Regional Factbooks

Government Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty
Romania’s New Child Welfare Reform Effort: Will It Make A Difference?
Author:- Beth M. Matschullat

Abstract

In May of 2001, the Romanian government released a new strategy to reform the child welfare system. The Government Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty is an ambitious plan to correct massive inefficiencies within the child welfare system and implement standards in line with those of the Western Europe. The strategy calls for numerous structural changes by decentralizing responsibility. The strategy is analyzed in comparison to the current economic, political, and social situation in Romania to evaluate whether the effort goes far enough and if it will make a difference in the lives of thousands of institutionalized children.

Chapter 2: Introduction

-- The images of 1989 are still with us. After the fall of the Ceausescu regime, the truth about Romania was exposed. The experiment to create a great Romanian state had gone horribly awry. The decree that each woman must have a least five children or face stringent fines, in a country where light bulbs were regulated, had created an entire subculture of lost children. Unable to provide proper care for their children and convinced by the State that institutionalized care would be best, desperate parents placed tens of thousands of children into orphanages.

Background

The truth of 1989 is the State was unable and unwilling to care for the legions of abandoned children. The images rushed to television screens around the world showed children tied to their beds, malnourished and neglected, children treated like animals, and dying by the hundreds of AIDS. With the Iron Curtain gone, aid organizations and potential adoptive parents rushed to Romania. State officials, nurtured in a corrupt regime, took advantage of opportunities to support meager salaries through graft. The Romanian government, struggling to provide a regular supply of basic services such as electricity and water, could and did little to improve the situation. Organizations willing to take some of the burden off of the state were welcomed. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provided many basic social services. Foreign donations were relied upon to provide food for orphanages. After the initial rush of compassion for the institutionalized children, attention turned to the government and what it was, and was not, doing to improve the situation of children in need.

Throughout the 1990’s, various attempts have been made at reforming the inefficient and corrupt Romanian child welfare system. Each effort accompanied promises about the changes that would follow. Each time, very little changed. Currently, anywhere from 90,000-110,000 children still live in orphanages, both privately and publicly run (AP, 2000, ¶ 2 ). Although an exact figure is in dispute, there is general agreement that the numbers are basically the same as in 1989 (Financial Times, 2000, ¶ 5). After 12 years of effort, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, the same number of children are languishing in institutions in 2001 as in 1989, this despite a sharp drop by half a million in Romania’s overall population during the same time period (in large part due to emigration and availability of contraceptives, which had been outlawed under the Ceausescu regime) (Agenda 2000).

Concurrent to the government struggling to create adequate standards for thousands of children in institutions, the Romanian nation began to look west rather than east for a future (Anderson, Wiessala, & Williams, 2000, p.239). Knowledgeable of the huge potential Western Europe offered for economic growth, and determined to “return to Europe”, the Romanian government began to seriously advocate for eventual membership into the European Union (EU). Acceptance by the European super state would signify a complete break from the past (Strategy Paper 2000, p.2).

In September of 1991, the European Commission opened exploratory talks with Romania on future membership. In May of the following year, the nature of the talks turned to negotiating a Europe Agreement. (A “Europe Agreement” consists of six elements: political dialogue, free trade and freedom of movement, economic cooperation, cultural cooperation, financial cooperation, and institutions of association and is considered the first step towards eventual membership) (Baun, 2000, p.33). After two years of negotiation, the Europe Agreement with signed between the EU and Romania in 1993.

In 1993, parallel to the finalization of talks between the EU and Romania, the European Council held a conference in Copenhagen. From this event emerged the promise that “the countries in Central and Eastern Europe that so desire shall become members of the Union. Accession will take place as soon as a country is able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions” (Strategy 2000, p1).

From the start, the EU pressured Romania to make changes in the child welfare system, bringing standards in line with that of Western Europe. The EU provided millions of dollars in financial aid to assist in this massive undertaking. After several failed reform efforts, by 1997 the Romanian government was prepared to try again. The reform strategy emphasized decentralization, putting the responsibility for children in the hands of local judets, or counties. Directorates for Child Protection (DPC) at the county level would be responsible for the operation of orphanages and many of the other functions associated with child welfare, including international adoption (Strategy 2000, p.14).

As part of the 1997 reform effort, the system of adoption was reorganized. International adoption had become a source of hard currency, and national leaders were aware that this source of income was being lost through corruption. Determined to funnel the dollars, pounds, marks, and francs earned from adoption into the public coffers, the government in Bucharest created a system in which the fees associated with adoption would be used to fund other child welfare programs. In a sense, the children adopted by families abroad would provide income to care for the children left behind.

By 2000 however, the new system was obviously as corrupt as the old. The points system, in which private adoption agencies were awarded “points” based on the level of contribution to the child welfare system, was misused by local officials and unscrupulous agencies determined to get healthy infants assigned. Essentially, each adoption agency was awarded points and based on those points, the DPC would assign the agency children eligible for adoption. Money to the DPC, to “support” child welfare programs, would give an agency points and place it at the top of the list to be assigned healthy infants, the easiest to adopt. Desperate parents would pay thousands of dollars, which went into the pockets of officials.

In February of 2000, the Romanian government released a long-term governing program, which included objectives for a reformed child welfare system. The Government Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty was completed and approved in May of 2001. By this time, Romania was also working harder at European integration and pressing for a firm commitment by the EU for a membership date. With 2009 looming closer, the date the EU has predicted Romania will be ready for membership, the Romanian government appears to be serious about truly reforming the system (Romanian Business Journal, 2001, ¶ 1). The EU, tired of pouring millions in the system with little improvement, was also prepared to make concrete stipulations for Romania to achieve the long-sought goal of membership.

Just as the Romanian government was preparing to release the new strategy and put it before the legislature for debate and approval, the EU was preparing to take more drastic steps. The European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee on Romanian’s accession progress urged the suspension of Romania’s EU membership negotiations if the government failed to resolve the long-standing problem of institutionalized children (The Financial Times, 2001, ¶ 1).

In recognition of the enormous strain placed on Romania by the transition from communism to democracy, the EU realized it also needed to provide leadership (Strategy 2000). Emma Nicholson, a former administrator with Save the Children, was appointed the European rapporteur for Romania. Nicholson, however, became one of the fiercest critics of the child welfare system, noting “the close links between government officials and international adoption agencies were exacerbating the problem” (The Financial Times, 2001, ¶ 7).

