cărbuneşti




                                           171
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 Cristuru
                   Secuiesc     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   IALOMIÅ¢A    Slobozia     Centrul de Plasament nr. 2 Slobozia

2102   IALOMIÅ¢A    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   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         Complex Servicii Comunitare Bucium

2204   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         Complex de servicii comunitare "Sf. Andrei"

2205   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         Centrul de recuperare pentru copilul cu handicap sever Galata -
                                Casa Modulară SERA

2206   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         CP "Ion Holban" IaÅŸi

2207   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         CP "CA Rosetti" IaÅŸi

2208   IAÅžI        PaÅŸcani      Complexul de servicii" M. Sadoveanu" PaÅŸcani

2209   IAÅžI        PaÅŸcani      Subunitatea Sf. Stelian

2210   IAÅžI        PaÅŸcani      Complex de servicii "Sf. Nicolae" PaÅŸcani

2211   IAÅžI        Tg. Frumos   Complex de servicii sociale Tg. Frumos Centrul "Sf. Spiridon"

2301   ILFOV       PeriÅŸ        Centrul de Plasament nr. 5 PeriÅŸ

2302   ILFOV       PeriÅŸ        Centrul de Plasament nr. 1 PeriÅŸ




                                          172
2303   ILFOV       PeriÈ™            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 părăsesc
                   Marmației        sistemul de protecţie

2501   MEHEDINŢI   Dr.     Tr.      Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi 0-7 ani
                   Severin          (funcţionează în cadrul complexului de servicii sociale pentru
                                    copilul preÅŸcolar)

2502   MEHEDINŢI   Dr.     Tr.      Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilități
                   Severin

2503   MEHEDINÅ¢I   Dr.     Tr.      Centru de plasament "Sf. Nicodim "
                   Severin

2601   MUREŞ       Sighișoara       Complex de servicii pentru copilul cu deficienţe neuropsihiatrice
                                    Sighişoara - Serviciul Rezidenţial

2701   NEAMŢ       Piatra           Modulul Casa "Traian" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de
                   Neamţ            servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ

2702   NEAMŢ       Piatra           Modulul Casa "Floare de Colţ" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului
                   Neamţ            de servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ

2703   NEAMŢ       Piatra           Modul Casa "Călin" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de servicii
                   Neamţ            "Elena Doamna", Piatra Neamţ

2704   NEAMŢ       Piatra           Modul Casa "Smărăndiţa" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de
                   Neamţ            servicii "Elena Doamna", Piatra Neamţ

2705   NEAMŢ       Piatra           Centrul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi Piatra Neamţ
                   Neamţ

2706   NEAMŢ       Roman            Complex de servicii "Romaniţa", Roman

2707   NEAMŢ       Piatra           Modulul Casa "DECEBAL" funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de
                   Neamţ            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 plasament
                   Târg

2905   PRAHOVA     Ploieşti         Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf. Andrei» Ploieşti, Centru de
                                    plasament

2906   PRAHOVA     Plopeni          Centrul de Plasament Plopeni - Centru de plasament

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



                                              173
3001     SATU MARE   Halmeu       CPC �Floare de colț� Halmeu

3002     SATU MARE   Hurezu       CPC “Roua� Hurezu Mare
                     Mare

3101     SÄ‚LAJ       Cehu         Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului de Servicii Sociale
                     Silvaniei    Cehu Silvaniei

3102     SÄ‚LAJ       Jibou        Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului de Servicii Sociale
                                  Jibou

3103     SĂLAJ       Șimleul      Centru de Plasament din cadrul Complexului de Servicii Sociale
                     Silvaniei    Åžimleu 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 ÅŸi 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     TIMIÅž       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 Timișoara

3601     TULCEA      Mahmudia     Centrul de plasament Mahmudia

3603     TULCEA      Tulcea       Centrul de plasament pentru recuperarea ÅŸi reabilitarea copilului
                                  cu handicap sever Pelican

3604     TULCEA      Tulcea       Centrul de plasament Speranţa




                                            174
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 (N=147). The city of Bucharest is not included.
Note: * 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.




                                                       175
  Annex 1. Table 2: Placement centers for children in Romania, dissolved between October 31st, 2016 and
                                            February 1st, 2018
Code   County          Locality    Name of residential center

401      BACĂU          Bacău       Centrul rezidenţial "Henri Coandă" Bacău
                                    CP closed down with support from HHC.

704      BOTOŞANI       Trusesti    Casa Rurală Decebal comasat cu Casa Rurală Traian Centru de plasament
                                    Sf. Nicolae

809      BRAŞOV         Săcele      Centrul de plasament Brânduşa - Complex de Reabilitare Şcolară Brădet
                                    CP burned down and CTFs built with support from SERA.

1005     BUZĂU          Buzău       Centrul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu deficienţe de auz nr. 10, Buzău
                                    CP closed down and turned into school residence under the ISJ.

1006     BUZĂU          Buzău       Centrul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu deficienţe de vedere nr. 11, Buzău
                                    CP closed down and turned into school residence under the ISJ.

1204     CLUJ           Huedin      Centrul de plasament nr. 8 "Speranţa" - Centre rezidenţiale pt. copilul
                                    separat temporar sau definitiv de părinţii săi
                                    CP closed down and CTFs built with support from SERA.

1701     GALAŢI         Galaţi      Centrul de plasament "Negru Vodă"
                                    CP closed down with support from SERA.

1706     GALAŢI         Tecuci      Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul cu deficienţe neuromotorii

2203     IAÅžI           IaÅŸi        Complex Servicii " Veniamin Costache"
                                    CP closed down with support from HHC.

3203     SIBIU          Mediaş      Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu dizabilități Mediaş - Complexului
                                    de servicii "Sf. Andrei�

3801     VÂLCEA         Băbeni      Centrul Rezidenţial de recuperare a tinerilor              cu    afecţiuni
                                    neuropsihiatrice Băbeni
                                    CP closed down and a CTF built with support from SERA.

3901     VRANCEA        Focşani     Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu dizabilităţi Focşani

Source: World Bank (N=12).




                                                    176
 Annex 1. Table 3: Placement centers for children in Romania, by county and closure status (as of February
                                                   2018)
                       CP that the      CP whose closure      CP for whose        CP which the      Total
                    DGASPC (and the      is envisaged at        closure the     DGASPC says it is
                    CJ) does not want   some point in the      DGASPC has       in the process of
                      to close down      future, but the    undertaken talks,   closure (process
                      now or in the     DGASPC has done       negotiations,         underway)
                          future           nothing yet       actions (process
                                                               in the initial
                                                                   stage)

ALBA                        1                   0                   0                   0             1

ARAD                        4                   0                   0                   0             4

ARGES                       2                   3                   2                   0             7

BIHOR                       2                   1                   1                   0             4

BISTRITA NASAUD             0                   1                   1                   1             3

BOTOSANI                    1                   0                   1                   1             3

BRASOV                      1                   4                   0                   6            11

BUZAU                       1                   0                   2                   1             4

CALARASI                    3                   0                   0                   0             3

CARAS SEVERIN               0                   3                   0                   0             3

CLUJ                        3                   0                   0                   0             3

CONSTANTA                   1                   2                   0                   4             7

COVASNA                     1                   1                   0                   1             3

DAMBOVITA                   1                   0                   0                   0             1

DOLJ                        4                   0                   0                   0             4

GALATI                      2                   0                   2                   0             4

GORJ                        1                   0                   2                   0             3

HARGHITA                    0                   1                   4                   0             5

HUNEDOARA                   4                   0                   0                   0             4

IALOMITA                    0                   3                   0                   0             3

IASI                        2                   1                   1                   6            10

ILFOV                       0                   4                   0                   0             4

MARAMURES                   0                   0                   0                   1             1

MEHEDINTI                   2                   0                   1                   0             3




                                                    177
MURES                          1                    0         0    0     1

NEAMT                          4                    0         0    3     7

PRAHOVA                        4                    1         1    2     8

SALAJ                          0                    2         0    1     3

SATU MARE                      2                    0         0    0     2

SIBIU                          4                    1         1    0     6

SUCEAVA                        1                    0         1    1     3

TELEORMAN                      0                    0         0    1     1

TIMIS                          0                    1         2    2     5

TULCEA                         4                    0         1    1     6

VALCEA                        0                    2          0    5    7
Total                         56                   31         23   37   147

Source: World Bank. The city of Bucharest is not included.




                                                        178
          Annex 1. Table 4: List of placement centers with relatively high chances of being closed down


                                                                                          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            Câmpulun     Centru de tip rezidenţial - Complexul de            1 (b)
                             g            Servicii pentru Copilul în Dificultate
                                          Câmpulung

307         ARGEŞ            Rucăr        Centrul rezidenţial - Complex de Servicii           1 (b)
                                          pentru Copilul în Dificultate Rucăr

503         BIHOR            Oradea       Centrul de Plasament Nr.2 Oradea                      1


601         BISTRIÅ¢A         Beclean      Centrul de Plasament de tip familial                  1
            NÄ‚SÄ‚UD                        pentru copii din cadrul CPC Beclean

602         BISTRIŢA         Năsăud       Centrul de Plasament de tip familial                                  1
            NĂSĂUD                        pentru copii din cadrul CPC Năsăud

702         BOTOŞANI         Pomarla      Centrul de plasament Dumbrava Minunată                1


703 (*)     BOTOÅžANI         Trusesti     Centru de plasament Sf. Nicolae                                     1 (b)


801         BRAÅžOV           Codlea       Centrul de Plasament "Aurora" Codlea -                              1 (b)
                                          Complex de servicii Măgura Codlea

803         BRAŞOV           Codlea       Centrul de reabilitare şcolară "Albina" -                           1 (a)
                                          Complex de Servicii Măgura Codlea

805         BRAŞOV           Făgăraş      Centrul de reabilitare Şcolară "Floare de                           1 (b)
                                          Colţ" Făgăraş - Complex de Servicii Făgăraş

810         BRAŞOV           Săcele       Centrul de plasament Ghiocelul - Complex                            1 (a)
                                          de Reabilitare Şcolară Brădet

811         BRAÅžOV           Victoria     Centrul de Plasament "Azur" Victoria        -                       1 (a)
                                          Complex de servicii Victoria

812         BRAÅžOV           Codlea       Centrul de plasament Alice - Complex de                             1 (b)
                                          servicii Măgura Codlea

1001        BUZĂU            Beceni       Centrul rezidenţial pentru recuperarea şi           1 (b)
                                          reabilitarea copilului cu tulburări de
                                          comportament nr. 5 Beceni

1002        BUZĂU            Buzău        Serviciul rezidenţial pentru copilul aflat în         1
                                          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




                                                       179
1301   CONSTANÅ¢A   Agigea       Centrul de Plasament "Delfinul"                        1 (a)


1303   CONSTANŢA   Constanţa    Centrul de plasament "Ovidiu"                          1 (a)


1304   CONSTANŢA   Constanţa    Complex de servicii comunitare "Cristina"              1 (a)


1305   CONSTANŢA   Constanţa    Complex de servicii comunitare "Orizont"               1 (a)


1402   COVASNA     Olteni       Centru de plasament nr. 6 Olteni                       1 (b)


1702   GALAŢI      Galaţi       Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul cu         1 (b)
                                cerinţe educative speciale Galata

1703   GALAŢI      Galaţi       Centrul de plasament nr.3 Galaţi               1 (b)


1802   GORJ        Tg. Jiu      Centrul de plasament destinat protecţiei        1
                                rezidenţiale a copiilor cu dizabilităţi-din
                                cadrul CSC-CNS Tg. Jiu (copii cu
                                dizabilităţi)

1803   GORJ        Tg. Jiu      Centrul de plasament destinat protecţiei        1
                                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 cu            1 (b)
                   Secuiesc     handicap sever Cristuru Secuiesc

1904   HARGHITA    Subcetate    Centru de plasament Subcetate                  1 (b)


1905   HARGHITA    Topliţa      Centru de plasament pentru copii cu             1
                                handicap sever Topliţa

2201   IAÅžI        Horlesti     Complex       de       Servicii   Comunitare           1 (a)
                                ''Bogdăneşti'

2202   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         Complex Servicii Comunitare Bucium                     1 (b)


2205   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         Centrul de recuperare pentru copilul cu         1
                                handicap sever Galata - Casa Modulară
                                SERA

2206   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         CP "Ion Holban" IaÅŸi                                    1


2207   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         CP "CA Rosetti" IaÅŸi                                   1 (b)


2209   IAÅžI        PaÅŸcani      Subunitatea Sf. Stelian                                1 (b)


2211   IAÅžI        Tg.          Complex de servicii sociale Tg. Frumos                  1
                   Frumos       Centrul "Sf. Spiridon"

2401   MARAMUREŞ   Sighetu      Centrul de plasament, asistenţă şi sprijin a            1
                   Marmației    tinerilor care părăsesc sistemul de
                                protecţie

2503   MEHEDINÅ¢I   Dr.    Tr.   Centru de plasament "Sf. Nicodim "             1 (b)
                   Severin



                                              180
2703   NEAMŢ       Piatra       Modul Casa "Călin" funcţionează în cadrul                1
                   Neamţ        Complexului de servicii "Elena Doamna",
                                Piatra Neamţ

2704   NEAMŢ       Piatra       Modul Casa "Smărăndiţa" funcţionează în                  1
                   Neamţ        cadrul Complexului de servicii "Elena
                                Doamna", Piatra Neamţ

2706   NEAMŢ       Roman        Complex de servicii "Romaniţa", Roman                   1 (a)


2906   PRAHOVA     Plopeni      Centrul de Plasament Plopeni - Centru de                1 (a)
                                plasament

2907   PRAHOVA     Sinaia       Centrul de Plasament Sinaia - Centru de                 1 (a)
                                plasament

2908   PRAHOVA     Vălenii de   Complexul de Servicii Comunitare “Sf.           1 (b)
                   Munte        Maria� Vălenii de Munte, Centru de
                                plasament



3102   SÄ‚LAJ       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 ÅŸi Gavril"                  1
                                Solca

3303   SUCEAVA     Suceava      Centrul de plasament "Speranţa" Suceava         1 (b)


3401   TELEORMAN   Alexandri    Centrul de recuperare pentru copilul cu                  1
                   a            nevoi speciale "Pinochio" din cadrul
                                Complexului de servicii pentru copilul cu
                                nevoi speciale

3501   TIMIŞ       Găvojdia     Centrul de plasament Găvojdia                           1 (a)


3502   TIMIÅž       Lugoj        Centrul de plasament Logoj                       1


3503   TIMIŞ       Lugoj        Serviciul de îngrijire de tip rezidențial               1 (a)
                                pentru copilul cu dizabilități din cadrul
                                Centrului de Recuperare și Reabilitare
                                Neuropsihiatrică    pentru   Copilul  cu
                                Handicap Lugoj

3505   TIMIŞ       Timișoara    Serviciul de îngrijire de tip rezidențial din    1
                                cadrul Centrului de recuperare și
                                reabilitare neuropsihiatrică pentru copii
                                Timișoara

3603   TULCEA      Tulcea       Centrul de plasament pentru recuperarea         1 (b)
                                ÅŸi reabilitarea copilului cu handicap sever
                                Pelican

3604   TULCEA      Tulcea       Centrul de plasament Speranţa                           1 (a)


3803   VÂLCEA      Rm.          Centrul de Plasament "Andreea"                          1 (b)
                   Vâlcea




                                             181
3804      VÂLCEA            Rm.           Centrul de Plasament "Ana "                                      1 (b)
                            Vâlcea

3805      VÂLCEA            Rm.           Serviciul de tip rezidenţial pentru                                1
                            Vâlcea        recuperarea copilului cu dizabilităţi Rm.
                                          Vâlcea

3806      VÂLCEA            Rm.           Centrul pentru Copilul cu Dizabilităţi Rm.                       1 (b)
                            Vâlcea        Vâlcea

3807      VÂLCEA           Rm.           Centrul pentru copilul abuzat, neglijat,                            1
                           Vâlcea        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.




