The de-institutionalisation step by step – the Romanian experience

1. The de-institutionalisation step by step – the Romanian experience Step Up: Sharing Successes and Challenges in De-institutionalization Budapest, April 24-25, 2008

2. Old-style institutions

3. Main directions of the reformstarted in 1997 • The decentralisation of child protection activities • The restructuring and diversification of childcare institutions • The development of family-type alternatives to residential childcare • The prevention of child abandonment

4. Restructuring/modulating residential institutions - Providing furniture and equipment to the placement centresto allow children to create an intimate, personal space: a personal closet, individual clothes, games, toys and books for each child- „Humanisation” of the huge dormitories, their transformation in smaller dormitories and the setting up of day-rooms

5. Closing down old-style residential institutions - 284 old-style residential institutions closed down in the period 1998-2007: large institutions, with more than 100 children, “leagăne” (institutions for children under 3 years of age) and hospital homes for handicapped children- solutions identified and developed for closing down old-style institutions: reintegrating the child into the birth family, child protection through family-type alternatives (relatives, other families/persons, professional maternal assistants), the protection of the child in family-type homes or apartments

6. Family type homes

7. Rehabilitation centres

8. Financial resources • The Reform programme financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Council of Europe’s Development Bank • the 1999 Phare programme „Children First”, • the 2001 Phare programme „Children First 2”, • the 2002 Phare programme „Children First 3”, • the ChildNet programme financed by USAID)

9. EU-financed Phare programmes • Phare 1999, 2001, 2002 • Main components: grant scheme, technical assistance and public awareness campaign • 91 residential institutions closed down

10. Phare 2002 • 26 institutions closed in 14 counties • Alternative services set up: 4 recovery centres for children with disabilities, 6 day-care centres, 3 mother and baby centres, 3 emergency reception centres, 82 apartments and 40 family type homes, 13 professional maternal assistance networks extended

11. Monitoring of the project • Project Implementation Unit – NAPCR • Grant Steering Commitee • Technical assistance component - 5 teams of 3 specialists each: child protection, the financial and procurement and construction works experts

12. (Pre)Conditions imposed • The complex evaluation of the target group was to be completed within one month of the signature of the contract; • It was not allowed to use the building of the institutions that had to be closed for setting up any residential services for children; • Reintegration or the use of the Maternal Assistance network as an alternative service was to be given preference over the use of Family Type Units, always subject to the outcome of the complex evaluation of the child; • Children reintegrated with their family were to be regularly monitored for a minimum of 6 months after the reintegration took place; • In case of the recovery centres for children with disabilities, there had to be confirmation that specialist staff was available in the community or in its neighbourhood;

13. (Pre)Conditions imposed (2) • The locations of the Family Type Units had to be based on the results of the complex evaluation of the target group and had to take into account the domicile and educational needs of the children; • The DGASPC had to prove that all the efforts are made in order to ensure that all the children, including disabled or HIV/AIDS children, take part in the educational system; • The DGASPC had to renounce their internal procedure concerning the transferring children in the target group to another residential institution than the one that was to be closed and to find another suitable solution for all the children; • All the children transferred to the domicile county had to be monitored and the DGASPC implementing the project had to make all the efforts to ensure that the receiving DGASPC found a proper (family type) solution for them;

14. (Pre)Conditions imposed (3) • The entrance of new children in the institution that was to be closed was not allowed; the exceptions were included in the target group and suitable solutions had to be found for them like for all the other children; • The children and the staff of the institutions had to be informed on the changes that were coming, consulted and involved in the identifications of the solutions and in the design of the alternative services; staff was offered (subject to its evaluation and participation in training sessions) the possibility to work in the new services or to become maternal assistants; • Where more than one project was approved for one county, an individualised implementation team had to be appointed for each project.

15. Various problems in the previous programmes • Reintegrations that were not enough prepared and failed; • Transfer of children in the new services not prepared; • Children transferred to other placement centresor to other counties without being monitored; • Discontentment of the staff. • Use of the Emergency Fund

16. Various problems in the previous programmes • Reintegrations that were not enough prepared and failed; • Transfer of children in the new services not prepared; • Children transferred to other placement centresor to other counties without being monitored; • Discontentment of the staff. • Use of the Emergency Fund

17. To conclude… • 50 institutions are to be closed down; • Funding: national and county budgets, but also structural funds or other international financial mechanisms; • Priorities of the DGASPCs: to maintain the quality of the services created and to develop other types of services responding to some newer or older needs; to coordinate the prevention activities that are now the responsibility of the social assistance services placed at the level of the municipalities.

18. Thank you for your attention!rodica.paslaru@anpca.ro