Stung by the European Committee’s statement that Romania was the furthest from membership of the 12 candidate countries, the government in Bucharest was determined to create a new child welfare system palatable to the EU, one which would not hinder membership talks. Baroness Nicholson further noted that while the lack of improvement in child welfare would not exclude Romania altogether from eventual membership, it would impede progress (Romanian Business Journal, 2000, ¶ 3),

Problem Statement

With the national strategy officially adopted and implementation beginning, the worth of the program must be evaluated. Romania has spent the twelve years since the fall of the Iron Curtain working to reform its economy, political system, administrative capacity, and social structures. The program makes many ambitious promises. Will the new strategy improve the child welfare system? Is the new government of President Iliescu serious about reform? Will EU membership hopes push Romania into making the necessary reforms to "return to Europe"?

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Due to the relative newness of the strategic effort, no empirical research exists. However, there is a wealth of knowledge covering the existing political, economic, administrative, and social conditions in Romania, each of which has substantial impact on the design and implementation of the reform policy.

Statistical Data

Several international organizations, with experience in Romania, have conducted extensive research. UNICEF has substantial experience with the collection and publication of data relating to the health and well-being of children around the world. UNICEF is generally considered to be a neutral and reliable source. The World Bank also owns a positive image regarding the organization’s compilation of global economic data. In addition, UNICEF recently published a report on child poverty in the formally Communist states of East Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Titled A Decade of Transition, the project examines the situation of children in the region, including Romania, by examining health and educational status, demographic changes, and the condition of children in public care. The reports notes several alarming trends in Romania, including the incidence of deep-rooted poverty which affects children negatively, poorer access to health and educational services by children in public care, and the lack of progress in reducing the number of institutionalized children in Romania. The authors of the report urge radical reforms in child welfare systems to correct these inadequacies (UNICEF, 2001).

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) continues to focus its activities in Romania on structural change through self-sustainability programs. A September, 2001 conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, sponsored by USAID produced several working papers on pressing issues in the area. The Romania group produced a document that offers up several recommendations for broadening the benefits of transition to all citizens, using data provided by the Romanian Government and the United Nations Development Program (USAID Partners in Transition II, 2001).

Transparency International generated the Global Corruption Report, 2001, which includes a section on East Central Europe. The review of Romania reveals an environment in which corruption still flourishes and the political will to fight it is weak. The increasing influence of NGOs and the EU in Romania is noted as a positive trend, as policies which promote more open and honest government, are promoted by both.

Government Data

The European Union proffers all major documents and agreements relating to Romania’s membership status. Each year the official position of the EU on Romania’s progress towards meeting membership guidelines is released in report form. The 2000 and 2001 reports were used for this project. The 2001 report is more favorable to Romania, including it among countries that have made significant progress, noting positive developments in the child welfare system.

The Romanian Government publishes the national strategies in Romanian, English, and French versions. To gain the most accurate information, the English versions were exclusively used for this project. The Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty is a twenty-six-page document listing the goals and objectives, desires outcomes, assignment of responsibility, and guidelines for implementation (for further information, see appendixes A & B, and table 3). The Romanian government also publishes on-line recent speeches, in Romanian and English, made by high-ranking public officials.

Other Sources

In addition to the government and institutional information available, other sources were utilized to provide broad-based and accurate knowledge. Peter Jordan’s 1999 article on Regional Identities and Regionalization in East-Central Europe evaluated Romania’s judet (county) system and the administrative capability at lower levels of government to implement large-scale reform.

Nationalism and Civil Society in Romania (1999) by Bruce Haddock and Ovidiu Caraiani inspected Romania’s nascent civil society, and its relationship to political and social change. Reasons for the lack of progress, including opposition by nationalist groups, are discussed. The focus moves to European integration and how growth in civil society becomes more imperative.

Carlos Boix’s 2001 article entitled Deadlocked Romania studies Romania lack of progress in the transition to a market economy, including a certain, growing nostalgia for the past. Boix notes “Romania’s continued social and economic problems, along with popular disappointment with the successive governments’ efforts, have led many Romanians to long for the security and certainties of the communist era” (p.125). Boix further points out the neglect of education, health care, and social policies by successive post revolutionary governments.

Values and Political Change in Postcommunist Europe (Miller, White, & Heywood, 1998) investigates the roles of citizens in the “new” Romania. Although published prior to the 2001 child welfare reform effort, the authors’ belief in the necessity of increased citizen participation at the local levels for democratic reforms to fully take hold, is in line with the Romanian government’s intentions to include more community based services, as noted in the strategic plan.

Several recent publishings have focused on European enlargement and the impact this change is have on the applicant countries. In New Europe in Transition (Anderson, Wiessala, & Williams, 2000), a 1997 poll conducted by the EU showed great support in Romania for membership efforts, noting the majority believes the future of their countries lies with the EU. The authors mention the EU’s adamant insistence on radical reform to improve the situation of institutionalized children prior to formal membership. Social Policy in the European Union (Roberts & Springer, 2001) examines EU social policies and the insistence on adoption by the applicant countries of similar policies.

A great deal of current information on Romania is derived from news sources, including the Associated Press, Reuters, the BBC, and Rompress, the Romanian news service. The news releases do not provide in-depth knowledge, but do allow up-to-date information on statements by government officials, events, press releases, and visits by European dignitaries..

Chapter 3: Methodology

Overview

This attempt to evaluate the quality and probability for success of the Romanian child welfare reform effort uses information amassed from a variety of sources, including journal and newspaper sources from both the United States and Europe, studies and statistics gathered by several nonprofit organizations active in Romania, government documents obtained from Romanian Government and European Union sources, and published literature regarding the transition experience in Romania, the current state of affairs, and the impact of EU expansion on East Central Europe. In addition, personal experience is heavily utilized.

Personal Experience

This author had the opportunity to work with a Romanian social service NGO in the summer of 2001, over a one-month span. Located in the western city of Timisoara, Bethany Social Services Foundation (BSSF) has over a decade of experience in Romania. Bethany operates several programs which include international and domestic adoption, foster parenting, fund raising, social worker training, reunification, and prevention of abandonment. In cooperation with World Vision, BSSF administers the largest USAID recipient program in Romania.