                                                       182
       Annex 1. Table 5: List of placement centers with small or zero chances of being closed down

                                                                                   CP whose
                                                                                   closure is
                                                                                 envisaged at    CP that the
                                                                                  some point    DGASPC (and
                                                                                     in the     the CJ) does
                                                                                  future, but    not want to
                                                                                 the DGASPC      close down
                                                                                   has done     now or in the
Code     County       Locality            Name of residential center             nothing yet        future

101    ALBA          Blaj          Servicii comunitare pentru protecţia                               1
                                   copilului Blaj - Centrul de plasament

201    ARAD          Arad          Centrul de recuperare ÅŸi reabilitare                               1
                                   pentru 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 PiteÅŸti

305    ARGEŞ         Piteşti       Centrul de tip rezidenţial - Complexul de          1
                                   Servicii Comunitare Pentru Copilul în
                                   Dificultate Sf. Constantin ÅŸi Elena PiteÅŸti

306    ARGEŞ         Piteşti       Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu                                1
                                   dizabilităţi şi respite-care - Centrul de
                                   Copii "SF. Andrei", PiteÅŸti

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         PopeÅŸti       Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu               1
                                   dizabilităţi Popeşti

603    BISTRIŢA      Bistriţa      Centrul de Plasament de tip familial               1
       NĂSĂUD                      pentru copilul cu dizabilităţi din cadrul
                                   CPC Bistriţa

701    BOTOÅžANI      BotoÅŸani      Centrul de plasament Prietenia                                     1


802    BRAÅžOV        Codlea        Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu             1




                                                   183
                                handicap "Speranţa"      -    Complex de
                                servicii Măgura Codlea

804   BRAŞOV      Făgăraş       Centrul de Plasament "Casa Maria" -          1
                                Complex de Servicii Făgăraş

806   BRAŞOV      Ghimbav       Centrul "Sfântul STELIAN" Ghimbav                1


807   BRAÅžOV      Jibert        Complex de servicii "Dacia"                  1


808   BRAÅžOV      Rupea         Centrul de Plasament "Casa Ioana" Rupea      1


100   BUZĂU       Buzău         Centrul     rezidenţial     din   cadrul         1
3                               Complexului de servicii pentru copilul cu
                                handicap sever nr. 8, Buzău

110   CARAÅž       Caransebe     Centrul "Bunavestire" CaransebeÅŸ fost        1
1     SEVERIN     ÅŸ             Complexul     de     servicii  sociale
                                "Bunavestire" CaransebeÅŸ - Modulul
                                Centrul de plasament pentru copii cu
                                dizabilităţi

110   CARAŞ       Reşiţa        Centrul "Speranţa" Reşiţa fost Centrul de    1
2     SEVERIN                   Plasament "Speranţa" Reşiţa - Modulul
                                Centrul de plasament

110   CARAŞ       Zăgujeni      Centrul "Casa Noastra" Zăgujeni fost         1
3     SEVERIN                   Centrul de Plasament "Casa Noastră"
                                Zăgujeni - Modulul Centrul de plasament

120   CLUJ        Cluj          Complexul de servicii destinat protecţiei        1
1                 Napoca        copilului nr. 2-Centre rezidenţiale pt.
                                copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de
                                părinţii săi: centre de plasament

120   CLUJ        Cluj          Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea           1
2                 Napoca        copiilor cu handicap uÅŸor ÅŸi mediu nr. 9
                                "Ţăndărică"- Centre rezidenţiale pt.
                                copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de
                                părinţii săi

120   CLUJ        Cluj          Complex de servicii pentru recuperarea           1
3                 Napoca        copiilor cu handicap neuropsihic sever nr.
                                10 "Pinochio" - Centre rezidenţiale pt.
                                copilul separat temporar sau definitiv de
                                părinţii săi: centre de plasament

130   CONSTANŢA   Constanţa     Centrul  de    plasament        "Antonio"-   1
2                               componenta modulată

130   CONSTANŢA   Constanţa     Centrul de plasament "Traian"                1
6

130   CONSTANÅ¢A   Techirghiol   Complex de servicii comunitare "Sparta           1
7                               Rotterdam"- Componenta modulată ( D)

140   COVASNA     Baraolt       Centrul rezidenţial pentru copii cu              1
1                               dizabilităţi Baraolt - funcţionează în
                                cadrul Complexului de servicii comunitare
                                Baraolt

140   COVASNA     Tg.           Centru de plasament "Borsnyay Kamilla"       1



                                                184
3                 Secuiesc     Tg Secuiesc


150   DÂMBOVIŢA   Găeşti       Complexul de Servicii Sociale Găeşti,              1
1                              Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu
                               dizabilităţi

160   DOLJ        Craiova      Centrul de plasament "Noricel"                     1
1

160   DOLJ        Craiova      Centrul de plasament "VIS DE COPIL"                1
2

160   DOLJ        Craiova      Centrul de Plasament "PRICHINDEL"                  1
3

160   DOLJ        Craiova      Centru de plasament "Sf Apostol Andrei"            1
5

170   GALAÅ¢I      Munteni      Centrul de reabilitare ÅŸi reintegrare              1
4                              socială a copilului- Casa "David Austin"
                               Munteni

170   GALAŢI      Tecuci       Centrul de asistenţă pentru copilul cu             1
5                              cerinţe educative speciale Tecuci

180   GORJ        Tg.          Centrul de Plasament destinat protecţiei           1
1                 Cărbuneşti   rezidenţiale a copiilor - din cadrul CSC-CD
                               Tg-Cărbuneşti

190   HARGHITA    Ocland       Centru de plasament Ocland                     1
3

200   HUNEDOAR    Brad         Centrul de plasament Brad                          1
1     A

200   HUNEDOAR    Hunedoara    Casa familială pt copilul cu dizabilităţi          1
2     A                        Hunedoara

200   HUNEDOAR    Hunedoara    Centrul specializat pt copii cu dizabilităţi       1
3     A                        Hunedoara

200   HUNEDOAR    Lupeni       Centrul de Plasament Lupeni                        1
4     A

210   IALOMIÅ¢A    Slobozia     Centrul de Plasament nr. 2 Slobozia            1
1

210   IALOMIÅ¢A    Slobozia     Centrul de Plasament nr. 3 Slobozia            1
2

210   IALOMIÅ¢A    Urziceni     Complex de Servicii Urziceni (Serviciul        1
3                              Rezidenţial)

220   IAÅžI        IaÅŸi         Complex    de   servicii   comunitare   "Sf.   1
4                              Andrei"

220   IAÅžI        PaÅŸcani      Complexul de servicii" M. Sadoveanu"               1
8                              PaÅŸcani

221   IAÅžI        PaÅŸcani      Complex de servicii "Sf. Nicolae" PaÅŸcani          1
0




                                               185
230   ILFOV       PeriÅŸ         Centrul de Plasament nr. 5 PeriÅŸ               1
1

230   ILFOV       PeriÅŸ         Centrul de Plasament nr. 1 PeriÅŸ               1
2

230   ILFOV       PeriÈ™         Centrul de Plasament "Piticot"                 1
3

230   ILFOV       Voluntari     Centrul de Plasament nr. 6 Voluntari           1
4

250   MEHEDINÅ¢I   Dr.     Tr.   Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu             1
1                 Severin       dizabilităţi 0-7 ani (funcţionează în cadrul
                                complexului de servicii sociale pentru
                                copilul preÅŸcolar)

250   MEHEDINÅ¢I   Dr.     Tr.   Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu             1
2                 Severin       dizabilități

260   MUREŞ       Sighișoara    Complex de servicii pentru copilul cu              1
1                               deficienţe neuropsihiatrice Sighişoara -
                                Serviciul Rezidenţial

270   NEAMŢ       Piatra        Modulul Casa "Traian" funcţionează în              1
1                 Neamţ         cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion
                                Creangă", Piatra Neamţ

270   NEAMŢ       Piatra        Modulul      Casa    "Floare     de  Colţ"         1
2                 Neamţ         funcţionează în cadrul Complexului de
                                servicii "Ion Creangă", Piatra Neamţ

270   NEAMŢ       Piatra        Centrul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu              1
5                 Neamţ         dizabilităţi Piatra Neamţ

270   NEAMŢ       Piatra        Modulul Casa "DECEBAL" funcţionează în             1
7                 Neamţ         cadrul Complexului de servicii "Ion
                                Creangă", Piatra Neamţ

290   PRAHOVA     Băicoi        Complexul de Servicii Comunitare “Rază             1
1                               de Soare� Băicoi-Centru de plasament

290   PRAHOVA     Câmpina       Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf.              1
2                               Filofteia» Câmpina, Centru de plasament

290   PRAHOVA     Câmpina       Centrul de Plasament Câmpina - Centru          1
3                               de Plasament

290   PRAHOVA     Filipeştii    Centrul de Plasament Filipeştii de Târg -          1
4                 de Târg       Centru de plasament

290   PRAHOVA     Ploieşti      Complexul de Servicii Comunitare «Sf.              1
5                               Andrei» Ploieşti, Centru de plasament

300   SATU MARE   Halmeu        CPC �Floare de colț� Halmeu                        1
1

300   SATU MARE   Hurezu        CPC “Roua� Hurezu Mare                             1
2                 Mare

310   SÄ‚LAJ       Cehu          Centru   de  Plasament   din   cadrul          1
1                 Silvaniei     Complexului de Servicii Sociale Cehu




                                                186
                                       Silvaniei


310     SĂLAJ           Șimleul        Centru    de  Plasament   din   cadrul         1
3                       Silvaniei      Complexului de Servicii Sociale Åžimleu
                                       Silvaniei

320     SIBIU           Agîrbiciu      Centrul de Plasament Agârbiciu                      1
1

320     SIBIU           Cisnădie       Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu              1
2                                      dizabilități "Tavi Bucur" Cisnădie

320     SIBIU           Sibiu          Centrul de plasament Gulliver, Sibiu                1
5

320     SIBIU           Sibiu          Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu         1
6                                      dizabilități  "Prichindelul"     Sibiu   -
                                       Complexul de servicii "Prichindel" Sibiu

320     SIBIU           Turnu RoÅŸu     Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu              1
7                                      dizabilităţi Turnu Roşu

330     SUCEAVA         Siret          Servicii pentru copilul aflat în dificultate        1
1                                      Siret - Centrul terapeutic modular pentru
                                       copilul cu nevoi speciale "Ama Deus" Siret

350     TIMIÅž           RecaÈ™          Centrul de plasament pentru copilul cu         1
4                                      dizabilități Recaș

360     TULCEA          Mahmudia       Centrul de plasament Mahmudia                       1
1

360     TULCEA          Sulina         Centrul de plasament Sulina                         1
5

360     TULCEA          Topolog        Centrul de plasament Sâmbăta Nouă                   1
6

360     TULCEA          Somova         Centrul de plasament Somova                         1
7

380     VÂLCEA          Băbeni         Casa "Pinocchio" Băbeni                        1
2

380     VÂLCEA          Rm.            Serviciul de tip familial pentru deprinderi    1
8                       Vâlcea         de viață și integrare socioprofesională a
                                       tinerilor din sistemul de protecție -
                                       componenta rezidențială

510     CĂLĂRAŞI        Călărași       Serviciul rezidenţial în cadrul Centrului de        1
1                                      Servicii Sociale pentru Copil ÅŸi Familie
                                       �SERA�

510     CĂLĂRAŞI        Călărași       Serviciul    Rezidenţial     (în    cadrul          1
2                                      Complexului de servicii comunitare
                                       pentru copilul cu handicap sever Călăraşi)

5103    CĂLĂRAŞI       Oltenița       Serviciul rezidenţial pentru copilul cu              1
                                      handicap sever - din cadrul C.S.C. Olteniţa
        Total                                                                         31   56

Source: World Bank (N=87). The city of Bucharest is not included.




                                                       187
ANNEX Part 2A: Statistical data on the professional foster
carers (AMPs)
                            Annex 2A. Table 1: Data used for the analysis
              QSefAMP                                     QQ AMP                 CS AMP
         Interview with the      List of AMPs       Desk-research on a      case studies: AMP
          head of the AMP        AMP census           sample of AMPs        evaluation on site
County         Service        (Number of AMPs)       (Number of AMPs)       (Number of AMPs)
  AB            Yes                   96                     19                     1

  AR            Yes                  102                     20                     1

  AG            Yes                  242                     12                     2

  BH            Yes                  367                     19                     0

  BN            Yes                  137                     18                     3

  BT            Yes                  213                     20                     2

  BV            Yes                   95                     20                     2

  BZ            Yes                  195                     20                     2

  CS            Yes                  419                     18                     0

  CJ            Yes                  131                     10                     1

  CT            Yes                  271                     20                     2

  CV            Yes                  131                     20                     2

  DB            Yes                  285                     12                     1

  DJ            Yes                  248                     12                     2

  GL            Yes                  315                     12                     4

  GJ            Yes                  152                     20                     0

  HR            Yes                  208                     12                     1

  HD            Yes                  146                     20                     1

  IL            Yes                   75                     19                     1

  IS            Yes                  795                     9                      1

  IF            Yes                   76                     20                     2

  MM            Yes                  255                     19                     1

  MH            Yes                  158                     20                     0

  MS            Yes                  233                     11                     1

  NT            Yes                  426                     20                     2

  PH            Yes                  216                     20                     2

  SM            Yes                  238                     19                     2

  SJ            Yes                   76                     18                     2




                                                188
   SB             Yes                    144                  20                        2

   SV             Yes                    381                  12                        0

   TR             Yes                    192                  11                        3

   TM             Yes                    555                  18                        2

   TL             Yes                    171                  20                        0

   VL             Yes                    305                  20                        2
  CL              Yes                 198                    12                          1
 Total            35                 8,247                   592                        51


Annex 2A. Table 2: Number of AMP and number of children with special protection measure at the AMP, in
                     the 35 counties with placement centers, between 2010-2018
            Number of children with special protection    Number of DGASPC professional foster carers
             measure at the professional foster carers
County      31.12.2010     31.12..2017          February-   31.12..2010   31.12..2017         February-
                                               March 2018                                    March 2018
                                                   (*)                                           (*)

   AB          214             166                165          140            91                96

   AR          160             136                123          106            109               102

   AG          431             360                369          294            241               242

   BH          687             650                646          395            365               367

   BN          268             248                243          163            137               137

   BT          456             423                420          237            206               213

   BV          351             170                172          182            100               95

   BZ          424             318                322          230            199               195

   CS          607             497                498          535            443               419

   CJ          222             193                201          148            134               131

   CT          459             478                478          298            264               271

   CV          322             239                242          161            132               131

   DB          735             539                524          380            295               285

   DJ          326             379                382          178            257               248

   GL          797             615                610          486            320               315

   GJ          167             215                220          131            154               152

   HR          426             437                437          209            209               208

   HD          362             244                237          182            153               146

   IL          125              93                93           104            76                75



                                                    189
    IS           1,199             1,486           1,462            850              824          795

    IF            115               114             116              81              77           76

    MM            410               332             328             318              258          255

    MH            251               279             269             177              166          158

    MS            446               431             419             252              238          233

    NT            617               565             568             503              429          426

    PH            448               383             385             303              220          216

    SM            433               466             469             252              239          238

    SJ            173               112             111             111              79           76

    SB            445               277             274             273              150          144

    SV            670               581             582             472              381          381

    TR            345               359             361             187              193          192

    TM            1101              1016           1001             607              574          555

    TL            275               296             298             203              175          171

    VL            547               478             471             379              318          305

   CL             418               243            229              350             210          198
  Total         15,432             13,818         13,725           9.877           8.416         8,247

Source: www.copii.ro, ANPDCA (2010-2017). (*) World Bank, Census of professional foster carers




                   Annex 2A. Table 3: Foster carers distribution, by gender and county (%)
                          County        Women              Men             Total