The specific program that this author worked with cared for 16 autistic children, all of them raised in a state orphanage. The program, called Healing Hands, was founded by a small non-profit organization of the same name based in Michigan. In 2001, the program was the recipient of a USAID grant, awarded with the stipulation the focus would embrace self-sustainability. Over the years, NGOs and other international charitable organizations had provided many social services the government did not. USAID believes a culture of dependence had been created, and with the humanitarian crisis over, the focus should turn to self-sustainability. Bethany began working with the local directorate of Child Protection in 2001 to move ownership and administration of the program from a NGO and a US-based charity to the county child welfare agency.

Limitations

Contact was made with several social workers, who were willing to discuss the reform effort and the state of child welfare. Several orphanages operated by the state were visited and staff members were interviewed on an informal basis. Many Romanians continue to remain suspicious of formal survey or interview mechanisms and are more willing to communicate honest opinions in casual situations, versus one more structured. The information gathered in this manner is subjective and is used in a style reflecting this approach. Information was collected from both Romanians working in social service occupations and Americans working in the administrative capacity for NGOs. The information has been analyzed mindful of the unique points of views each person may hold based on background and experience.

Public Sources

The Romanian national government operates a website and posts many government documents, translated into English, through this forum. The European Union (www.europa.eu), the World Bank, UNICEF, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development also post all important documents, treaties, strategic plans, statistics, and research findings on their websites. USAID, the development arm of the United States Government, active in Romania for over a decade, is an additional source of information. The author did not collect this type of data used personally.

Transparency International, with an office in Romania, is a global organization dedicated to working against corruption. The organization conducts numerous surveys and studies, which are available to the general public. Transparency International maintains a high degree of confidence and neutrality in its fight against government corruption around the world. The recently released Global Corruption Report 2001 provided information of the level of corruption in existence in Romanian public life, the government’s commitment to creating a more transparent system, and citizens’ perceptions about the honestly of public officials.

Journal and newspaper articles from a variety of sources relating to the topic were reviewed. Several other publications relating to the experiences of transition in Romania were reviewed for the purpose of gathering additional information. A substantial body of literature exists, published mainly by European-based authors, concerning the expansion of the European Union eastwards. European-based news sources, including Reuters and the BBC regularly publish events that have connection with expansion efforts in Romania. Rompress, Romania’s new organization, also provides continuous news coverage of current events.

Limitations

A variety of sources were used ensure the validity of the information. Knowledge gained from government, non-profit agency and private organization information sources is used to verify data and present different views on the subject, as much as possible. Certain limitations do exist based on the use of personal observations and experiences by the author and informal interviews conducted in Romania.

Chapter 4: Findings

The plan, the result of continuing pressure by the EU and the realization by Romanian officials that to truly “rejoin Europe”, Romania would need to improve the welfare situation of its abandoned children, is ambitious. The government proposes to completely reform the system. The strategy creates a new committee to oversee the national system. The National Authority for the Protection of the Child and Adoption (NAPCA), replacing the old Romanian Adoption Committee (RAC), will play the central role and coordinate the activities of all actors involved in the field of child welfare. Keeping in line with the decentralization trend occurring across Europe, local administrators will play key roles in improving the lives of institutionalized children. Finally, in recognition of the economic situation still inherent in Romania and the inability of the government to provide in totality the necessary services, the strategy also creates a framework for cooperation with both Romanian and foreign non-governmental organizations.

In June of 2001, the Romanian government also placed a moratorium on international adoption, which was formally codified on October 9, 2001 as Emergency Order 121. Issued partly at the urging of rapporteur Emma Nicholson, the ban will remain in place until the system can be sufficiently reformed. By this time aware of the precarious state regarding EU membership negotiations and desperate to improve the situation, Romania has allowed Baroness Nicholson and the EU to gain a great deal of influence over domestic child welfare policy (Anderson, Wiessala, & Williams, 2000, p.232).

The new government strategy acknowledges the various treaties on human rights and child welfare that Romania is a signatory to, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. “The life, development, and welfare of the children in this country are a fundamental responsibility of the entire Romanian society. The unification of all efforts in order to improve the situation of children may represent a model of national understanding and cooperation.” (National Strategy, sect. 1.5). The emphasis on international treaties is an important psychological step for Romania. Serious about erasing the effects of forty-five years of isolation, international agreements and membership with international organizations are an important phase of the process (Anderson, Wiessala, & Williams, 2000, p.19).

The National Authority for the Protection of the Child and Adoption is the government’s branch to “draft, coordinate, and monitor” all policies in the field. (National Strategy, sect. 2.1) By fulfilling several functions (strategic, regulatory, administrative, representative, and authority), NAPCA is to ensure adherence, improvement, accountability, while allowing for local efforts at meeting objectives. Attempting to define roles and responsibilities, the expected objectives of various federal ministries (Interior, Health, Labor, and Education) and officials at the local level is outlined. The national strategy also outlines goals and objectives, with timelines for achieving them.

In recognition that in addition to the thousands of children in orphanages, the term “child in difficulty” includes children in families at risk, children with special needs, street children, and children with behavioral and emotional problems, the national strategy attempts to be an all-inclusive document to provide structure for all child welfare services. The strategy covers the years 2001-2004, as the need for reform is a long term commitment.

Several interesting points about the directives quickly become apparent (see Appendix A). Domestic adoption is the new push, in accordance to the principle of “a family for a child” and to maintain children adopted from institutions in the “linguistic, psychological and social environment that is familiar to them”. International adoption is to be the last resort, when all other avenues for domestic adoption have been exhausted. Romania was one of the most expensive places to adopt children, and the process brought in substantial amounts of hard currency each year. According to Bethany Social Services Foundation, the in-country fees for adoption averaged US$8,500.

The United States has been a primary destination for children adopted internationally from Romania. In 1989, 138 Romanian children came to the US. By 1991, the number had jumped to 2,594. As the chaos abated, the numbers did stabilize. However, in 2000, 1,122 children were adopted by US families from Romania (US State Dept Office on Children’s Issues, 2000). The EU, through Emma Nicholson, is emphasizing domestic adoption, family reunification, and small group homes replacing large institutions. The United States government, though, continues to push for a lifting of the moratorium of “controlled, legal intercountry adoptions at the earliest possible date so that orphaned Romanian children can again be placed in caring adoptive homes.” (US State Dept, 2001))

In the midst of the debate about child welfare reform and the future of Romania, a third issue comes into play. Economically, Romania is struggling to emerge from recession. After 3 years of contraction, in 2000 Romania finally experienced a small rate of growth of 1.6%. According to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the projected rate of growth for 2001 is 4.1%. With Romania’s main trading partners, the US and the EU, entering recessionary conditions, the forecast could prove overly optimistic. In 2000, the EBRD estimated almost 45% of the population to be living below the poverty line. This is of particular importance, considering the number one reason children are abandoned by their family is poverty. Unemployment continues to hover around 10% and inflation continues to remain high, estimated to be at 35% for 2001. As late as the 29th of November, Romania was experiencing social unrest due to continue economic difficulty, as 10,000 workers marched through the streets of Bucharest protesting poverty, low wages and official corruption. (AP, 2001, ¶ 1)

Simultaneous to the Romanian government’s attempts to reform the child welfare system, a broader trend is occurring in the European Union and aspiring member states. The continuing move towards a European super state is seemingly at odds with this movement towards regionalism. However, Jordan notes “in order to gain public support for this process [EU integration], the growth of a European identity as well as the existence or the growth of regional identities are desirable” (p. 235). The Union is actively promoting regionalization in the political and administrative sense and strengthening the abilities of regional authorities. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) puts regions, not states, in complete charge for some areas of responsibility, including the distribution of EU Structural Funds (p. 236). The European government in Brussels is faced with increasing responsibility as the Union enlarges, thus increased decision making at lower levels of government becomes essential (Schulz & Konig, 2000, p.653). Policy issues relating to the functionality of core EU duties remain in Brussels, while other issues are devolved to regional and local bodies.

The need to weaken the nation-state is also evident, in order to gain acceptance by local populations and officials as the Union expands. On January 1st, the majority of nations in the EU will forego their national currencies for the use of the Euro. Encouraging citizens to form a bond will levels of government other than the nation-state is an essential component of success. The strengthening of regional identity in Europe correlates to the same trend in Romania (Jordan, 2001, p.260).

Corruption among EU countries is also related to the decentralization trend (Pujas and Rhodes, 1999, p. 688). The removal of power from the sphere of highly politicized and corrupt systems and holding regional and local administrators accountable has a two-fold result. The cleansing of the process, while also transferring power closer to citizens, revitalizes faith in the system and opens up access (p.701). Participation by citizens is encouraged at the local level. Again, this trend can be applied to Romania. The central state is viewed by citizens and international observers to be very corrupt. The devolution of power to county and local authority works to remove power from the authority figures deemed part of the problem (Global Corruption 2001).

The trend has several important implications for Romania. The stress under the Communist government was the central state, responsible for the planning of all aspects of life, from economic to social. The state offered lifelong care, starting with daycare and ending with pensions for the elderly. The development of regionalism, and in essence decentralization, is erasing the institutional structures from the Communist era. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) are scrambling to return to pre-1945 identities (Jordan 2001). In Romania, 41 judets, or counties, are the administrative institutions at the first level below the national state. There are seven, larger unofficial cultural/historical regions which have no administrative role. Since the fall of communism, there is a growing identification in Romania with region (p.260). While there is a historic basis of regional identity to draw from, there is little practical administrative experience for judet officials to use as the foundation for the increasing responsibility of ensuring the welfare of Romania’s institutionalized children. In 1997, the EU published an official position on Romania’s Application for membership, stating “The implementation of the principles and objectives is rendered difficult because of weak public administration at both a national and local level.” Furthermore, “Significant work is required in defining a legal basis, identifying and clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities of existing authorities and strengthening an adequate administrative structure before Romania is able to apply the community rules” (Opinion on Romania’s Application for Membership of the EU, 1997)

The previous child welfare reform effort, in 1997, also attempted to decentralize responsibility for child welfare. Solidified in a new public finance law enacted in 1998, the responsbility for orphanages and institutions was transferred to local government. Accompanying decentralization, almost no effort was made to provide funding or technical assistance to assist local authorities with the transitions. An ubiquitous danger with speeding up decentralization is the lack of experience and financial resources at the county and local level.

The inclusion of the objective “according to the current practices in the countries in the Euro-Atlantic area” is telling indictment of Romania’s future vision (National Strategy, see Appendix B). Determined to push through reforms bringing standards in Romania up to European levels, the government in Bucharest is adamant about meeting EU expectations and putting the past behind. Late in 2000, the presidential elections returned to power Ion Iliescu, a former Communist official and the first president of the newly democratic Romania of 1990. Iliescu was highly criticized in the 90’s for his autocratic demeanor and his management of a corrupt government (Global Corruption 2001, p.126). Aware of the censure and determined to show his new side, Iliescu has been affable to European requests and requirements. The Iliescu government has placed child welfare reform at the top of the national agenda (Action Plan for the Governing Programme 2001-2004). Several other of the Romanian government’s strategic action plans include references to European integration, with the National Medium-Term Development Strategy of the Romanian Economy declaring the purpose of reform is to create a market system “in consistence with EU principles, norms, mechanisms, institutions, and policies” (sect. 1)

The continued negative views of the situation of institutionalized children in Romania, held by European citizens, adds to the push by the EU for extensive reform and improvement, labeling this a serious human rights issue. While the situation remains grim for many children, small strides are being made, often at the hands of NGOs or government funded efforts at foster care. A recent event in Ireland underlines this. A four-year old girl from Romania with severe physical disabilities arrived in July of 2001 at an Irish home, a recipient of a program to give Romanian orphans a “vacation”. When the stay was over, the Irish foster mother resisted demands to return the little girl to her country, announcing if she “goes back to Romania, she will die”, denied the possibility of a better life in Ireland by heartless officials (Belfast News Letter, 2001, ¶ 5 ). After an initial rush of compassion, the truth of the story emerged. Despite the willingness of the Irish public to believe the worst about Romania, this case was different. The girl had been raised in a private institution, unassociated with the state, and had been placed over a year ago with a foster family. At the time of the controversy in Ireland, 7,000 foster families cared for children from institutions around Romania (The Financial Times, 2001, p.2). The families receive a stipend from the government to provide for the children’s needs. The National Strategy puts great emphasis on increasing the use of “substitute” families to care for children when the biological families cannot, which indicates further growth in this area