                              AB             8               92              100

                              AR             16              84              100

                              AG             3               97              100

                              BH             9               91              100

                              BN             8               92              100

                              BT             4               96              100

                              BV             11              89              100

                              BZ             2               98              100

                              CS             18              82              100

                              CJ             5               95              100




                                                      190
                              CT             4               96              100

                              CV             7               93              100

                              DB             7               93              100

                              DJ             14              86              100

                              GL             3               97              100

                              GJ             1               99              100

                              HR             4               96              100

                              HD             9               91              100

                              IL             0               100             100

                              IS             15              85              100

                              IF             9               91              100

                             MM              9               91              100

                             MH              6               94              100

                              MS             6               94              100

                              NT             6               94              100

                              PH             2               98              100

                              SM             4               96              100

                              SJ             1               99              100

                              SB             11              89              100

                              SV             5               95              100

                              TR             4               96              100

                              TM             19              81              100

                              TL             0               100             100

                              VL             1               99              100

                             CL              4               96              100
                            Total            8               92              100

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)




                                                      191
          Annex 2A. Table 4: Foster carers distribution, by age groups and county (%)
County   21-30       30-39        40-49          50-59         60-69        70-81       Total

  AB       0            4            19             60          17            0          100

  AR       1            11           32             43          14            0          100

  AG       1            10           36             49          5             0          100

  BH       1            11           44             39          5             0          100

  BN       1            12           37             48          3             0          100

  BT       0            10           39             48          4             0          100

  BV       0            3            27             59          11            0          100

  BZ       0            10           38             48          3             0          100

  CS       0            7            41             35          15            1          100

  CJ       0            8            37             30          23            2          100

  CT       1            10           36             41          12            0          100

  CV       0            5            27             44          24            0          100

  DB       0            7            43             48          2             0          100

  DJ       2            12           44             35          7             0          100

  GL       0            8            37             41          14            0          100

  GJ       2            20           37             38          3             0          100

  HR       1            13           38             40          8             0          100

  HD       1            8            33             51          8             0          100

  IL       0            5            40             53          1             0          100

  IS       1            14           47             29          9             0          100

  IF       0            1            37             47          14            0          100

 MM        0            9            38             40          14            0          100

  MH       2            15           33             41          9             0          100

  MS       0            9            42             45          4             0          100

  NT       1            7            38             39          15            0          100

  PH       0            1            27             59          13            0          100

  SM       0            8            39             44          9             0          100

  SJ       1            11           36             51          1             0          100




                                              192
    SB            0             8            26             47           17      1   100

    SV            2            10            41             45           3       0   100

    TR            2             7            42             44           5       0   100

    TM            1             9            31             37           21      2   100

    TL            0            12            42             44           2       0   100

    VL            0             5            46             48           1       0   100

   CL             1            5             35             48          12       0   100
  Total           1            9             38             42          10       0   100

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)




                                                      193
          Annex 2A. Table 5: Foster carers distribution, by level of education and county (%)
                                                                     Post-
                       Lower       Vocational,         High       secondary       Faculty
          Primary    secondary     first step of      school      education,    (including
         (grades 1-  (grades 5-    high school     (grades 9-      foreman        MA and
County       4)          8)       (grades 9-10)         12)         school         PhD)         Total

  AB         0            14             41            39            2              5            100

  AR         0            13             38            45            3              2            100

  AG         0            6              36            55            0              2            100

  BH         0            5              31            59            3              2            100

  BN         0            4              60            31            4              2            100

  BT         0            2              54            40            1              2            100

  BV         0            13             42            43            0              2            100

  BZ         0            11             52            36            0              1            100

  CS         1            24             18            51            4              1            100

  CJ         0            14             47            37            1              2            100

  CT         0            14             39            44            1              2            100

  CV         0            15             40            40            3              2            100

  DB         0            5              46            47            0              2            100

  DJ         0            1              42            53            0              4            100

  GL         0            12             54            32            0              2            100

  GJ         0            3              15            76            2              4            100

  HR         0            11             44            42            2              1            100

  HD         1            8              36            47            5              3            100

  IL         0            3              25            71            0              1            100

  IS         1            24             48            25            1              1            100

  IF         0            9              42            39            0              9            100

 MM          0            15             47            33            3              2            100

  MH         1            11             25            56            3              4            100

  MS         0            8              55            35            2              0            100

  NT         0            12             56            28            1              2            100

  PH         0            13             50            35            1              1            100

  SM         0            40             11            44            2              3            100




                                                 194
    SJ           0            0              43             50            3         4            100

    SB           0            5              49             42            1         3            100

   SV            0            6              57             34            2         1            100

   TR            0            1              24             72            2         2            100

   TM            1            16             45             33            2         5            100

   TL            0            11             49             37            0         3            100

   VL            0            5              40             50            3         2            100

   CL           0            12             43              39            3         3            100
  Total        0.2           12             42              42            2         2            100

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)




 Annex 2A. Table 6: AMPs’ distribution based on the number of children in their care in February 2018 and
            those cared for in the past (since their first certification as an AMP ), by county (%)
 County       No of children cared for by the AMP       Total number of children taken care of
                   network in February 2018               by the current AMPs (since the first
                                                         certification), between 1998-2018 (*)

                               (A)                                       (B)                    (A)%(B)

    AB                         165                                       454                      36

    AR                         123                                       478                      26

    AG                         369                                       757                      49

    BH                         646                                      1,052                     61

    BN                         243                                       420                      58

    BT                         420                                       835                      50

    BV                         172                                       519                      33

    BZ                         322                                       933                      35

    CS                         498                                       719                      69

    CJ                         201                                       531                      38

    CT                         478                                      1,050                     46

    CV                         242                                       464                      52

    DB                         524                                      1,508                     35

    DJ                         382                                      1,045                     37

    GL                         610                                      1,101                     55

    GJ                         220                                       543                      41




                                                      195
    HR                          437                                       893     49

    HD                          237                                       556     43

    IL                          93                                        204     46

    IS                         1,462                                     2,416    61

    IF                          116                                       309     38

    MM                          328                                       539     61

    MH                          269                                       472     57

    MS                          419                                       673     62

    NT                          568                                       842     67

    PH                          385                                      1,159    33

    SM                          469                                       855     55

    SJ                          111                                       278     40

    SB                          274                                       480     57

    SV                          582                                      1,532    38

    TR                          361                                       789     46

    TM                         1,001                                     1,549    65

    TL                          298                                       608     49

    VL                          471                                      1,090    43

    CL                         229                                        450     51
  Total                       13,725                                     28,103   49

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)

Note: (*) children cared for by the AMP in February 2018 are included.




                                                       196
                Annex 2A. Table 7: How the county AMP networks are used (%)
            AMP that        AMPs that apart from     ... 2    ... 3   ....between   Total   Total
      throughout their       the children in their children children    4 and 12      %       N
     career have taken      care in February 2018                         other
       care only of the      have also taken care                       children
     children that were       of ... more 1 child
      still with them in
        February 2018
AB           28                    11               10        9           41         100     96

AR           20                     7               17        16          41         100     102

AG           40                    24               11        9           17         100     242

BH           44                    28               15        7            7         100     367

BN           43                    20               21        7            9         100     137

BT           33                    23               13        11          20         100     213

BV           24                    15               12        6           43         100     95

BZ           18                    13               18        11          39         100     195

CS           67                    21                8        2            2         100     419

CJ           28                    14               16        11          31         100     131

CT           34                    18               13        14          21         100     271

CV           37                    18               16        15          14         100     131

DB           14                    12               15        18          41         100     285

DJ           36                    14                8        8           33         100     248

GL           34                    23               21        10          12         100     315

GJ           34                    13               20        11          23         100     152

HR           25                    19               24        13          19         100     208

HD           41                    12               15        8           24         100     146

IL           27                    32               19        13           9         100     75

IS           41                    28               15        6            9         100     795

IF           34                    17                8        13          28         100     76

MM           49                    32               11        4            4         100     255

MH           41                    30               15        5            9         100     158

MS           48                    20               16        8            7         100     233

NT           57                    29                8        3            2         100     426

PH           12                    12               18        15          44         100     216




                                          197
SM                      39                       25             14         6     16   100    238

SJ                      25                       18             21         14    21   100    76

SB                      40                       27             12         8     13   100    144

SV                      18                       23             22         16    22   100    381

TR                      36                       14             18         9     24   100    192

TM                      50                       22             16         7     5    100    555

TL                      34                       20             15         12    19   100    171

VL                      18                       27             20         19    15   100    305

CL                      45                      25              15        10     6    100   198

Total    for            37                      22              15         9     16   100   8,247
the       35
counties

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)

Note: Coloured cells show significantly higher values




                                                        198
         Annex 2A. Table 8: Average number of years spent by a child with the same AMP, by county

              Total number of       No of AMPs      Number of years spent by a child with the same AMP
            children taken care     in February
County       of by the current          2018                     Standard      Minimum        Maximum
            AMPs (since the first                   Average      deviation
               certification),
               between 1998-
                  2018(*)

 AB                 454                 96            4.2           3.7           0.5            16

 AR                 478                102            2.6           2.6            0             14

 AG                 757                242            6.7           5.1            0             17

 BH                1.052               367            7.5           4.5            0             20

 BN                 420                137            6.0           5.1            0             17

 BT                 835                213            4.8           4.1            0             17

 BV                 519                 95            3.9           4.1           0.3            15

 BZ                 933                195            3.0           2.0           0.5            13

 CS                 719                419            8.9           4.7            0             18

 CJ                 531                131            3.9           4.0            0             18

 CT                1.050               271            3.7           3.6            0             18

 CV                 464                131            6.0           4.4           0.5            16

 DB                1.508               285            4.0           3.4            0             20

 DJ                1.045               248            2.5           2.4            0             16

 GL                1.101               315            5.3           4.0           0.3            17

 GJ                 543                152            3.1           3.2            0             16

 HR                 893                208            4.6           3.6            0             19

 HD                 556                146            5.6           4.7            0             16

  IL                204                 75            6.8           3.7            1             15

  IS               2.416               795            5.9           4.3            0             18

  IF                309                 76            5.0           4.3            0             18

 MM                 539                255            8.6           4.8            0             19

 MH                 472                158            6.4           4.6           0.6            19

 MS                 673                233            6.4           4.5            0             18

 NT                 842                426            8.5           4.5            0             18

 PH                1.159               216            4.2           3.4           0.3            16




                                                   199
   SM                 855                  238              6.8            4.8             0              18

   SJ                 278                   76              4.8            3.9             0              16

   SB                 480                  144              6.9            5.1            0.3             18

   SV                1.532                 381              4.8            3.5            0.4             18

   TR                 789                  192              4.5            3.8             0              17

   TM                1.549                 555              6.7            4.6             0              18

   TL                 608                  171              3.8            3.6             0              16

   VL                1.090                 305              6.4            3.7             1              18

   CL                 450                  198             8.5             5.0             0              18
 Total              28.103                8,247            5.8             4.5             0              20

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)

Note: (*) children cared for by the AMP in February 2018 are included. For the children still in public care, average
duration regers to the number of years since the foster care measure was introduced until February 2018




                                                        200
         Annex 2A. Table 9: Case managers for AMPs, by county
                                  Number of case
County    Number of AMPs                                    AMP/CM ratio
                               managers (CMs) for AMP

  AB            96                      10                       10

  AR            102                      2                       51

  AG            242                      7                       35

  BH            367                     21                       17

  BN            137                      4                       34

  BT            213                     10                       21

  BV            95                       7                       14

  BZ            195                      8                       24

  CS            419                     16                       26

  CJ            131                      4                       33

  CT            271                      0                       -

  CV            131                      6                       22

  DB            285                      7                       41

  DJ            248                      4                       62

  GL            315                     18                       18

  GJ            152                      8                       19

  HR            208                     11                       19

  HD            146                      2                       73

  IL            75                       5                       15

  IS            795                     23                       35

  IF            76                       0                       -

 MM             255                      7                       36

  MH            158                      4                       40

  MS            233                      5                       47

  NT            426                     11                       39

  PH            216                      7                       31

  SM            238                      3                       79

  SJ            76                       4                       19




                                 201
                SB                 144                       5                         29

                SV                 381                       4                         95

                TR                 192                       11                        17

                TM                 555                       17                        33

                TL                 171                       2                         86

                VL                 305                       30                        10

                CL                 198                       7                         28
               Total              8.247                     290                        28



Source: World Bank, Interview with the heads of the AMP Service (or similar) from DGASPC (February-March 2018)




                                                     202
                  Annex 2A. Table 10: List of localities with AMP territorial concentrations
County   SIRSUP                                                        Number      of Number of children
                                                                       AMPs            placed with AMPs
                      Total network                                 8.247          13.725

                      - Total in the urban area (233 towns), of     2.945          4.586
                      which territorial concentrations in:

BH       26564        ORADEA                                        31             51

BT       35731        BOTOSANI                                      71             140

CS       50790        RESITA                                        70             74

CT       60419        CONSTANTA                                     66             112

CV       63394        SFINTU GHEORGHE                               30             51

DB       65342        TIRGOVISTE                                    32             51

DJ       69900        CRAIOVA                                       46             66

GL       75098        GALATI                                        120            215

IL       92658        SLOBOZIA                                      44             51

IS       95060        IASI                                          68             95

IS       95355        HIRLAU                                        69             115

MM       106318       BAIA MARE                                     57             66

MH       109773       DROBETA-TURNU SEVERIN                         54             79

SM       136483       SATU MARE                                     37             64

SM       136526       CAREI                                         28             52

SM       136642       TASNAD                                        25             57

SV       146539       FALTICENI                                     51             62

SV       148006       DOLHASCA                                      51             84

TR       151790       ALEXANDRIA                                    40             61

TR       151870       ROSIORI DE VEDE                               55             98

TM       155243       TIMISOARA                                     65             89

TM       155350       LUGOJ                                         44             70

TL       159614       TULCEA                                        51             77

VL       167473       RAMNICU VALCEA                                72             96

CL       92569        CALARASI                                      119            135

                     Total AMP concentrations in urban areas       1.396          2.111




                                                   203
             - Total in the rural area (1,129 communes), of   5.302   9.139
             which territorial concentrations in:

AG   14673   BOTENI                                           16      29

AG   18242   PRIBOIENI                                        12      20

AG   18527   RUCAR                                            35      49

BH   27686   BRATCA                                           22      34

BH   27757   BRUSTURI                                         14      21

BH   28335   CEICA                                            13      24

BH   29154   DOBRESTI                                         15      27

BH   30229   OLCEA                                            15      25

BH   31510   SUNCUIUS                                         17      28

BH   31789   TINCA                                            38      67

BH   31841   TULCA                                            15      30

BH   31878   TETCHEA                                          7       20

BN   34280   REBRISOARA                                       39      73

BT   38063   MIHAI EMINESCU                                   12      24

BT   39391   TUDORA                                           11      21

BZ   45003   BECENI                                           23      40

BZ   46377   COCHIRLEANCA                                     13      23

CS   52115   CORNEA                                           22      30

CS   52856   FOROTIC                                          14      21

CS   53274   MEHADIA                                          21      24

CS   53327   MEHADICA                                         46      61

CJ   55918   BAISOARA                                         16      23

CT   61372   COGEALAC                                         55      98

CV   64318   GHELINTA                                         12      22

DB   67773   LUCIENI                                          33      65

DB   68565   PUCHENI                                          15      29

DB   68921   TATARANI                                         11      21




                                           204
DB   179640   VULCANA-PANDELE           19   37

DB   179891   RACIU                     45   87

DJ   71910    COTOFENII DIN DOS         15   26

DJ   72383    GALICEA MARE              34   60

GL   75356    BERESTI-MERIA             15   30

GL   76139    CUCA                      20   42

GL   76353    FUNDENI                   13   26

GL   76969    PECHEA                    11   23

GL   77288    SUCEVENI                  13   27

GJ   79834    CRASNA                    16   21

HR   83981    CIUCSINGEORGIU            26   53

HR   84102    CARTA                     15   30

HR   85760    SINDOMINIC                47   95

HR   85788    SANMARTIN                 20   43

HR   86453    TOMESTI                   9    20

HD   92177    ZAM                       14   29

IS   95792    BALTATI                   11   22

IS   96147    CEPLENITA                 18   31

IS   96192    CIORTESTI                 9    24

IS   96593    COZMESTI                  43   79

IS   96904    DOLHESTI                  36   73

IS   97009    ERBICENI                  13   23

IS   97063    FOCURI                    16   31

IS   97189    GORBAN                    23   39

IS   97875    MIRONEASA                 11   22

IS   97919    MIROSLAVA                 13   27

IS   98202    MOSNA                     52   108

IS   98505    POPRICANI                 16   27

IS   98649    PROBOTA                   20   34




                                  205
IS   98685    RADUCANENI                 33   64

IS   98916    SCANTEIA                   43   85

IS   98998    SCOBINTI                   48   89

IS   99290    SCHEIA                     21   40

IS   99780    TIBANESTI                  17   30

IS   99879    TIGANASI                   13   26

IS   100317   FANTANELE                  23   41

IF   100969   BALOTESTI                  15   22

MM   107546   CALINESTI                  23   28

MM   108035   DUMBRAVITA                 15   26

MM   109041   SUCIU DE SUS               26   33

MH   112370   ISVERNA                    17   39

MH   112879   PATULELE                   13   24

MS   115520   BATOS                      12   24

NT   121732   BORLESTI                   17   20

NT   123371   PASTRAVENI                 59   101

NT   124616   TAZLAU                     29   39

NT   125016   VINATORI-NEAMT             28   35

PH   131835   GURA VITIOAREI             14   26

PH   133214   FILIPESTII DE TIRG         12   20

PH   133795   IZVOARELE                  15   25

PH   134050   MAGURENI                   11   21

PH   134096   MANECIU                    25   44

SM   137540   CULCIU                     16   35

SM   138208   MOFTIN                     12   25

SM   138280   ODOREU                     13   23

SM   138663   SANISLAU                   24   54

SJ   140208   BANISOR                    27   38

SB   145961   VALEA VIILOR               11   20




                                   206
SV          146904      BAIA                                            39       64

SV          147054      BOGDANESTI                                      53       76

SV          147465      BUNESTI                                         18       34

SV          148097      DOLHESTI                                        14       20

TR          153605      PLOSCA                                          18       35

TR          155092      BEUCA                                           10       20

TM          155546      BALINT                                          24       46

TM          155840      BETHAUSEN                                       40       79

TM          156106      BOLDUR                                          35       69

TM          156473      COSTEIU                                         14       24

TM          157246      GIARMATA                                        10       20

TM          158181      PISCHIA                                         50       94

TL          160644      JURILOVCA                                       20       34

TL          160724      MAHMUDIA                                        12       22

TL          161035      NICULITEL                                       15       29

TL          161302      SOMOVA                                          15       26

VL          171539      MUEREASCA                                       15       27

VL          173061      SLATIOARA                                       28       46

VL          173533      STROESTI                                        10       20

VL          173686      SIRINEASA                                       17       26

VL         173935      TOMSANI                                         15        25
                       Total AMP concentrations in the rural area      2.279     4.071

Source: World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (February-March 2018)




                                                      207
                      Annex 2A. Table 11: Characteristics of children in foster care
                                                                       Number       Percentage

              Total                                                    420         100

              Gender

              male                                                     205         49

              female                                                   215         51

              Age

              0-3 years                                                71          17

              4-10 years                                               155         37

              11-14 years                                              119         28

              15-17 years                                              58          14

              18+ years                                                17          4

              Children with disabilities                               92          22

              Children with SEN                                        57          14

              Children with any other special needs                    57          14

              Children with siblings placed with the same AMP          152         36

Source: the World Bank, Census of professional foster carers (conducted between February and March 2018).




                                                      208
         Annex 2A. Table 12: Number of petitions/complaints against AMPs, by county
                                         Is there a clear and
                                     transparent procedure for       On a scale from 1 to 10, how
     Throughout the   During the        those cases in which        well do the AMPs properly know
      years, 1998-      past 12     complaints are filed against    and understand this procedure
         2018(*)      months (**)             an AMP? (**)                        (**)
AB   0                0              Yes                            9

AR   0                0              Yes                            10

AG   20               0              No                             -

BH   0                0              Yes                            NR

BN   31               8              Yes                            9

BT   11               2              Yes                            9

BV   5                2              Yes                            7

BZ   10               0              NR                             -

CS   93               2              No                             -

CJ   13               1              Yes                            8

CT   0                0              Yes                            NR

CV   0                0              Yes                            8

DB   24               1              Yes                            9

DJ   21               4              Yes                            8

GL   0                1              Yes                            NR

GJ   0                0              Yes                            9

HG   0                1              Yes                            8

HD   0                0              Yes                            8

IL   0                0              Yes                            10

IS   88               NR             Yes                            8

IF   0                0              Yes                            9

MM   27               1              Yes                            9

MH   0                3              Yes                            6

MS   42               0              Yes                            8

NT   43               1              Yes                            9

PH   0                0              Yes                            7

SM   0                2              No                             -




                                             209
SJ           0                 0               Yes                              8

SB           22                1               Yes                              9

SV           32                0               Yes                              8

TR           0                 2               No                               -

TM           0                 1               Yes                              8

TL           9                 1               Yes                              10

VL           61                0               Yes                              9

CL          0                  0              Yes                              9
            552                34                                              8.5

Source: World Bank, (*), QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP). Data is
weighted. (**) Interview with the heads of AMP Services within DGASPC on AMP-related county practices
(February-March 2018) (N=35).

Note: Even cases/suspicions of abuse, neglect or child exploitation involving AMP’s family, relatives, neighbors or
members of the community shall be deemed as complaints/ petitions/allegations against the AMP, irrespective of
their source. NR = No response




                                                       210
              Annex 2A. Table 13: Training of the AMP network in 2017, by county
                                                               Average no of
                        Additional training                    training hours   % AMPs for which
                      was organized in 2017     % AMPs were     per AMP, in    training needs have
          Number of       for the AMPs        trained in 2017       2017         been identified
 County     AMPs                (*)                 (**)             (**)               (**)

AB            96                 Yes                 90              17                 47

AR           102                 Yes                100              21                 95

AG           242                 No                  8               60                 0

BH           367                 Yes                100              19                 89

BN           137                 Yes                100               8                 83

BT           213                 No                  75              12                 90

BV            95                 Yes                 15              40                 30

BZ           195                 Yes                 85               3                 55

CS           419                 Yes                100               3                 61

CJ           131                 Yes                 50              15                 70

CT           271                 No                  0                                  0

CV           131                 Yes                100              21                 10

DB           285                 No                  0                                  50

DJ           248                 Yes                 83              40                 25

GL           315                 Yes                 58               7                 8

GJ           152                 Yes                 85               4                 0

HR           208                 Yes                 50              60                 92

HD           146                 Yes                 10               2                100

IL            75                 Yes                100              10                 48

IS           795                 Yes                 44              14                 11

IF            76                 No                  0                                  5

MM           255                 No                  0                                  0

MH           158                 No                  0                                  10

MS           233                 Yes                 73               4                100

NT           426                 Yes                100               6                 0

PH           216                 No                  0                                  25

SM           238                 No                  0                                  89




                                              211
SJ                 76                   Yes                  95                17                 67

SB                 144                  Yes                  100               28                 100

SV                 381                  Yes                  100               6                  92

TR                 192                  No                   73                60                 82

TM                 555                  Yes                  89                19                 33

TL                 171                  No                    0                                   20

VL                 305                  No                    0                                   15

CL                198                  Yes                   50                6                  67
Total            8.247                                       56                15                 43

Source: World Bank, (*) Interview with the heads of AMP Services within DGASPC on AMP-related county practices
(February-March 2018) (N=35). (**), QQ AMP Desk research survey of AMPs (February-March 2018) (N=8,247 AMP).
Data is weighted.

Note: Average no of hours calculated only for the AMPs that received training. NR = No response




                                                      212
ANNEX Part 2B: Statistical data on family-type foster care
(PFam)
                           Annex 2B. Table 1: Data used in the analysis
County       QSefPFam      List of PFam      QQ professional     QQ professional     SC professional
          Interview with   PFam Census        foster parent       foster parent       foster parent
         the Head of the    (number of        Documentary         Documentary         Case studies:
               PFam           PFam)          assessment of a     assessment of a      Assessment of
            Department                       sample of PFam      sample of PFam    professional foster
                                                relatives          not relatives      parent on site
                                            (number of PFam     (number of PFam     (number of PFam
                                                relatives)        not relatives)        relatives)

  AB           Yes              306                  20                   5                 1

  AR           Yes              335                  18                   5                 1

  AG           Yes              244                  12                   5                 2

  BH           Yes              438                  19                   5                 1

  BN           Yes              208                  17                   6                 2

  BT           Yes              365                  20                   5                 2

  BV           Yes              400                  20                   6                 2

  BZ           Yes              338                  20                   5                 3

  CS           Yes              190                  9                    6                 1

  CJ           Yes              213                  14                   7                 1

  CT           Yes              612                  20                   5                 2

  CV           Yes              229                  20                   5                 2

  DB           Yes              339                  12                   5                 1

  DJ           Yes              438                  11                   6                 2

  GL           Yes              284                  11                   6                 2

  GJ           Yes              234                  20                   5                 2

  HR           Yes              124                  13                   4                 1

  HD           Yes              443                  20                   5                 2

  IL           Yes              238                  19                   5                 1

  IS           Yes              705                  11                   5                 1

  IF           Yes              284                  19                   6                 2

 MM            Yes              346                  18                   6                 1

  MH           Yes              202                  20                   5                 0

  MS           Yes              438                  11                   5                 1

  NT           Yes              334                  19                   6                 2

  PH           Yes              449                  18                   7                 2



                                               213
     SM          Yes                 275                20                   5                   2

     SJ          Yes                 220                18                   5                   2

     SB          Yes                 216                20                   7                   4

     SV          Yes                 409                19                   5                   1

     TR          Yes                 141                11                   5                   1

     TM          Yes                 423                17                   6                   2

     TL          Yes                 189                19                   6                   2

     VL          Yes                 345                20                   5                   2

     CL          Yes                346                 11                  3                    1

 Total           35                11,300               586                188                   57



Annex 2B. Table 2: Number of children subject to special protection measure in family-type foster care
                    in the 35 counties with care homes, between 2010 and 2018
              Number of children subject to       Number of children subject to     Number of foster care
            protection measure in foster care   protection measure in foster care    arrangements ... in
             with relatives up to the fourth      with other families or persons    February-March 2018
                         degree
County    31 December      31    Feb.-March    31                31    Feb.-March     ... with        ... with
              2010      December    2018    December          December    2018       relatives         other
                          2017       (*)      2010              2017       (*)                       families/
                                                                                                      persons

AB            377          316         331         65           67          59         260             46

AR            342          287         273        114          159         169         203            132

AG            257          223         212         56           92          90         164             80

BH            394          288         292        184          274         263         229            209

BN            364          194         188         46           70          66         150             58

BT            510          362         353         98          115         121         260            105

BV            747          371         371        162          182         160         277            123

BZ            335          326         320        106          114         117         239             99

CS            422          193         213         54           59          40         158             32

CJ            338          227         224         70           52          54         172             41

CT            915          902         601        232          312         181         452            160

CV            306          268         258         41           45          29         203             26

DB            392          349         334         80           83         106         256             83

DJ            390          486         463         79          108         127         334            104

GL            624          214         215         97          152         144         161            123




                                                  214
GJ                353          234            252          38            31            34          207              27

HR                287          123            126          75            38            30          95               29

HD                595          465            456          95            108           102         361              82

IL                396          259            250          48            64            59          186              52

IS               1,078         713            710          161           222           213         528             177

IF                204          305            228          48            53            110         178             106

MM                464          372            379          142           90            86          284              62

MH                283          207            199          38            54            66          150              52

MS                618          406            393          132           201           173         306             132

NT                581          340            328          122           82            84          256              78

PH                518          436            426          79            135           139         331             118

SM                320          273            269          70            88            91          200              75

SJ                502          244            227          55            53            48          181              39

SB                168          167            171          80            136           139         117              99

SV                334          383            376          110           127           128         299             110

TR                147             81          99           94            121           87          70               71

TM                525          433            414          246           116           132         319             104

TL                102          155            154          48            79            69          125              64

VL                633          305            313          82            115           109         252              93

CL                323          326            324          37           109           120         238             108
Total           15,144       11,233       10,742          3,284         3,906         3,745       8,201           3,099

Source: www.copii.ro, National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption (NAPRCA)
(2010-2017). (*) World Bank, Census of family-type foster care.




     Annex 2B. Table 3: Stages in setting up the family-type foster care network and time spent by a child in
                                         family-type foster care, per counties
              PFam which had received the           Total                  Duration (in years) spent by a child in
                first child in their care (%)                                     family-type foster care
                1994-       2005-       2015-         %           N             Min      Max              Average
                2004        2014        2018

AB                4          52          44          100          306            0           19             4.7

AR                6          62          32          100          335            0           19             5.1

AG                5          55          40          100          244            0           16             4.9

BH               13          42          45          100          438            0           20             5.1




                                                           215
BN   0    63   37   100         208   0   12   5.3

BT   3    52   45   100         365   0   20   4.5

BV   2    53   45   100         400   0   17   4.8

BZ   6    53   41   100         338   0   18   4.7

CS   7    62   31   100         190   0   22   5.8

CJ   5    58   37   100         213   0   19   5.3

CT   2    54   44   100         612   0   17   4.4

CV   2    53   45   100         229   0   20   4.2

DB   11   41   48   100         339   0   23   4.2

DJ   1    41   58   100         438   0   17   3.2

GL   16   48   36   100         284   0   20   5.6

GJ   5    59   36   100         234   0   16   5.4

HR   8    65   27   100         124   0   20   6.2

HD   1    50   49   100         443   0   18   3.8

IL   4    51   45   100         238   0   16   4.5

IS   15   54   31   100         705   0   20   5.8

IF   2    36   63   100         284   0   17   3.4

MM   16   52   32   100         346   0   21   5.8

MH   1    64   35   100         202   0   15   5.1

MS   16   50   34   100         438   0   19   5.3

NT   17   52   31   100         334   0   20   6.1

PH   7    55   38   100         449   0   20   5.2

SM   0    47   53   100         275   0   12   3.9

SJ   14   58   28   100         220   0   19   6.7

SB   7    41   51   100         216   0   19   3.9

SV   3    56   41   100         409   0   19   4.4

TR   16   50   33   100         141   0   21   5.7

TM   1    58   40   100         423   0   15   4.6

TL   1    39   60   100         189   0   15   3.4




                          216
VL             22        40          38        100          345       0        19              6.0

CL             4         40          55        100          346       0        18              4.0
Total          7         51          42        100         11,300     0        23              4.8

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).




 Annex 2B. Table 4: Distribution of family-type foster care arrangements per types of PFam and counties (%)
                          Foster care with    Foster care with   Mixed foster    Total      Total
                           relatives up to          other            care        Pfam       Pfam
                             the fourth       families/persons                     %          N
                               degree
          AB                    84                   15              1              100     306

          AR                    61                   39              0              100     335

          AG                    67                   33              0              100     244

          BH                    52                   48              0              100     438

          BN                    72                   28              0              100     208

          BT                    70                   29              1              100     365

          BV                    68                   31              1              100     400

          BZ                    70                   29              1              100     338

          CS                    83                   17              0              100     190

          CJ                    81                   19              0              100     213

          CT                    73                   26              0              100     612

          CV                    89                   11              0              100     229

          DB                    75                   24              1              100     339

          DJ                    75                   24              1              100     438

          GL                    56                   43              1              100     284

          GJ                    88                   12              1              100     234

          HR                    73                   23              3              100     124

          HD                    81                   19              0              100     443

          IL                    78                   22              0              100     238

          IS                    74                   25              1              100     705

          IF                    62                   37              0              100     284

          MM                    82                   18              1              100     346

          MH                    73                   26              1              100     202




                                                     217
          MS                      69                  30                 1           100         438

          NT                      76                  23                 1           100         334

          PH                      73                  26                 1           100         449

          SM                      72                  27                 0           100         275

          SJ                      81                  18                 1           100         220

          SB                      52                  46                 2           100         216

          SV                      73                  27                 0           100         409

          TR                      48                  50                 1           100         141

          TM                      75                  25                 0           100         423

          TL                      66                  34                 0           100         189

          VL                      73                  27                 0           100         345

          CL                      68                  31                1            100         346
          Total %                 72                  27                1            100
          N                     8,133               3,099               68          11,300

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons. The color-marked cells point to the significantly higher values.