Foster parenting is a growing trend, and a healthy one for getting children out of institutions and into family settings when other options are not available. Foster parenting became an official government policy in 1997. Both NGOs and local DPCs train and license families, and pay for and monitor the children once in placement. On average, families associated with NGOs are paid a higher monthly stipend, around US$70 than the DPC offers, which is the equivilant of US$50. Both sums are substantial in Romania, with the average monthly salary at US$100. The Romanian government promised the EU last year it would allocate US$140 per month for every institutionalized child. The promotion of foster care is a financial efficiency choice, in addition to the social and emotional benefits for children (AP, 2001). Her foster parents were required to undergo 60 hours of training and were licensed by the local DPC before opening their home. In addition, they are to be visited by a DPC inspector biweekly, who monitors the home environment and provides some assistance to the family (Belfast News Letter, 2001).

The government claims about 4% of the children in state institutions have been placed with foster families (The Independent, 2000). While this is a heartening trend, the government has historically downplayed the numbers of abandoned children. Regardless, the trend towards foster parenting as an alternative is sign of changing attitudes and is a signal of accomplishment.

With the National Strategy officially approved by the Romanian Parliament, the next logical question to ask is what, if anything, will truly change. The document outlines the various activities and objectives, which agencies are responsible for the implementation, and the deadline for the successful completion of each, the beneficiaries of the action and the expected results. Some of the activities associated with the objectives are quite specific. For instance, the first major objective is to “develop and diversify the modalities of intervention in order to prevent abandonment and reduce institutionalization”. Falling under this objective is the specific goal of “restructuring a number of at least 40 residential care units for the protection of the child”, with a deadline of the 4th quarter of 2002. The satisfaction of this particular goal is feasible for Romania, even with the economic constraints present in the country. If the government is unable to allocate sufficient funding, several international and domestic NGOs are possible partners in the project.

Making sure that “the social welfare services contribute to supporting families in rearing and caring for their own children” will be much harder to reachl. Poverty is the primary reason parents abandon their children in Romania. According to the World Bank, the average salary is slightly over US$100 a month, and annual inflation remains high. In post-1989 Romania, living standards dropped in real terms by up to one-third in the early 1990s (White, Batt & Lewis, 1998. p.226). Economic development is a necessary additive for change in the child welfare system. As noted in the goal, the development of social welfare services is necessary to prevent of high levels of institutionalization of children by their parents suffering the effects of poverty. In western countries, social welfare services are a commonly accepted government benefit (Roberts & Springer, 2001, 11). Social welfare in Romania almost disappeared after 1989, and the assistance currently available is insufficient. The deadline associated with this goal is the 4th quarter of 2002. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development did forecast Romania post positive growth rates in 2001. The global economic situation has since changed and may adversely affect Romania’s economic recovery.

In compliance with the expectations to decentralize many aspects of the provisions of services to the county and community level, several of the goals are in accordance with this. Most specifically, “establishing and developing, at both county and community level, of the services that are involved in preventing child abuse and neglect, in preventing the exploitation of child labour [sic.], or making the child get into difficulty”, and “redefining the roles and adequate involvement of all the structures responsible for social protection policies at a national, county, and local level” (National Strategy, sect. 7). Decentralizing services and putting ownership and responsibility back into the community will be a tremendously difficult undertaking. Administrative institutions at the local level are weak. The reform attempt within child welfare is contingent upon the success of other reforms, in this specific case democratic and structural reform in the political and administrative processes (Jordan, 2001, p.262).

In Romania, a result of years of chaos, there is a general lack of trust in the officials and institutions of democracy, and the increasing sentiment that while Communism was defective, social services were operated better than currently (Miller, White & Heywood,1998, p.100). The new democratic institutions are difficult to understand after years of authoritarian rule, and a fear of disorder has created some nostalgia for the past. Further hindering the reform efforts is the deep rooted poverty in rural villages and the surrounding countryside, where populations are generally less receptive to change. (p. 262). Successful democratization is unlikely to take place in the absence of a political culture which is supportive of democratic reforms. Democratic reforms and the acceptance of the vital roles citizens play in a democracy are slowly taking root, with success in rural areas lagging behind that in urban centers (p.262).

Much of the success of the National Strategy relies on outside factors. In a sense, it is part of an entire reform package, a monumental effort by the Romanian government and people to once and for all shake off the efforts of the past and regain a place in Europe. Success has been is apparent in some areas, but nowhere near the level of neighboring countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic. A further threat to reform is an perceptible trend from the 2000 election, in which the second largest vote getter was Corneliu Vadim Tudor, leader of the ultra-nationalist Greater Romania Party (PRM). Tudor’s successful showing is reflective of continuing unhappiness with economic and social reforms. A 1993 poll found 60% of respondents to be disenchanted with the performance of government and 27% expressing a preference for an authoritarian government (Pridham and Lewis, 1996, p.223). With continuing economic uncertainty and broken government promises, the greatest likelihood is these survey numbers have changed little. The PRM has found a more receptive audience in rural areas, which is indicative of the struggles ahead as the decentralization effort branches out from counties and large cities to the village level. The perception exists that farmers and low-income groups have the least to gain from EU membership, and these groups show lower than average support for membership, and associated reform efforts (Anderson, Wiessala, & Williams, 2000, p.239). Decentralization, in-line with EU encouragement, may serve to remove power from the hands of nationalist politicians like Tudor. Devolution of the system and the broadening of authority, removes the spotlight from the central state, the focus of Tudor’s criticism.

An important part of the strategy is the development of alternate services to prevent abandonment, such as emergency shelters, counseling, day care centers, and assistance for parents of children with special needs (sect.7). These services are readily available in Western nations. For instance, in the United States, emergency shelters provide care for children while parents work through personal, emotional, and financial crises. In Romania, the orphanage performs this role. The residential institution has traditionally been the only source of care for children outside of the home. The change in emphasis to community and residential based option is a substantial shift.