 Annex 2B. Table 5: Groups of PFam and PFam with professional foster parents in the same households, per
                                              counties (%)
                        Only one PFam     Several PFam in      PFam and         Total     Total
                       in the household    the household      professional      Pfam      Pfam
                                                             foster parent        %         N
                                                                 in the
                                                               household
         AB                     99.3                 0.7                0.0           100         306

         AR                     96.1                 0.0                3.9           100         335

         AG                    100.0                 0.0                0.0           100         244

         BH                     98.9                 0.7                0.5           100         438

         BN                    100.0                 0.0                0.0           100         208

         BT                     98.4                 0.0                1.6           100         365

         BV                     99.3                 0.5                0.3           100         400

         BZ                     97.3                 1.2                1.5           100         338

         CS                     99.5                 0.0                0.5           100         190

         CJ                     99.1                 0.9                0.0           100         213

         CT                     98.7                 1.1                0.2           100         612




                                                       218
         CV                    100.0                 0.0                0.0           100         229

         DB                     96.8                 3.2                0.0           100         339

         DJ                     98.6                 0.9                0.5           100         438

         GL                    100.0                 0.0                0.0           100         284

         GJ                    100.0                 0.0                0.0           100         234

         HR                     99.2                 0.8                0.0           100         124

         HD                     98.9                 1.1                0.0           100         443

         IL                     99.6                 0.0                0.4           100         238

         IS                     98.9                 0.3                0.9           100         705

         IF                     99.3                 0.7                0.0           100         284

         MM                     99.4                 0.0                0.6           100         346

         MH                     99.5                 0.0                0.5           100         202

         MS                     98.2                 1.4                0.5           100         438

         NT                     98.2                 1.2                0.6           100         334

         PH                    100.0                 0.0                0.0           100         449

         SM                     98.2                 1.1                0.7           100         275

         SJ                     98.6                 1.4                0.0           100         220

         SB                     99.1                 0.5                0.5           100         216

         SV                     97.6                 0.2                2.2           100         409

         TR                     95.7                 0.0                4.3           100         141

         TM                     99.8                 0.2                0.0           100         423

         TL                     97.4                 2.6                0.0           100         189

         VL                     95.7                 1.2                3.2           100         345

         CL                     98.8                0.9                0.3            100         346
         Total %                98.7                0.7                0.7            100
         N                     8,133               3,099                68          11,300

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons. The color-marked cells point to the significantly higher values.




                                                       219
                            Annex 2B. Table 6: Categories of family-type foster care
                                          PFam with
                                                             PFam with
                                        relatives up to
                                                           other families      Mixed PFam           Total PFam
                                          the fourth
                                                             or persons
                                            degree
                                         Numbe               Numbe             Numbe              Numbe
                                                     %                   %                 %                  %
                                           r                   r                 r                  r

Total, out of which:                      8133      100       3099     100       68       100     11300      100

PFam to a single person (not
married, divorced, separated,             3041       37       880       28       27        40      3948       35
widow/widower)

- woman                                   2756       34       741       24       25        37      3522       31

- man                                      285        4       139        4        2         *       426       4

PFam to a married person or part of
                                          1790       22       766       25       18        26      2574       23
a civil union

- woman                                   1580       19       654       21       16        24      2250       20

- man                                      210        3       112        4        2         *       324       3

PFam to a couple (family)                 3302       41       1453      47       23        34      4778       42




Total Pfam where the children live in
                                          5092       63       2219      72       41        60      7352       65
fact in a family

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons. * Cells with less than 5 cases.




                                                       220
Annex 2B. Table 7: Distribution of family-type foster care depending on the caregiver of child/children
                              subject to special protection measure (%)
          PFam to a       PFam to a      PFam to a single PFam to a     PFam to      Total        Total
            person          family         person (not       married    a couple    PFam          PFam
                                             married,       person or   (family)       %            N
                                             divorced,       part of a
                                            separated,      civil union
                                         widow/widower)
 BH            82             18               21              18          61         100         306

 GL            41             59               25              15          60         100         335

 BN            62             38               27              48          25         100         244

  IF           35             65               29              16          55         100         438

  IS           73             27               31              15          54         100         208

 MS            42             58               32              24          44         100         365

 DJ            43             57               32              27          41         100         400

 SJ            71             29               33              24          43         100         338

 AR            65             35               33               8          59         100         190

 TM            51             49               33              33          35         100         213

 BV            67             33               33              10          57         100         612

 CT            53             47               34              33          33         100         229

 SB            69             31               34              40          25         100         339

 PH            58             42               34              17          48         100         438

 NT            41             59               35              18          47         100         284

 SV            55             45               35              23          41         100         234

 CL            64             36               35              25          40         100         124

 MM            62             38               36              25          39         100         443

 SM            86             14               36              24          40         100         238

 AB            46             54               36              45          18         100         705

 GJ            45             55               36              18          45         100         284

 BT            61             39               37               4          58         100         346

 CV            63             37               38              16          47         100         202

 AG            57             43               38              23          39         100         438

 DB            53             47               38              31          31         100         334

 BZ            51             49               38              33          28         100         449




                                                 221
     HR            61              39                39              27          34           100        275

     IL            55              45                40              46          14           100        220

     MH            74              25                40              23          37           100        216

     TL            59              41                40              19          41           100        409

     CJ            62              38                40              11          49           100        141

     TR            65              35                40              21          38           100        423

     CS            61              39                43              22          35           100        189

     HD            59              41                45              18          37           100        345

     VL            60              40               46               13          41           100        346
  Total %          57              43               35               23          42           100
     N           6,496           4,804             3,948           2,574       4,778         11,300

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.

     Annex 2B. Table 8: Distribution of caregivers in family-type foster care, per gender and counties (%)
                County           Women              Men            Total %          Total N

                  AB                 75               25              100              362

                  AR                 60               40              100              534

                  AG                 68               31               99              340

                  BH                 60               40              100              703

                  BN                 72               28              100              260

                  BT                 61               39              100              578

                  BV                 61               39              100              627

                  BZ                 73               27              100              433

                  CS                 65               35              100              257

                  CJ                 58               42              100              317

                  CT                 71               29              100              811

                  CV                 65               35              100              336

                  DB                 67               33              100              443

                  DJ                 64               36              100              618

                  GL                 59               41              100              454

                  GJ                 65               35              100              340




                                                         222
                 HR                69              31     100    166

                 HD                68              32     100    609

                 IL                79              21     100    271

                 IS                61              39     100   1,087

                 IF                60              40     100    440

                 MM                68              32     100    481

                 MH                68              32     100    277

                 MS                65              35     100    631

                 NT                64              36     100    491

                 PH                63              37     100    666

                 SM                68              32     100    384

                 SJ                66              34     100    315

                 SB                72              27     100    271

                 SV                67              33     100    578

                 TR                65              35     100    195

                 TM                68              32     100    569

                 TL                67              33     100    266

                 VL                67              33     100    486

                CL                 67             33      100    483
                Total              66             34      100   16,079

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).




                                                    223
  Annex 2B. Table 9: Distribution of caregivers in family-type foster care, per gender and types of PFam (%)
                                                                      Women      Men      Total       N

       Foster care provided by relatives up to the fourth degree         67         33       100      11,435


       Foster care provided by other families/persons                    63         37       100      4,553


       Mixed foster care                                                 70         30       100        91


       Only one PFam in the household                                    66         34       100      15,870

       Several PFam in the household                                     69         31       100       101

       PFam and professional foster parents in the household             67         33       100       108

       PFam provided by a person                                         88         12       100      6,536

       PFam provided by a family                                         50         50       100      9,543

       PFam provided by a single person (not married, divorced,          89         11       100      3,949
       separated, widow/widower)

       PFam provided by a married person or part of a civil union        87         13       100      2,574

       PFam provided by a couple (family)                                50        50        100      9,556
       Total                                                             66        34        100     16,079

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.

  Annex 2B. Table 10: Distribution of caregivers in family-type foster care, per age groups and counties (%)
 County         17-30       30-39      40-49      50-59      60-69     70-90      Total            Average
                years       years      years      years      years     years                          age
                                                                                                    (years)

  AB                  1          6          23          27          36     8         100                  56

  AR                  1          9          25          35          24     6         100                  53

  AG                  1          7          20          26          34     12        100                  57

  BH                  2         15          29          26          23     4         100                  51

  BN                  3          7          18          27          37     10        100                  56

  BT                  3          7          18          29          31     12        100                  56

  BV                  1          9          16          32          35     7         100                  55

  BZ                  3          6          19          30          33     9         100                  56

  CS                  2          6          16          29          40     7         100                  57

  CJ                  1          8          18          33          30     9         100                  56

  CT                  3          7          23          30          30     7         100                  54

  CV                  1          4          18          30          34     11        100                  57




                                                         224
  DB                  2         7         19        28         33        11           100              56

  DJ                  2         8         22        29         28        11           100              55

  GL                  1         6         21        23         40         9           100              57

  GJ                  2         4         18        33         30        13           100              57

  HR                  1         4         25        28         30        12           100              57

  HD                  2         8         20        31         30         8           100              55

  IL                  5         6         16        36         31         6           100              54

  IS                  2         7         19        27         34        12           100              57

  IF                  3        15         30        25         21         7           100              51

  MM                  3         8         21        29         29        10           100              55

  MH                  1         7         22        26         38         7           100              56

  MS                  1         7         19        31         33         9           100              56

  NT                  2        10         18        28         30        13           100              56

  PH                  3         8         22        27         30        10           100              55

  SM                  1        14         28        25         24         7           100              52

  SJ                  3         5         20        33         31         8           100              56

  SB                  3         9         21        30         31         7           100              54

  SV                  3         5         21        24         35        12           100              57

  TR                  1         8         17        27         36        11           100              56

  TM                  1         7         21        28         33         9           100              56

  TL                  1         5         22        29         34         8           100              56

  VL                  2         5         20        33         28        12           100              56

  CL                  1         6         20        23         39        10           100              57

 Total               2          8         21        29        31          9           100              55

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).



       Annex 2B. Table 11: Average age of caregivers in family-type foster care, per types of PFam (years)
                                                                                  N                 Average
                                                                                                      age
                                                                                                    (years)
  Foster care provided by relatives up to the fourth degree                     11,435                 57


  Foster care provided by other families/persons                                4,553                  52




                                                      225
  Mixed foster care                                                                91                     56


  Only one PFam in the household                                                 15,870                   55

  Several PFam in the household                                                    101                    56

  PFam and professional foster parents in the household                            108                    53

  PFam provided by a person                                                       6,536                   57

  PFam provided by a family                                                       9,543                   55

  PFam provided by a single person (not married, divorced, separated,             3,949
  widow/widower)

   - Women                                                                        3,523                   60

   - Men                                                                           426                    56

  PFam provided by a married person or part of a civil union                      2,574

   - Women                                                                        2,252                   53

   - Men                                                                           322                    53

  PFam provided by a couple (family)                                              9,556                  55
  Total                                                                          16,079                  55

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.




                                                       226
Annex 2B. Table 12: Distribution of caregivers in family-type foster care, per levels of education and types of
                                                   PFam (%)
                                                        NR        No more          Post-       More     Total
                                                                    than        secondary      than
                                                                 secondary       school or     high-
                                                                   school      high-school    school
  Foster care provided by relatives up to the fourth         1        61             34            4       100
  degree

  Foster care provided by other families/persons             0        26             55           19       100


  Mixed foster care                                          0        75             23            2       100


  Only one PFam in the household                             1        52             39            8       100

  Several PFam in the household                              5        53             37            5       100

  PFam and professional foster parents in the                0        11             86            3       100
  household

  PFam provided by a person                                  1        58             35            6       100

  PFam provided by a family                                  1        47             42           10       100

  PFam provided by a single person (not married,             1        62             32            6       100
  divorced, separated, widow/widower)

  PFam provided by a married person or part of a             1        53             40            6       100
  civil union

  PFam provided by a couple (family)                         1        47             43           10       100

  Service life of PFam:       - 1994-2004                    1        57             37            5       100

                              - 2005-2014                    1        55             38            6       100

                            - 2015-February 2018             1        46             42           11       100
 Total                                                       1        51             40           8        100

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=16.079 persons in PFam).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons. NR = No reply.




                                                       227
 Annex 2B. Table 13: Distribution of caregivers in family-type foster care, per level of education and county
                                                      (%)
County  NR        No       Primary Secondary         Vocational     High-       Post-      University   Total
              education     school    school (V-    school, first  school    secondary     (including
                             (I-IV)      VIII)        cycle of     (IX-XII)    school,     Master’s,
                                                    high-school               foreman         PhD
                                                       (IX-X)                  school       degree)

AB         0       12         20          23            24          14           1            5        100

AR         2       14         16          21            10          28           2            8        100

AG         9        1         13          24            25          17           4            6        100

BH         0        2         19          14            21          26           2           15        100

BN         0        5         17          24            28          20           1            5        100

BT         0        0         12          34            33          15           2            3        100

BV         0        5         12          30            27          18           3            6        100

BZ         0       10         23          30            16          17           1            4        100

CS         0        3         16          44            10          24           1            2        100

CJ         0       10         15          28            23          12           2           11        100

CT         0       11         16          37            13          16           1            6        100

CV         0       12         41          24            13           9           1            1        100

DB         0        2         14          35            25          17           3            3        100

DJ         0       19         18          24            14          17           1            7        100

GL         0        5         10          29            27          20           3            6        100

GJ         0        5         13          22            27          27           1            5        100

HR         0        5         11          31            24          25           3            1        100

HD         0        7         13          35            18          19           3            5        100

IL         0       14         26          28            19           9           2            3        100

IS         0        2         18          34            31           9           1            6        100

IF         0        4          3          35            14          23           1           20        100

MM         0        9         17          30            21          17           2            4        100

MH         0        2         27          31            9           23           1            6        100

MS         0        9         16          27            29           9           4            6        100

NT         0        3         20          35            23          10           2            6        100

PH         0        4         12          24            32          13           5           10        100

SM        16       10         14          20            14          17           1            9        100



                                                     228
SJ         0           7      29         24             19         16          2            3        100

SB         0        13        12         25             16         22          3            9        100

SV         0           2      17         27             31         17          1            4        100

TR         3           2      14         25             25         31          0            1        100

TM         1           6      11         30             22         19          2            10       100

TL         0           5      19         31             28         13          1            3        100

VL         7           4       8         22             23         31          3            2        100

CL         0           4      25         35             19         13          1            2        100
Total      1           6      16         29             22         17          2            6        100

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018) (N=16,079 persons in PFam).
Note: NR = No reply.