The EU, through its PHARE program, is providing 25 million Euros, in addition to support from other organizations, such as the World Bank and the Bank for Development of the Council of Europe. The focus of the PHARE grant is a program called “Children First”, which aims to close out-dated institutions and improvement and develop child protection services, particularly at the local level. By focusing on localized assistance, the EU is encouraging county agencies to submit proposals for grants, in partnership with a NGO if so desired, which will hopefully promote an entrepreneurial spirit in fostering community solutions. According to the head of the European Commission Delegation in Romanian, Fokion Fotiadis, EU policy is to promote reform policy, and not to provide basic humanitarian aid when possible (BBC, 2000, ¶ 1). The PHARE program has been an important source of financial assistance for Romania over the last decade. However, in Agenda 2000, EU member states seemed committed to maintaining Union expenditures at existing levels, rather than explore ways to expand assistance to the East (Anderson, Wiessala, & Williams, 2000, p.19). Funding programs, in the short- and long-term, will challenge the Romanian government and its commitment to reform.

Staff development is another ambitious goal within the strategy (sect. 7). The level of professionalism within Romanian child welfare services is quite low. Many staff members at orphanages survived the fall of Communism and retained their jobs at state institutions. The pay is low, as is morale. With the potential threat of layoffs as institutions close, morale will most likely decrease even more. Few have any sort of formal education in the area of human services. The field of social work is new to Romania. Universities have begun to offer degree programs in social work, and graduates are now actively working in the field. However, NGOs remain the primary destination for formally trained social workers, with better pay, more flexibility, and less bureaucracy. Public employees assigned as social workers often do not have formal training. For example, as part of the Healing Hands program in Timisoara, the local DPC is working in partnership with a social service NGO to promote self-sustainability. Despite a formal agreement to provide a full time social worker, the DPC offered up a part-time psychologist. When pressed, the director of the DPC admitted they agreed to the terms knowing they would be unable to meet them.

In June of 2001, several children and one staff member at Healing Hands were diagnosed with Hepatitis A and hospitalized. The director of the orphanage, a state employee, was very resistant to efforts to immunize the children or take any other steps to sanitize the living area. The administrators of the program were convinced the director was afraid of losing her job, as government plans to deinstitutionalize child welfare became clearer. By pressing this experimental program to fail, the NGO staff believed the director wanted to show children were safer in a traditional, state-run institution. Staff development will require substantial financial resources, and the targeted completion date of the 4th quarter of 2004 will challenge limited funds.

The extra needs of children with disabilities are acknowledged in the national strategy, as is the government’s obligations. The percentage of children with disabilities living in institutions is higher than the general population. Partly because of the developmental delays omnipresent in children raised institutions, and partly because parents are more likely to abandon a child born with disabilities. Under the Ceausescu regime, children with disabilities were hidden away in orphanages, suffering degrading conditions. Special “hospitals” for the disabled were the most terrible under Ceausescu. Disabled children did not fit in his vision of a great Romanian state.

In June of 2001, the CBS newsmagazine 20/20, aired a program on adoption in Romania. One segment followed the return of a young man, adopted from a Romanian orphanage by an American family, on his first trip back to the land of his birth. His wish was to meet his biological family and ask they had abandoned him as a small child, and left him to grow up in an institution. This young man suffered severe physical disabilities as a result of childhood polio. His parents claimed they had no other choice. He was “sick” and he was better off in an orphanage, where he had the opportunity to receive medical care (20/20, 2001). Public educational institutions do not provide extra services for students with special needs. Disabled children, when kept with the family, often received little to no education or vocational training. For reintegration into general society, the level of services available to individuals with disabilities needs to increase.

Social service organizations used proceeds from international adoption, the fees paid by foreign parents, to fund domestic programs. The government was able to rely on NGOs to cover for its own lack of services. The new emphasis on domestic adoption is a welcomed step, to prevent fraud and remove the focus from using children to bankroll the system. International adoption also allowed for a certain escaping of responsibility in caring for Romania’s lost children. According to Romanian sources, domestic adoptions rose by 38% from 1997 to 2000. Over the same time period, international adoptions rose by 29% (AP, 2000, ¶ 12). Foreign parents adopted three times as many children as Romanians parents. While some social stigmas do exist against taking in a child not from one’s own family, there is a growing acknowledgement of the situation of abandoned children and some acceptance of the responsibility of the Romanian people to improve it. For several years after 1989, there was a general reluctance on the part of many Romanians to even acknowledge the huge scale of children living in institutions or their dire conditions.

There are other signs the government is prepared to seriously address the issue of children at risk and take more substantial action to develop a workable solution. Adrian Nastase was selected as the new Prime Minister in the Spring of 2001. Nastase has shown commitment to improving the system of child welfare. Emma Nicholson has made public her own enthusiasm for working with the Nastase government, a relief to Romania growing weary of her criticism (BBC, 2001, ¶ 1).

In June of 2000, a European delegation charged Romanian officials with stealing aid destined for orphanages, including food items. There are other instances of theft by workers of items destined for institutions, much of it donated from abroad. The delegation made a complaint to OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud watchdog group. With a warning the EU will not tolerate fraud, OLAF pledged to keep a close eye on the transparency and accountability by Romanian officials involved in the EU funded programs (Agence France Presse, 2000 ¶ 4). Corruption is endemic in Romanian public administration (Global Corruption 2001). OLAF’s increased scrutiny over Romanian performance may help to create a more open system. Child welfare reform cannot fully succeed without increased levels of responsibility and accountability.

The role of non-governmental actors in Romania is mixed blessing. The government has grown reliant on NGO social service provisions, creating a culture of dependence. However, after almost half a century of Communism, the presence of non-state actors is an important aspect of the strengthening of civil society development and allows for growing experience of working with non-state actors, for both citizens and public officials. Privatization is an accepted way of government in the United States. The role of government is changing, moving away from being the sole provider of all public services. Europe is experiencing the same trend. For Romania, emerging from a highly centralized and planned system, change is slow. The economic sector is the setting of the most progress, with privately owned shops, restaurants, businesses and factories opening around the country. In the realm of social services, most citizens still expect the government to be the sole provider, even when not done well. The mindset is slowly changing.