     Annex 2B. Table 14: Case managers for children in family-type foster care, broken down per counties
              County        Number of         Number of        Number of case     Ratio children
                            children in    children in PFam     managers (CM)      in PFam/CM
                              PFam to      to other families   for professional
                             relatives        or persons        foster parents

               AB                  331            59                 12               33

               AR                  273            169                19               23

               AG                  212            90                    5             60

               BH                  292            263                   8             69

               BN                  188            66                    5             51

               BT                  353            121                   7             68

               BV                  371            160                16               33

               BZ                  320            117                   5             87

               CS                  213            40                    4             63

               CJ                  224            54                    4             70

               CT                  601            181                14               56

               CV                  258            29                    5             57

               DB                  334            106                22               20

               DJ                  463            127                24               25

               GL                  215            144                   9             40

               GJ                  252            34                    6             48

               HR                  126            30                    6             26



                                                    229
              HD                456              102                 9                62

              IL                250               59                 26               12

              IS                710              213                 10               92

              IF                228              110                 11               31

              MM                379               86              No reply         No reply

              MH                199               66                 6                44

              MS                393              173                 2               283

              NT                328               84                 11               37

              PH                426              139                 8                71

              SM                269               91                 4                90

              SJ                227               48                 6                46

              SB                171              139                 10               31

              SV                376              128                 7                72

              TR                99                87                 4                47

              TM                414              132                 17               32

              TL                154               69                 3                74

              VL                313              109                 29               15

              CL               324               120                 8                56
              Total           10,742            3,745               341               42

Source: World Bank, Interviews with Heads of the CM Department or of PFam (or similar) Department within the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection (February-March 2018).




                                                    230
Annex 2B. Figure 1: Number of case managers with which PFam worked since it received the child and in the
                                       past 12 months (number)




Source: World Bank, Case studies for PFam (February-March 2018) (N=57).



 Annex 2B. Table 15: Distribution of family-type foster care per types of PFam and residential environment
                                                           Urban       Rural     Total %     Total N

         Foster care provided by relatives up to the         44           56      100        8133
         fourth degree

         Foster care provided by other families/persons      49           51      100        3099


         Mixed foster care                                   41           59      100         68


         Only one PFam in the household                      45           55      100       11149

         Several PFam in the household                       45           55      100         76

         PFam and professional foster parents in the         39           61      100         75
         household

         PFam provided by a person                           48           52      100        6495

         PFam provided by a family                           41           59      100        4804

        PFam provided by a single person (not married,
        divorced, separated, widow/widower)
         - Women                                             51           49      100        3520

         - Men                                               46           54      100        426

        PFam provided by a married person or part of a
        civil union
         - Women                                             45           55      100        2250

         - Men                                               38           62      100        324

         PFam provided by a couple (family)                  41           59      100        4778


         Service life of PFam:- 1994-2004                    49           51      100        4778

                             - 2005-2014                     46           54      100        4778

                          - 2015-February 2018               44           56      100        4778



                                                       231
         Total                                                 45          55         100        11300
                                                             5,104        6,196      11,300

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons. The color-marked cells point to the significantly higher values.

               Annex 2B. Table 16: List of localities that are territorial concentrations of PFam
County     SIRSUP                                                         Number of Number of children
                                                                          PFam          in PFam
                        Total network                                     11,300        14,487

                        - Total in the URBAN environment (320             5,104         6,369
                        towns), of which territorial concentrations in:

AB          1017        ALBA IULIA                                        56            73

AR          9262        ARAD                                              97            125

BH          26564       ORADEA                                            112           125

BN          32394       BISTRITA                                          53            65

BT          35731       BOTOSANI                                          89            106

BV          40198       BRASOV                                            107           127

BV          40438       SACELE                                            42            66

BZ          44818       BUZAU                                             80            101

CJ          54975       CLUJ-NAPOCA                                       60            82

CT          60419       CONSTANTA                                         127           149

CT          60847       MEDGIDIA                                          47            65

DB          65342       TIRGOVISTE                                        59            70

DJ          69900       CRAIOVA                                           161           212

GL          75098       GALATI                                            125           144

HD          87059       LUPENI                                            53            72

IS          95060       IASI                                              170           210

MM          106318      BAIA MARE                                         130           163

MH          109773      DROBETA-TURNU SEVERIN                             56            75

MS          114319      TIRGU MURES                                       54            66

NT          120726      PIATRA NEAMT                                      64            82

PH          130534      PLOIESTI                                          121           153

SM          136483      SATU MARE                                         81            99




                                                       232
SB   143450   SIBIU                                       46      60

TM   155243   TIMISOARA                                   141     163

VL   167473   RAMNICU VALCEA                              65      72

CL   92569    CALARASI                                    80      92
              Total urban concentrations of PFam          2,276   2,817


              - Total in the RURAL environment (1,930     6,196   8,118
              communes),        of which    territorial
              concentrations in:

AB   4927     IGHIU                                       9       12

AB   6761     ROSIA MONTANA                               9       10

AB   7099     SASCIORI                                    10      13

AR   10293    BUTENI                                      8       10

AR   10827    FELNAC                                      7       13

AR   11423    MISCA                                       9       14

AR   11842    SAVIRSIN                                    5       10

AR   12368    SIRIA                                       8       11

AG   18527    RUCAR                                       13      15

BH   26582    SINMARTIN                                   19      23

BH   27383    BATAR                                       15      19

BH   28335    CEICA                                       8       14

BH   29154    DOBRESTI                                    11      16

BH   29662    HUSASAU DE TINCA                            11      17

BH   29813    LAZARENI                                    12      15

BH   30149    NOJORID                                     9       15

BH   30274    OSORHEI                                     7       10

BH   30568    POPESTI                                     8       11

BH   31789    TINCA                                       33      43

BH   31976    VADU CRISULUI                               4       10

BN   33989    NIMIGEA                                     8       11

BN   34690    SIEU-MAGHERUS                               11      19

BN   35090    TIHA BIRGAULUI                              8       10




                                            233
BT   36756   CORNI               11   11

BT   36907   CRISTESTI           8    12

BT   36952   CRISTINESTI         9    11

BT   37324   FRUMUSICA           7    11

BT   37912   LUNCA               5    11

BT   38544   POMIRLA             11   19

BT   38893   SANTA MARE          6    11

BT   39872   VORONA              9    14

BV   40526   APATA               17   22

BV   40955   FELDIOARA           10   13

BV   41088   HARMAN              7    15

BV   42003   TARLUNGENI          8    10

BZ   45003   BECENI              7    10

BZ   45753   CALVINI             5    10

BZ   47300   LUCIU               8    10

BZ   47453   MEREI               10   12

BZ   49484   SIRIU               4    10

BZ   49894   ULMENI              7    10

BZ   50102   VERNESTI            11   14

CS   52696   DOGNECEA            9    12

CJ   58259   JUCU                5    12

CT   60945   ALBESTI             6    10

CT   61005   ALIMAN              9    12

CT   61210   CHIRNOGENI          10   10

CT   61283   CIOCIRLIA           7    10

CT   61318   COBADIN             10   10

CT   61372   COGEALAC            18   29

CT   61513   CORBU               14   19

CT   61620   CUMPANA             25   31




                           234
CT   61871    INDEPENDENTA                10   14

CT   62191    MIHAIL KOGALNICEANU         10   14

CT   62253    MIHAI VITEAZU               8    10

CT   62280    MIRCEA VODA                 9    12

CT   62538    OSTROV                      11   13

CT   62878    SACELE                      10   11

CT   63125    VALU LUI TRAIAN             9    13

CT   63152    LUMINA                      11   16

CV   63802    BATANI                      10   15

CV   63866    BELIN                       13   15

CV   64041    BRADUT                      15   24

CV   64096    BRETCU                      11   13

CV   64942    VILCELE                     11   12

DB   67167    CRINGURILE                  14   19

DB   67737    I. L. CARAGIALE             5    12

DB   67773    LUCIENI                     10   14

DB   68002    MANESTI                     8    12

DB   68789    SALCIOARA                   6    11

DB   69526    VOINESTI                    7    10

DB   179640   VULCANA-PANDELE             10   13

DJ   70637    AMARASTII DE JOS            6    12

DJ   70744    ARGETOAIA                   7    10

DJ   71457    CALOPAR                     7    10

DJ   72383    GALICEA MARE                13   14

DJ   73996    SADOVA                      9    12

DJ   74554    URZICUTA                    9    12

GL   75356    BERESTI-MERIA               7    13

GL   76157    CUDALBI                     12   15

GL   76353    FUNDENI                     6    10




                                    235
GL   76601    IVESTI                    9    13

GL   76807    NICORESTI                 5    10

GJ   78873    BENGESTI-CIOCADIA         7    11

IL   92989    BORDUSANI                 7    13

IL   94795    VLADENI                   5    12

IL   100852   ALEXENI                   6    11

IL   180064   BARBULESTI                7    10

IS   95293    TOMESTI                   12   15

IS   95499    ION NECULCE               7    12

IS   95747    ARONEANU                  13   18

IS   95792    BALTATI                   8    11

IS   95872    BELCESTI                  8    10

IS   96254    CIUREA                    14   16

IS   96904    DOLHESTI                  12   15

IS   97009    ERBICENI                  7    10

IS   97189    GORBAN                    11   18

IS   97606    LESPEZI                   8    14

IS   97875    MIRONEASA                 30   45

IS   97919    MIROSLAVA                 11   14

IS   98505    POPRICANI                 13   16

IS   98685    RADUCANENI                14   23

IS   98916    SCANTEIA                  12   17

IS   99290    SCHEIA                    6    12

IS   99780    TIBANESTI                 19   28

IS   99879    TIGANASI                  12   15

IS   100148   VLADENI                   12   23

IS   100219   VOINESTI                  11   15

IF   100834   AFUMATI                   7    10

IF   101298   BRANESTI                  11   11




                                  236
IF   101742   CERNICA                   11   15

IF   103130   GANEASA                   9    11

IF   179249   CHIAJNA                   10   10

IF   179383   JILAVA                    8    11

IF   179463   MOGOSOAIA                 10   18

MM   107001   ARDUSAT                   2    10

MM   107733   COPALNIC-MANASTUR         11   11

MM   179846   COLTAU                    7    10

MH   112030   GRUIA                     12   21

MH   112879   PATULELE                  8    10

MS   114382   SINCRAIU DE MURES         9    11

MS   115389   BAND                      8    11

MS   115575   BAGACIU                   13   17

MS   116493   DANES                     12   15

MS   116652   ERNEI                     10   13

MS   117042   GHINDARI                  7    12

MS   117113   GLODENI                   11   15

MS   117426   HODAC                     8    12

MS   118799   PETELEA                   8    14

MS   120254   VINATORI                  11   18

NT   120771   DUMBRAVA ROSIE            7    10

NT   121732   BORLESTI                  10   15

NT   123914   RAUCESTI                  8    12

NT   124616   TAZLAU                    7    10

NT   124938   ALEXANDRU CEL BUN         9    12

PH   130678   BLEJOI                    8    10

PH   132574   CERASU                    8    12

PH   133964   LIPANESTI                 9    11

SM   138164   MICULA                    8    11




                                  237
SM   138280   ODOREU               13   17

SM   138869   SOCOND               8    15

SJ   140280   BOBOTA               11   12

SB   143557   SELIMBAR             11   25

SB   144152   BAZNA                9    16

SB   144303   BLAJEL               6    12

SV   146904   BAIA                 8    12

SV   151344   ZVORISTEA            5    10

TM   156213   CARPINIS             5    11

TM   157246   GIARMATA             10   11

TM   158181   PISCHIA              10   18

TM   159213   VARIAS               4    10

TM   159473   TOMNATIC             9    11

TL   160993   NALBANT              8    13

TL   161035   NICULITEL            11   12

TL   161384   TOPOLOG              8    10

TL   161561   VALEA TEILOR         10   12

VL   170514   IONESTI              10   13

VL   172153   PERISANI             8    11

VL   172509   RACOVITA             17   22

VL   173374   STOILESTI            13   15

VL   174290   ZATRENI              4    10

CL   92587    MODELU               15   19

CL   93281    CUZA VODA            8    10

CL   93370    DOR MARUNT           12   18

CL   93487    DRAGALINA            12   17

CL   94312    ROSETI               7    10

CL   102419   CURCANI              10   14

CL   102945   FRUMUSANI            11   17




                             238
CL             104181       MANASTIREA                                   18            22

CL             105605    ULMENI                                          4            10
                         Total rural concentrations of PFam              1,647        2,364

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).



        Annex 2B. Table 17: Features of children in family-type foster care, depending on the type of PFam

                                      PFam with           PFam with      Mixed foster care      Total PFam
                                    relatives up to     other families
                                      the fourth          or persons
                                        degree

                                   Number       %      Number       %    Number       %       Number         %

 Total, of which:                   10580      100      3745       100       162     100      14487          100

     - boys                         5392        51      1818       49         79      49       7289          50

     - girls                        5188        49      1927       51         83      51       7198          50

     - 0-3 years                     451         4       305        8         7       4        763           5

     - 4-10 years                   3082        29       890       24         63      39       4035          28

     - 11-14 years                  3145        30       975       26         46      28       4166          29

     - 15-17 years                  2670        25      1044       28         42      26       3756          26

     - 18+ years                    1232        12       531       14         4       *        1767          12

 Disabled children                   797         8       532       14         13      8        1342          9

 Children with special               589         6       381       10         7       4        977           7
 educational requirements

 Children with any other             351         3       218        6         6       4        575           4
 special needs

 Children having a sibling in       4175        39       748       20        105      65       5028          35
 the same foster family

 In the foster care of...

  - relatives of the second         8327        79        0         0         69      43       8396          58
 degree

  - relatives of the third          2208        21        0         0         15      9        2223          15
 degree

  - relatives of the fourth          45          0        0         0         1       *         46           0
 degree

     - other relatives                   0       0        59        2         1       *         60           0

     - not relatives                     0       0      3686       98         76      47       3762          26

Source: World Bank, PFam Census (February-March 2018).


                                                       239
Note: Mixed foster care is foster care with several children, among which some in the foster care of relatives and
others of other families/persons.


ANNEX Part 2C: Statistical data on small-sized residential-
type
 Annex 2C. Table 1: Evolution in the number of children and youth in small-sized residential-type facilities,
               broken down per types, between 31 December 2010 and 31 December 2017
                            Number of public       Number de children        Ratio children/public
                               institutions         and youth in public           institution
                                                        institutions
                               AP          CTF           AP            CTF     children/    children/CT
                                                                                   AP             F

          31-Dec-10            412         427          2566           4902        6             11

          31-Dec-11            415         418          2731           4956        7             12

          31-Dec-12            415         433          2642           5155        6             12

          31-Dec-13            395         431          2504           5250        6             12

          31-Dec-14            387         428          2514           5183        6             12

          31-Dec-15            386         431          2410           5124        6             12

          31-Dec-16            386         424          2270           4985        6             12

          31-Dec-17            383         427          2225           4619        6             11

Source: www.copii.ro, National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and Adoption (NAPRCA)
(2010-2017).

   Annex 2C. Table 2: Number of small-sized residential-type facilities and number of children and youth
 subject to special protection measures in such facilities, in the 35 counties with care homes, in February-
                                                March 2018
 County         Total           Total       Number of         Number of       Number of         Number of
              number of      number of         AP in            CTF in       children and     children and
                  AP             CTF         operation        operation       youth in AP     youth in CTF

  AB                6                14            5              14                23                163

  AR                0                17            0              17                   0              175

  AG               16                4             16              4                97                 40

  BH                2                16            2              16                   4              127

  BN                0                3             0               3                   0               27

  BT               29                7             28              7               164                 88

  BV                0                12            0              12                   0              109

  BZ                8                9             8               9                66                137

  CS               31                2             18              2                48                 23

  CJ                9                20            9              19                45                148




                                                        240
  CT                1               11                1            11                  4                127

  CV                3               12                2            12                  14               140

  DB                1                4                0             4                  0                39

  DJ               21                4               17             4                  98               51

  GL               10                2               10             2                  84               34

  GJ               10                5               10             4                  43               35

  HR                6               39                6            37                  42               297

  HD                1                7                1             7                  6                69

  IL                0                6                0             6                  0                80

  IS               13               12               13            12                  80               129

  IF                0                0                0             0                  0                 0

  MM                0               27                0            27                  0                257

  MH               32                0               10             0                  37                0

  MS                7               36                7            35                  33               340

  NT               10                1                9             1                  54               15

  PH                0                3                0             3                  0                57

  SM                0               13                0            13                  0                137

  SJ                0               12                0            11                  0                111

  SB                0                4                0             4                  0                28

  SV               14               19               14            19                  71               231

  TR               64                1               27             1                  246              12

  TM                2                2                2             2                  6                13

  TL                8                7                8             7                  55               64

  VL                7                3                4             3                  21               32

 CL                 0               13               0             13                  0               159
 Total            311               347             227           341              1341                3494

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

Note: Facilities in operation are those that hosted children in February-March 2018.




                                   Annex 2C. Table 3: The data used for analysis
         County      List of AP            List of CTF       QQ RezMic       QQ RezMic          SC RezMic
                    Census of AP          Census of CTF     Documentary     Documentary        Case studies:



                                                          241
     (number of APs)   (number of    assessment of    assessment of a      On-site
                          CTFs)      a sample of AP    sample of CTF    assessment of
                                       (number of        (number of         CTFs
                                          APs)              CTFs)        (number of
                                                                            CTFs)

AB          6              14              5                13                1

AR          0              17              0                16                1

AG         16              4               5                 4                2

BH          2              16              2                15                1

BN          0              3               0                 3                2

BT         29              7               6                 7                2

BV          0              12              0                12                2

BZ          8              9               5                 9                2

CS         31              2               5                 2                2

CJ          9              20              3                12                1

CT          1              11              1                11                1

CV          3              12              2                12                2

DB          1              4               0                 4                1

DJ         21              4               5                 4                2

GL         10              2               5                 2                0

GJ         10              5               5                 4                2

HR          6              39              3                12                2

HD          1              7               1                 7                2

IL          0              6               0                 5                1

IS         13              12              5                11                1

IF          0              0               0                19                0

MM          0              27              0                 0                1

MH         32              0               5                 0                0

MS          7              36              5                11                1

NT         10              1               4                 1                1

PH          0              3               0                 3                2

SM          0              13              0                13                2

SJ          0              12              0                11                2



                                    242
 SB                  0                     4                  0            4                 2

 SV                  14                   19                  5            13                1

 TR                  64                    1                  5            1                 1

 TM                  2                     2                  2            2                 2

 TL                  8                     7                  8            7                 2

 VL                  7                     3                  4            3                 2

CL                   0                    13              0               13                 1
Total               311                   347             96              266               50



      Annex 2C. Table 4: List of localities where there are territorial concentrations of CTFs
County    SIRSUP                                                          Number       Number of
                                                                          of CTFs   children living in
                                                                                           CTF
                          Total network                                     347            3,494

                          - Total in the URBAN environment (73 towns),      239            2,397
                          with territorial concentrations in:

AR          12091         SANTANA                                               5            52

IL          92658         SLOBOZIA                                              4            53

AB          1017          ALBA IULIA                                            5            54

HR          83525         CRISTURU SECUIESC                                    10            58

MS          114319        TARGU MURES                                           5            59

TL          159614        TULCEA                                                6            61

IS          95060         IASI                                                  3            62

BT          35731         BOTOSANI                                              6            63

AR          9574          LIPOVA                                                8            78

SV          146584        GURA HUMORULUI                                        7            78

BH          26564         ORADEA                                               11            86

MM          106559        SIGHETU MARMATIEI                                     9            88

HR          83320         MIERCUREA CIUC                                       12            90

MM          106318        BAIA MARE                                            10            94

CT          60419         CONSTANTA                                             8            95

BZ          44845         RAMNICU SARAT                                         7            98

                          Total urban concentrations of PFP                 116            1,169




                                                  243
                              - Total in the RURAL environment (63                 108         1,097
                              communes), with territorial concentrations in:

      AB          7767        STREMT                                                1           20

      HR          85582       SECUIENI                                              2           21

      BN          34985       TEACA                                                 2           22

      CL          94606       ULMU                                                  2           22

      CV          64194       CERNAT                                                1           23

      SJ          142337      PLOPIS                                                2           23

      BT          38544       POMIRLA                                               1           25

      DJ          72052       DIOSTI                                                2           25

      PH          132404      BREBU                                                 1           26

      IS          98051       MIROSLOVESTI                                          3           31

      SV          148765      FUNDU MOLDOVEI                                        1           33

      MS          115959      CEUASU DE CIMPIE                                      3           34

      IS          97517       HORLESTI                                              6           36

      HR          84415       FRUMOASA                                              3           46

      MS          114382      SINCRAIU DE MURES                                    12           91

      CL          94223       PERISORU                                              8          103

                              Total rural concentrations of CTF                    50          581

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).




                                                       244
                 Annex 2C. Table 5: List of localities that are territorial concentrations of APs
     County      SIRSUP                                                         Number         Number of
                                                                                 of APs     children living in
                                                                                                   AP
                              Total network                                        311             1,341

                              - Total in the URBAN environment (41 towns),         306             1,314
                              with territorial concentrations in:

      NT          120860      ROMAN                                                 10              54

      IS          95060       IASI                                                  10              63

      TR          151790      ALEXANDRIA                                            21              65

      BZ          44818       BUZAU                                                 8               66

      GL          75098       GALATI                                                9               76

      AG          13169       PITESTI                                               13              81

      DJ          69900       CRAIOVA                                               21              98

      BT          36006       DOROHOI                                               27              154

      TR          151870      ROSIORI DE VEDE                                       41              181

                              Total urban concentrations of APs                    160              838

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).




                                                       245
        Annex 2C. Table 6: Distribution of vacancies in the CTF network, per counties
     CTFs out of operation in February-March 2018     CTFs in operation, with vacancies, in February-
                                                                        March 2018
      Number of        Capacity        Number of        Number of        Capacity         Number of
     filled places    (number of       vacancies       filled places    (number of        vacancies
                        places)                                           places)

AB                                         0               135              170               35

AR                                         0                72               89               17

AG                                         0                28               36               8

BH                                         0                77              100               23

BN                                         0                14               23               9

BT                                         0                63               72               9

BV                                         0                72               85               13

BZ                                         0                28               32               4

CS                                         0                11               12               1

CJ        0               8                8               116              159               43

CT                                         0                32               38               6

CV                                         0                57               61               4

DB                                         0                39               56               17

DJ                                         0                26               28               2

GL                                         0                                                  0

GJ        0               8                8                9                10               1

HR        0               14               14              168              233               65

HD                                         0                45               72               27

IL                                         0                                                  0

IS                                         0                49               63               14

IF                                         0                                                  0

MM                                         0               208              276               68

MH                                         0                                                  0

MS        0               6                6                92              112               20

NT                                         0                15               16               1

PH                                         0                26               28               2




                                                246
SM                                                   0               33                38               5

SJ                0                10               10               44                51               7

SB                                                   0               19                27               8

SV                                                   0               138              177              39

TR                                                   0               12                16               4

TM                                                   0               13                18               5

TL                                                   0               31                42              11

VL                                                   0               20                24               4

CL                                                  0                73                84              11
Total                                               46                                                483

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

Note: Number of filled places = the number of beneficiaries subject to a special protection measure at the time of
our research in that residential-type facility (children and youth actually present were counted, plus those who
were temporarily at school, treatment or absent for various other reasons). Number of vacancies = Capacity -
Number of filled places.




                                                         247
       Annex 2C. Table 7: Distribution of vacancies in the AP network, per counties
     APs out of operation in February-March 2018      APs in operation, with vacancies, in February-
                                                                        March 2018
      Number of       Capacity        Number of         Number of        Capacity        Number of
     filled places   (number of       vacancies        filled places    (number of       vacancies
                       places)                                            places)

AB        0               6                6                12              17                5

AR                                         0                                                  0

AG                                         0                36              44                8

BH                                         0                                                  0

BN                                         0                                                  0

BT        0               6                6                34              45               11

BV                                         0                                                  0

BZ                                         0                7                8                1

CS        0              48               48                46              80               34

CJ                                         0                33              49               16

CT                                         0                4                6                2

CV        0               7                7                                                  0

DB        0               6                6                                                  0

DJ        0              24               24                66              83               17

GL                                         0                7                8                1

GJ                                         0                4                5                1

HR                                         0                13              15                2

HD                                         0                                                  0

IL                                         0                                                  0

IS                                         0                10              12                2

IF                                         0                                                  0

MM                                         0                                                  0

MH        0              52               52                19              26                7

MS                                         0                7               10                3

NT        0               6                6                15              18                3

PH                                         0                                                  0




                                               248
 SM                                                   0                                                  0

 SJ                                                   0                                                  0

 SB                                                   0                                                  0

 SV                                                   0                11               17               6

 TR                0               214               214              118              162              44

 TM                                                   0                6                10               4

 TL                                                   0                19               23               4

 VL                0                18               18                3                 6               3

 CL                                                  0                                                   0
 Total                                              387                                                174

Source: World Bank, Census of small-sized residential-type facilities (February-March 2018).

Note: Number of filled places = the number of beneficiaries subject to a special protection measure at the time of
our research in that residential-type facility (children and youth actually present were counted, plus those who
were temporarily at school, treatment or absent for various other reasons). Number of vacancies = Capacity -
Number of filled places.




                                                          249
ANNEX Part 3: Statistical data regarding child protection case
managers (MCs)

          Annex 3. Table 1: Distribution of case managers, by gender and county (N)
                 County           Women            Men            Total
                  AB                1              27              28

                  AR                0              19              19

                  AG                2              17              19

                  BH                1              28              29

                  BN                0              11              11

                  BT                3              17              20

                  BV                1              25              26

                  BZ                3              19              22

                  CS                2              14              16

                  CJ                0              24              24

                  CT                0              16              16

                  CV                5               9              14

                  DB                0              28              28

                  DJ                1              22              23

                  GL                1              32              33

                  GJ                1              18              19

                  HR                2              19              21

                  HD                0              22              22

                  IL                2              24              26

                  IS                3              44              47

                  IF                2              18              20

                  MM                2              19              21

                  MH                1              15              16

                  MS                0              18              18

                  NT                2              30              32

                  PH                0              28              28

                  SM                1              15              16

                  SJ                2               8              10




                                            250
                  SB                 1              17              18

                  SV                 7              18              25

                  TR                 4              14              18

                  TM                 4              28              32

                  TL                 0              14              14

                  VL                 5              25              30
                 CL                  0              24              24
                 Total              59             726             785



         Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018.



         Annex 3. Table 2: Distribution of case managers, by age group and county (N)
County       Age < 30      Age 30-39     Age 40-49    Age 50-59     Age 60-69       Total
AB                0            14           12            2              0           28

AR                3            7             7            2              0           19

AG                2            10            7            0              0           19

BH                0            9            17            2              1           29

BN                0            8             2            1              0           11

BT                0            6            11            3              0           20

BV                0            9            11            5              1           26

BZ                3            4            11            4              0           22

CS                2            6             5            2              1           16

CJ                1            10           10            3              0           24

CT                0            3             7            6              0           16

CV                1            8             2            3              0           14

DB                0            9            15            4              0           28

DJ                2            9             9            3              0           23

GL                0            12           19            2              0           33

GJ                1            4            12            2              0           19

HR                1            7             8            5              0           21

HD                2            8            10            2              0           22

IL                2            6            15            3              0           26

IS                4            18           21            4              0           47

IF                5            10            5            0              0           20




                                             251
        MM               0             6           11               4   0   21

        MH               0             6            8               2   0   16

        MS               3             9            4               2   0   18

        NT               1            10           19               1   1   32

        PH               1            11           11               4   1   28

        SM               1             5            8               2   0   16

        SJ               0             8            2               0   0   10

        SB               2             6            8               1   1   18

        SV               0             8           12               5   0   25

        TR               1             3           12               2   0   18

        TM               2             6           18               4   2   32

        TL               1             4            4               5   0   14

        VL               0            11           13               6   0   30
       CL                2            3             11           7      1    24
       Total            43           273           357          103     9   785


Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018.




                                                    252
 Annex 3. Table 3: Distribution of case managers, by academic achievement and county (N)

                                           Higher education
County    No          Yes, social   Yes, sociology   Yes,      Yes, other        Total
                      work          or psychology    health    specialization
                                                     care
AB             0           27              0             0           1             28

AR             0           17              1             0           1             19

AG             0           12              3             0           4             19

BH             0           29              0             0           0             29

BN             0           8               3             0           0             11

BT             0           16              4             0           0             20

BV             0           10             11             0           5             26

BZ             0           18              1             0           3             22

CS             0           16              0             0           0             16

CJ             0           22              2             0           0             24

CT             0           5               3             0           8             16

CV             0           8               3             0           3             14

DB             0           16              7             0           5             28

DJ             1           13              4             0           5             23

GL             0           5               7             0           21            33

GJ             0           11              4             0           4             19

HR             0           13              5             0           3             21

HD             0           6              11             0           5             22

IL             3           5              13             0           5             26

IS             0           44              2             0           1             47

IF             0           19              0             0           1             20

MM             0           18              2             0           1             21

MH             0           14              1             0           1             16

MS             0           13              5             0           0             18

NT             0           21              9             0           2             32

PH             0           19              7             0           2             28

SM             1           9               2             0           4             16

SJ             0           9               1             0           0             10

SB             0           7               4             1           6             18

SV             0           13              5             0           7             25



                                           253
        TR              1            1             8                0    8    18

        TM              0           23             4                0    5    32

        TL              0            8             5                0    1    14

        VL              0            7             12               0   11    30
       CL              1            8              12               0    3     24
       Total           7           490            161               1   126   785

Source: World Bank, Census of Case Managers, February-March 2018.




                                                    254
ANNEX Part 4: Statistical data
 Annex 11. Table 1: Distribution of communes by types of source communities (defined by the
 number of mothers of children in public care and the existence of a marginalized area in the
                           commune), by counes (No of communes)

                            Communes      Communes with 3-4        Other        Total
                             with 5+        mothers and a        communes     communes
                             mothers       marginalized area

      ALBA                                                            6           6

      ARAD                                                           13           13

      ARGES                                        3                 41           44

      BIHOR                                        1                 22           23

      BISTRITA-NASAUD           1                                    31           32

      BOTOSANI                                     1                 27           28

      BRASOV                    4                  5                 25           34

      BUZAU                     4                  6                 43           53

      CARAS-SEVERIN                                                  12           12

      CLUJ                                                           20           20

      CONSTANTA                 2                  2                 34           38

      COVASNA                   2                  4                 22           28

      DIMBOVITA                                                      23           23

      DOLJ                                         1                 33           34

      GALATI                                       1                 36           37

      GORJ                      1                                    25           26

      HARGHITA                                     4                 22           26

      HUNEDOARA                                                       6           6

      IALOMITA                                     1                 21           22

      IASI                     24                  17                41           82

      MARAMURES                                                       3           3

      MEHEDINTI                                                      27           27

      MURES                                                          16           16



                                             255
         NEAMT                         9                    5                       37               51

         PRAHOVA                       2                    2                       58               62

         SATU_MARE                                          1                       13               14

         SALAJ                                              6                       23               29

         SIBIU                         1                    3                       25               29

         SUCEAVA                                            1                       18               19

         TELEORMAN                                                                  11               11

         TIMIS                         1                                            44               45

         TULCEA                        1                    1                       25               27

         VILCEA                                                                     43               43

         CALARASI                                           3                       28               31

         Total                        52                   68                   874                 994

Source: World Bank, Census of Placement Centers for Children (October, 2016).

Note: “Other communes� refers to communes with 1-2 mothers of children placed in Foster Care Centers or 3-4
mothers without marginalized areas.