EU grants to the local level are to encourage the outsourcing of services and contracts, when local governments are unable to provide services. The EU will provide the grants, which are funneled through the Romanian government. The local body may directly provide the services, or fund an independent body to do so. In foster parenting, NGOs are the main actors involved. Currently, NGOs fund foster parents separately from the state. For instance, in the city of Cernavoda (infamous for the nuclear plant located there), the US charity World Vision pays for and monitors seven foster families. In the judet which includes Cernavoda, of the 200 children in foster care, the government pays for only half.

President Iliescu, before his return to power last year, assuaged many critics of his previous terms by promising to focus on child welfare reform during his election campaign (Romanian Business Journal, 2000, ¶ 1). Progress is being made and the national strategy is a major effort, requiring the participation and commitment of actors from the international and national levels to the smallest communities. In June, the Romanian Mission in Brussels sent an information note to the EU to about recent measures taken to meet expectations. The ratification of the UN Convention on Child Rights by the parliament was a step to ensure full conformity. The needs of street children were acknowledged and were eventually included into the National Strategy plan. Plans to close a large center in Bucharest were initiated, and the government officially committed itself to providing treatment and care for children infected with HIV/AIDS (European Information Service, 2000, ¶ 2). The large presence of HIV/AIDS among children is a legacy of the practice under the Ceausescu regime of giving children blood transfusions to make them healthier. The costs associated with caring for individuals infected with AIDS or HIV will be substantial.

This author visited a TB hospital ward for children in the western city of Timisoara in August of 2001. In addition to the 30+ children sharing two rooms, a small boy lie on a bed against a far wall, neither moving nor showing much interest in the arrival of two foreigners accompanying a social worker passing out fruit, a luxury item in a state run hospital. When asked, the ward director was very forthcoming that the boy had AIDS and was going to die. Nothing could be done by the staff to help him, there were no medications, and she could justify wasting efforts on him when he was a lost cause. Difficult to understand, this continues to often be the reality.

This author also had the opportunity to visit a dystrophic hospital, which essentially operates as a baby orphanage. Children abandoned by their parents as infants are placed here. If not reclaimed by family, the children are to move on to a regular orphanage after reaching one year of age. Many toddlers were observed in the facility, and the staff member present explained this to be a result of a slow bureaucracy and the lack of space in other orphanages. The orphanage itself was much brighter and cleaner than the norm of previous years, but the children were still left to lie in their cribs much of the state and showed severe developmental delays.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Will the National Strategy make a Difference?

Romania itself is still in the midst of the transition process from a centrally-planned, authoritarian state to a democratic nation with open markets. Neighbors such as Poland and the Czech Republic engaged in shock therapy, to push through reform efforts quickly. Romanian officials stated their desire to proceed with reforms slowly, to minimize the painful efforts on the Romanian people. Inconsistent laws have and continue to impede economic development. In retrospect; the Romanian solution appears anything but. Deepening poverty is not an inherent result of transition, but one of an ongoing economic crisis and “the defective strategies applied to economic reform” (USAID Partners in Transition II p.6).

The economic situation continues to be precarious for many people. Despite positive signs of growth expected for the end of 2001, almost half of the population continues to live below the poverty line, which is defined as US$40/month. The primary reason children are abandoned by their parents is poverty. In 1998, almost one-half of children between 7-15 years old were considered poor (see Table 2) (USAID Partners in Transition II, 2001, p. 4). Without concurrent economic growth and reform, prevention of abandonment and reunification efforts will never fully succeed. The support services planned for within the national strategy are a vital component, but do not detract from the first priority of enabling parents to financially care for their children. The improvement of familial assistance measures, such as stipends for families with children, tax credits, or other types of financial aid programs, which currently exist only at the most basic level in Romania, would provide essential support in keeping children within the biological family.

On a positive note, the government has shown willingness to continue to push through reform efforts. The EU is watching closely for signs of Romania’s commitment to these efforts, and for its part, Romania clearly understands that membership hinges on the results. Reasons for optimism have been noted. However, a rise in living standards remains the most important factor when evaluating the possible outcome of the child welfare strategy.

Shortcomings

Several areas are not sufficiently addressed in the national strategy. Salaries for social service workers need to be raised to encourage people to choose a career in the field and to retain good workers. Communication with the current work force needs to be improved to calm workforce anxieties about the personal affects of the reform efforts. Workers left to fear the reform efforts, believing their jobs at risk, are more likely to consciously or unconsciously impede reform. Public employees will require job retraining to ease the transition process, as some services are privatized out and others are eliminated through the closure of state institutions. Within the drive to privatize some services rests a major concern of inexperience. Few public officials have experience with developing and negotiating contracts, the assignment of roles and responsibilities with non-state actors, and communicating changes to citizens.

The success of political and administrative reform will impact the outcome of child welfare restructuring. The EU has placed a great deal of emphasis on improvements in these two areas prior to the completion of the membership process. The 1990s were a period of enormous fraud and corruption within the child welfare system, as millions of dollars were pumped in by foreign charitable and governmental organizations. The willingness of the government to stick with the international adoption moratorium, despite gentle pressure from the United States and the income traditionally gained from adoptions, is a positive symbol that reform is being taken seriously at the highest of levels.

The faith of the Romanian people in government remains low. Recent protests in Bucharest attracted thousands of workers, demanding greater reform and openness within the political process. For the strategy to succeed, citizens must regain some level of faith in government. The reform effort depends on the involvement of thousands of individuals, including orphanage workers, families, NGOs, and others in community-based efforts. Without an understanding of and investment in the process, the outlook for success is dim. The government’s plan lacks more specific mechanisms on how citizens will become involved in the process. The National Strategy also lacks certain implementation and enforcement mechanisms, regarding the decentralization of responsibility.

With expected growth in the program, a more effective system of monitoring and supporting foster families also needs to be established, which the National Strategy ignores. Foster families take on a great deal of responsibility, in sense a 24-hour a day job, and also deserve support services to prevent a system where short term care becomes the norm, as in the case of the United States.