 Annex 4. Table 2: Number of localities within functional micro-areas of the source communities

                                                                    Urban Micro-area              Rural Micro-area

                                                      Number of
                                      Number of       urban           Number of
                                      villages        territorial     urban
                                      present         and             localities
                                      within the      administra      included in                         Name of
                  Name of source      Source          tive            the                                 source
County            commune             Community       divisions       community          County           commune

                  CETATEA DE
ALBA                                        4              1               4                 5               26
                  BALTA

ARAD              VLADIMIRESCU              4              1               1                 4               11

ARGES             CALINESTI                12              2              10                 4               10

BIHOR             DRAGESTI                  5              0               0                 4               28

BIHOR             TINCA                     5              1               1                 5               23

BOTOSANI          COPALAU                   3              1               5                 6               21




                                                     256
BRASOV      APATA             1          0   0   3   4

BUZAU       VERNESTI          11         1   1   5   35

CALARASI    SPANTOV           3          1   1   3   5

CARAS-
            BERZOVIA          3          1   1   4   11
SEVERIN

CARAS-
            MEHADICA          1          0   0   2   5
SEVERIN

CLUJ        MINTIU GHERLII    6          2   9   4   25

CONSTANTA   PESTERA           5          1   3   4   18

CONSTANTA   COGEALAC          5          0   0   5   16

COVASNA     VALCELE           4          1   3   4   10

DIMBOVITA   I. L. CARAGIALE   3          1   1   5   14

DOLJ        ORODEL            5          0   0   5   9

GALATI      MASTACANI         2          1   3   3   6

GORJ        BUSTUCHIN         8          0   0   3   3

            CIUCSANGEORG
HARGHITA                      9          1   4   5   12
            IU

HUNEDOARA   TURDAS            4          1   1   0   0

IALOMITA    TRAIAN            1          1   2   5   15

IASI        VOINESTI          5          1   1   4   13

MARAMURES   RUSCOVA           1          0   0   4   4

MEHEDINTI   SIMIAN            8          1   1   4   8

MURES       ALBESTI           9          1   5   2   7

            VANATORI-
NEAMT                         4          1   4   3   11
            NEAMT

            VALEA
PRAHOVA                       15         0   0   5   24
            CALUGAREASCA

SALAJ       NUSFALAU          2          1   4   7   30

SATU MARE   BOTIZ             1          2   6   3   11

SIBIU       ROSIA             6          2   2   4   12




                                   257
  TELEORMAN         BRANCENI              1                 1            1              4           6

                    SANPETRU
  TIMIS                                   2                 1            1              7           10
                    MARE

  TULCEA            TOPOLOG               7                 0            0              12          13

  VILCEA            RACOVITA              7                 1            8              4           21

                    TOTAL                172                30           83             151         477



          Annex 4. Table 3: Number of respondents in the interviews conducted for the 35 source
                                             communities

                                                                  Respondents

                                         Mayor/
                                         Deputy
                                         Mayor/                   Director/   Medic/
               Source                    Mayoralty                School      medical                   Total
County         Community        DGASPC   Secretary         SPAS   Secretary   nurse           SCC       Number

               Cetatea de
ALBA                              2            1            2        1             1            1         8
               Baltă

ARAD           Vladimirescu       1            1            1        1             1            1         6

ARGEȘ          Călinești          2            1            1        1             1            1         7

BIHOR          Drăgești           2            1            1        1             2            0         7

BIHOR          Tinca              2            1            2        3             1            1         10

BOTOȘANI       Copălău            1            1            3        1             1            1         8

BRAȘOV         Apața              2            1            2        1             1            1         8

BUZĂU          Vernești           2            1            2        1             1            2         9

CĂLĂRAȘI       Spanțov            1            1            1        1             1            1         6

CARAȘ-
               Berzovia           2            1            1        1             1            1         7
SEVERIN

CARAȘ-
               Mehadica           2            1            1        1             1            1         7
SEVERIN

CLUJ           Mintiu Gherlii     2            1            2        1             1            1         8

CONSTANÈšA      Cogealac           1            1            1        1             1            0         5

CONSTANȚA      Peștera            1            1            1        1             1            0         5

COVASNA        Vâlcele            1            1            2        1             1            1         7



                                                     258
              I. L.
DÂMBOVIȚA                        2            1         2        1           1        1     8
              Caragiale

DOLJ          Orodel             2            1         1        1           2        0     7

GALAȚI        Măstăcani          1            1         2        1           1        1     7

GORJ          Bustuchin          1            1         1        1           1        1     6

HARGHITA      Ciucângeorgiu      2            1         2        1           1        1     8

HUNEDOARA     TurdaÈ™             1            1         1        1           1        0     5

IALOMIÈšA      Traian             1            1         2        1           1        0     6

IAȘI          Voinești           1            1         2        1           1        2     8

MARAMUREȘ     Ruscova            1            1         1        1           1        1     6

MEHEDINȚI     Șimian             1            1         2        1           1        1     7

MUREȘ         Albești            2            1         2        1           1        1     8

              Vânători-
NEAMÈš                            1            1         3        1           1        1     8
              NeamÈ›

              Valea
PRAHOVA                          2            1         2        1           1        0     7
              Călugărească

SĂLAJ         Nușfalău           1            1         1        1           1        1     6

SATU MARE     Botiz              2            1         1        1           1        1     7

SIBIU         Roșia              1            1         1        1           1        0     5

TELEORMAN     Brânceni           1            1         2        1           1        1     7

              Sânpetru
TIMIȘ                            1            1         1        1           1        1     6
              Mare

TULCEA        Topolog            2            1         1        1           1        0     6

VÂLCEA        Racovița           2            2         1        1           1        1     8

                 Total          52       36        54       37          37       28       244
   Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                  259
     Annex 4. Table 4: Concentration of children and young people separated from their families at the
                          level of the villages from surveyed source communities

                                                                     Is there
                                                                     information
                                                                     on the
                                                                     origin
                                                                     village of
                                                                     the           Is there a concentration
                               Number of children                    children      of children and young
                               and young people in     Number of     and young     people separated from
                               the protection          villages      people        their families at the
            Name of source     system, February        from Source   from the      level of some villages
County      commune            2018                    Community     system?       from the commune?

            CETATEA DE                                                             Yes, Cetatea de Balta
AB                             18                      4             Yes
            BALTA                                                                  village

AR          VLADIMIRESCU       19                      4             No            It is unknown

AG          CALINESTI          40                      12            Yes           No concentration

BH          DRAGESTI           19                      5             Yes           Yes, Drăgești village

BT          COPALAU            19                      3             Yes           Yes, Copălău village

BV          APATA              46                      1             One single village in the commune

BZ          VERNESTI           27                      11            Yes           Yes, Cândești village

CS          BERZOVIA           8                       3             Yes           No concentration

CJ          MINTIU GHERLII     8                       6             Yes           No concentration

CT          PESTERA            13                      5             Yes           No concentration

                                                                                   Yes, Vâlcele, Hetea and
CV          VALCELE            38                      4             Yes
                                                                                   Araci villages

DB          I. L. CARAGIALE    30                      3             No            It is unknown

DJ          ORODEL             9                       5             Yes           Yes, Orodel village

GL          MASTACANI          35                      2             Yes           Yes, Mastacani village

GJ          BUSTUCHIN          10                      8             No            It is unknown

HG          CIUCSANGEORGIU     22                      9             No            It is unknown

HD          TURDAS             15                      4             Yes           Yes, TurdaÈ™ village

IL          TRAIAN             14                      1             One single village in the commune

IS          VOINESTI           73                      5             Yes           Yes, Slobozia and




                                                     260
                                                                                       Voinesti villages

MM           RUSCOVA              6                        1              One single village in the commune

                                                                                       Yes, Cerneti, Simian
MH           SIMIAN               52                       8              Yes
                                                                                       and Dudasu villages

MS           ALBESTI              24                       9              No            It is unknown

             VANATORI-                                                                 Yes, Vânători Neamț
NT                                34                       4              Yes
             NEAMT                                                                     village

             VALEA
PH                                27                       15             Yes          No concentration
             CALUGAREASCA

SJ           NUSFALAU             16                       2              No            It is unknown

SM           BOTIZ                14                       1              One single village in the commune

                                                                                       Yes, Nou and Rosia
SB           ROSIA                41                       6              Yes
                                                                                       villages

TR           BRANCENI             3                        1              One single village in the commune

TM           SANPETRU MARE        29                       2              Yes          No concentration

TL           TOPOLOG              14                       7              Yes          No concentration

VL           RACOVITA             29                       7              Yes          Yes, Balota village

CS           MEHADICA             60                       1              One single village in the commune

BH           TINCA                145                      5              No           It is unknown

CT           COGEALAC             30                       5              No           It is unknown

CL           SPANTOV              17                       3              Yes          Yes, Spantov village

             Total                1004                     172
     Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                        261
     Annex 4. Table 5: Distribution of children within source communities by actual home address of
      their mothers, February 2018 (number of children and young people from protection system)

                                                                         Mother is
                                                                       known and
                             Mother still    Mother                   alive, but her
                             lives in the   moved to                  whereabouts
                                origin      another                   are unknown      Mother is
                              commune        locality     Mother is      or she is     deceased,
          Name of source     in February        in          living    changing her     unknown,
County      commune              2018       Romania        abroad     home address      missing       Total

         CETATEA DE
AB                               12            1             0              5             0            18
         BALTA

AR       VLADIMIRESCU            10            3             0              4             2            19

AG       CALINESTI               30            5             0              0             5            40

BH       DRAGESTI                14            0             0              1             4            19

BT       COPALAU                  4            12            1              0             2            19

BV       APATA                   22            15            7              1             1            46

BZ       VERNESTI                20            5             0              0             2            27

CS       BERZOVIA                 5            3             0              0             0            8

CJ       MINTIU GHERLII           2            4             1              0             1            8

CT       PESTERA                 10            3             0              0             0            13

CV       VALCELE                 33            3             0              0             2            38

DB       I. L. CARAGIALE         30            0             0              0             0            30

DJ       ORODEL                   0            3             0              0             6            9

GL       MASTACANI               23            1             7              3             1            35

GJ       BUSTUCHIN                8            1             0              0             1            10

HG       CIUCSANGEORGIU          22            0             0              0             0            22

HD       TURDAS                   7            6             0              0             2            15

IL       TRAIAN                   8            5             1              0             0            14

IS       VOINESTI                27            20            19             7             0            73

MM       RUSCOVA                  1            0             0              0             5            6

MH       SIMIAN                  42            10            0              0             0            52




                                                    262
MS        ALBESTI                 21           3           0              0    0     24

NT        VANATORI-NEAMT          16           5           2              2    9     34

          VALEA
PH                                19           2           0              6    0     27
          CALUGAREASCA

SJ        NUSFALAU                15           0           0              0    1     16

SM        BOTIZ                    4           4           0              0    6     14

SB        ROSIA                   24           3           0              12   2     41

TR        BRANCENI                 3           0           0              0    0     3

TM        SANPETRU MARE           10           18          0              0    1     29

TL        TOPOLOG                  2           8           0              0    4     14

VL        RACOVITA                17           9           2              1    0     29

CS        MEHADICA                 5           49          2              2    2     60

BH        TINCA                  112           6           20             0    7    145

CT        COGEALAC                17           10          0              0    3     30

CL        SPANTOV                  6           6           4              0    1     17

          Total                  601          223          66             44   70   1004
     Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                    263
  Annex 4. Table 6: Source Communities by number of mothers with children in the protection
                                           system

                                                                           Number of mothers
                                                                           with children in the
                                                                          protection system in
                             Number of children    Number of mothers       February 2018 who
                            and young people in      known and alive      still have their home
         Name of source        the protection      with children in the      addresses in the
County     commune         system, February 2018    protection system            commune

           CETATEA DE
 AB                                 18                     15                      9
             BALTA

 AR       VLADIMIRESCU              19                     12                      6

 AG         CALINESTI               40                     18                      14

 BH         DRAGESTI                19                      9                      8

 BT         COPALAU                 19                     10                      3

 BV          APATA                  46                     30                      16

 BZ         VERNESTI                27                     16                      11

 CS         BERZOVIA                 8                      4                      2

 CJ      MINTIU GHERLII              8                      7                      2

 CT         PESTERA                 13                      8                      6

 CV         VALCELE                 38                     21                      18

 DB      I. L. CARAGIALE            30                     16                      16

 DJ          ORODEL                  9                      1                      0

 GL        MASTACANI                35                     19                      12

 GJ        BUSTUCHIN                10                      8                      7

         CIUCSANGEORGI
 HG                                 22                     14                      14
               U

 HD          TURDAS                 15                      9                      5

  IL         TRAIAN                 14                      9                      6

  IS        VOINESTI                73                     45                      17

 MM         RUSCOVA                  6                      1                      1

 MH          SIMIAN                 52                     31                      24




                                            264
  MS          ALBESTI                   24                      18                       16

             VANATORI-
  NT                                    34                      19                       11
               NEAMT

               VALEA
  PH                                    27                      15                       10
           CALUGAREASCA

  SJ         NUSFALAU                   16                       9                       9

  SM           BOTIZ                    14                       4                       3

  SB           ROSIA                    41                      24                       13

  TR         BRANCENI                   3                        3                       3

  TM      SANPETRU MARE                 29                      15                       6

  TL          TOPOLOG                   14                       8                       2

  VL         RACOVITA                   29                      23                       15

  CS         MEHADICA                   60                      29                       2

  BH           TINCA                   145                      86                       71

  CT         COGEALAC                   30                      18                       10

  CL          SPANTOV                   17                      12                       4

                Total                  1004                    586                      372

Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.
Note: the highlighted cells show the 10 communes that no longer qualified as source communities in
February 2018.




                                                265
     Annex 4. Table 7: Distribution of children within source communities by actual home address of
     their fathers, February 2018 (number of children and young people from protection system)

                                                                          Father is
                                                                         known and
                              Father still     Father                  alive, but his
                              lives in the   moved to                  whereabouts
                                 origin      another                   are unknown       Father is
                               commune        locality     Father is       or he is     deceased,
          Name of source      in February        in          living     changing his    unknown,
County    commune                 2018       Romania        abroad     home address       missing     Total

          CETATEA DE
AB                                 3            2             0              1             12          18
          BALTA

AR        VLADIMIRESCU             4            4             0              2              9          19

AG        CALINESTI               16            17            0              0              7          40

BH        DRAGESTI                 4            0             0              6              9          19

BT        COPALAU                  9            1             0              0              9          19

BV        APATA                    9            6             2              1             28          46

BZ        VERNESTI                15            0             0              0             12          27

CS        BERZOVIA                 0            1             0              0              7          8

CJ        MINTIU GHERLII           2            0             0              0              6          8

CT        PESTERA                  7            1             0              0              5          13

CV        VALCELE                 11            2             0              1             24          38

DB        I. L. CARAGIALE         15            5             0              0             10          30

DJ        ORODEL                   0            0             0              0              9          9

GL        MASTACANI               20            3             0              1             11          35

GJ        BUSTUCHIN                7            2             0              0              1          10

HG        CIUCSANGEORGIU           4            0             0              0             18          22

HD        TURDAS                   8            3             0              0              4          15

IL        TRAIAN                   1            1             1              1             10          14

IS        VOINESTI                16            9             3              0             45          73

MM        RUSCOVA                  0            5             0              0              1          6

MH        SIMIAN                  24            3             0              1             24          52




                                                     266
MS        ALBESTI                  4           3           0              0    17     24

NT        VANATORI-NEAMT          10           3           4              1    16     34

          VALEA
PH                                13           3           4              3     4     27
          CALUGAREASCA

SJ        NUSFALAU                 4           4           0              0     8     16

SM        BOTIZ                    3           1           0              0    10     14

SB        ROSIA                   14           4           0              0    23     41

TR        BRANCENI                 2           0           0              0     1     3

TM        SANPETRU MARE            8           4           0              3    14     29

TL        TOPOLOG                  7           5           0              0     2     14

VL        RACOVITA                 2           5           1              0    21     29

CS        MEHADICA                 0           28          0              9    23     60

BH        TINCA                   40           9           4              2    90    145

CT        COGEALAC                13           3           0              2    12     30

CL        SPANTOV                  7           3           1              0     6     17

          Total                   302         140          20             34   508   1004
     Source: World Bank, Source Communities Study, February-March 2018.




                                                    267
                                         Competence makes a difference!
      Project selected under the Administrative Capacity Operational Program, co-financed by European Union from the
                                                   European Social Fund




  „Development of Plans for the De-Institutionalization of Children Deprived of
     Parental Care and their Transfer to Community-Based Care, SIPOCA 2�
                 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
                                        February 2017
This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Romanian
                                         Government.




                                                           268