The continuing corruption intrinsic in Romanian administration also needs to be addressed for the successful conclusion of the reform effort. A 2001 study conducted by Transparency International gave Romania a ranking of 2.8, with a 10 indicating a fully transparent government The highest ranked country, Finland, was awarded a 9.9, the U.S. a 7.6. Guatemala, the Philippines, Senegal and Zimbabwe all ranked above Romania. A recent World Bank survey found two-thirds of Romanians believe “all” or “most” officials are corrupt, and many also believe corruption has achieved a state of normalcy. Forty-two percent of the respondents stated they had personally encountered bribery in the last 12 months (Global Corruption 2001). According to Transparency International, President Iliescu has yet to demonstrate any anti-corruption resolve and the return to power of an ex-communist leader under whom corruption had earlier flourished may prevent Romania from pulling itself out of poverty and joining the EU.

The Romanian Social Development Fund (RSDF), labeled a success by the USAID, can provide a model for design and implementation. The RSDF concentrated efforts at social development on the local level, intrinsic to the core USAID values of participation, democracy, and empowerment. By bringing communities closer to the decision making process, a corresponding increase occurred in the expectations of citizens. Instead of remaining focused on basic problems, such as road building and electricity provision, participants began to look at long-term development issues and regard community issues as problems they could solve. A more positive image evolved about the public officials involved. About 90% of respondents described the project management committees as honest and competent. While bureaucratic barriers to reform did not disappear, the increased transparency of government as perceived by citizens newly involved in the policy process is an indication of positive change (Partners in Transition II, 2001).

The national strategy will be extremely costly. Although no figures have been provided by the Romanian government, the eventually outlays will likely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The government is currently unable to contribute funding at this magnitude. A recent IMF loan deal was dependent on commitment by the government to limit budget deficits, despite the concurrent needs to increase social services. With the threat of reductions in other areas and labor unions increasing their activism to protest the potential loss of thousands of jobs with the closing of unprofitable state run industries, Romania will continue to rely greatly on foreign sources to assist in funding the overall effort. The EU has pledged substantial amounts, but the recent recessionary events will affect the continued willingness of EU countries and citizens to bear the high cost of reform in Romania.

The quality of health care has declined drastically in Romania since the Revolution, and without strong prenatal and child health care, a reform program on child welfare cannot succeed. The national strategy does not address the issue of health care reform and how it impacts the overall situation of child welfare, which is a serious oversight. According to the World Health Organization, 4.1% of the Romanian GDP, one of the lowest in Europe, is spent on public and private health care. This compares to 13% in the United States and 10.6% in Germany. Tuberculosis had made a dramatic reoccurrence in Romania, affecting 121 persons per 100,000, comparing to 7 per 100.000 in the U.S. (World Health Report 2001). The return of TB, called the “poor man’s disease”, is indicative of the plunge in social and economic conditions.

Education reform must also be addressed to improve the overall welfare of children. Lack of economic development has meant a decline in the level of funding provided by the government. The quality of education has suffered dramatically as a result. Old books, leaky ceilings, drafty classrooms, and falling academic standards have been the results. Institutionalized children have poorer access to health and educational services than the general population, leaving them woefully unprepared for an eventually integration into society once the age of majority has been reached.

Ongoing effort to decentralize government functions, particularly in the case of the child welfare strategy, must proceed at a pace with which local officials can sustain. While imperfect, national administrative capacities are far advanced than those of local and county officials. The devolution of power and responsibility must be implemented in a way which includes proper learning mechanisms to transfer knowledge, as well. According to Victor Groza, Professor of Social Work at Case Western University, as the child welfare system was decentralized after the 1997 reform act, there was “little or no effort to provide funding or technical assistance to assist communities with this transition.”

The UNICEF report recommended countries facing child poverty issues concentrate efforts on tackling the long-term issues that perpetuate child poverty, such as health and education, and supporting low income families through economic policy and tax and transfer system. Romania states, through the national strategy, its intention to strengthen family support services and encourage more family care solutions, such a day centers and emergency shelters. UNICEF urges countries to move away from being the main provider of out-of-home care, instead being the regulator and guarantor of quality (A Decade of Transition 2001).

As Romania progresses in the transition from Communism to democracy, the abilities of the government will be increasingly challenged. The creation of a strategic plan on the magnitude of the Government Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty is a solid beginning. The plan acknowledges the responsibility of the government and the nation in correcting the transgressions of previous decades. The incorporation of a strategic plan of this magnitude into the national agenda is a positive step. It is a learning process, in which Romania has made many mistakes. The growing openness and inclusiveness of the reform process, and the increasing availability of government documents and data to average citizens, are encouraging signs.

Essentially, the National Strategy for Child at Risk has little chance for success as a stand along program. The enforcement and accountability standards are weak. Combined with intensive reform efforts across the board, the potential for improvement exists. Concerted effort by politicians, political reform and economic development, growing civil society development and participation by non-state actors, an increased desire for participation by citizens as decentralization brings government closer to the people, and better accountability mechanisms are all necessary ingredients for child welfare reform to succeed. But only with activity in all of these areas will the effort have a chance at success. Realistically, three years is not enough time to fully achieve the stated objectives. A concentrated effort, over a longer span of time, can bring about substantial progress. With prodding by the European Union, child welfare reform has become a priority for the Romanian Government, which is the first step. Determined to proceed with integration, believing the only future lies with Europe, Romania has a long road ahead.

Romania is not stuck in the past. Romania has made progress. Romania is going in the right direction.

Prime Minister Adrian Nastase
11/06/01-Birmingham, UK

Appendix A

General Directions from the Government Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty

Appendix B

Expected Results From the Government Strategy Concerning the Protection of the Child in Difficulty

Table One

Poverty Rates in Romania 1995-2000

Source: Romania Government, 2001 and the Romanian working group for the Partners in Transition-II Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, Sept. 2001.

Poverty Threshold Used: Adopted by the National Strategy for Poverty Alleviation (1999)

Poverty rate is defined as 60% of average household consumption expenditure

Extreme poverty rate is defined as 40% of average household consumption expenditure

Table 2

Poverty Rate by Age Groups and Number of Children

Romanian Government 2001 and the Romanian Source: Working Group at the Partners in Transition II Conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, Sept. 2001.

Table 3

Objective III.

Continuing Decentralization from County to Local Level and Consolidating Local Institutional Capabilities in Order for Them to Assume Responsibility in Approaching the Problems Related to Children in Difficulty