Child care system reform in Moldova – progress and challenges

1. Child care system reform in Moldova – progress and challenges Minister Valentina Buliga Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family Republic of Moldova

2. Contents • Aims of the reform • The Moldovan context • Summary of reform to date 4. Entry points for the reform 5. Progress and challenges 6. Our priorities going forward

3. 1. The main aims of child care reform Achieving better outcomes for children by developing clear and consistent policy for child care across all sectors, and integrated with social services for the wider vulnerable population. Changing the way in which child care services are designed, managed and delivered. Reducing reliance of the population on long-term child care provision - in all its forms. ‘Whole-system’ reform that can achieve quality provision, effective results and that is efficient and affordable for Moldova.

4. 2. The Moldovan context • Demographic change • children form a declining share of a declining population (currently 22% of a population of 3.6 million) • therefore competing demands for resources from other age groups • heavy impact of migration • Changing economic fortunes, in Moldova and globally • consistent growth from 2001 • decline in 2009 reducing transfers from abroad and increasing unemployment • National development plan promotes child care reform • Decentralisation - social services are local authority function • Support from external partners for social protection

5. 3.1 Summary - evolution of reform Three stages to reform process • 1990s: Gradual changes in child care policy • 2002-2006: Policy development and piloting of services • 2003 National strategy on child protection • EU TACIS projects • 2006 onwards: National reform • 2006 Official launch of child care reform • 2007 Creation of MSPFC, rollout of network of social assistants, deinstitutionalisation strategy • 2008 National programme on social services

6. Indicator Data (December each year) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2007 Children in residential care, 0-3yrs (absolute numbers) 405 378 363 361 388 304 361 Children in residential care, 0-3 yrs (rates per 100,000 children 0-3yrs) 279 264 251 247 260 n/a 241 Children in residential care, 0-17 yrs (absolute numbers) 12000 11900 12500 12100 11500 9900 9189 Children in residential care, 0-17 yrs (rates per 100,000 children 0-17 yrs) 1,231 1,279 1,397 1,410 1,364 n/a 1,215 Children in foster care, 0-17 yrs (absolute numbers) 24 32 53 53 46 75 Children in guardianship, 0-17 yrs care (absolute numbers) 5000 5200 5600 5300 6200 6300 6437 Children in guardianship care, 0-17 yrs (rates per 100,000 children 0-17yrs) 519 561 624 614 736 n/a 778 Domestic adoptions (absolute numbers) 295 298 321 358 320 353 369 3.2 Summary - results of reform

7. 4.1 Entry points - components of the system ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES (Government, non-government) Communication, participation RESOURCES (Financial) Policy environment Legislative framework HR, non-HR SERVICE USERS SERVICES Regulations and standards Referral process Family support services Family substitute services Residential institutions Outcomes for children

8. 4.2 Entry points: the policy cycle PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION MONITORING AND REVIEW POLICY DEVELOPMENT POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

9. 5.1 Legal framework • The need to enshrine provisions for child care in legislation is well recognised • Laws establishing these fundamental provisions exist • Family Code • Law on Social Assistance no.547-XV (25.12.03) • But policy development is not enough - there must be means to implement the legislation • Laws can be implemented only when secondary legislation is in place. • This includes funding norms, service regulations • There is some planning and monitoring of what legislation remains to be developed Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

10. 5.2 Organisational structures • Problem well understood • Single central ministry for social protection • Expanded system of professionals at local level • Policy development partly responded to this • MSPFC, NCCRP, gatekeeping commissions • But still some overlapping responsibilities • Implementation less advanced • Good establishment of social assistants • Gatekeeping commissions - mixed results • Guardianship authority transferred from education sector to social assistance • Several ministries do social protection • NCCRP not certain of its mandate • Monitoring of the reorganisation of the structures is limited Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

11. 5.3 Human resources • Problem well understood and agreed • Reduce staff in institutional care • Increase number in community services • Many relevant policies developed • e.g. Law on Social Assistance • No policy yet on retraining staff in residential institutions • Implementation has seen successes • 1,000 social assistants • Reduction in staff in residential institutions (though not auxiliary schools) • Some training underway • Few foster carers • Some monitoring of number and capacity of human resources Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

12. 5.4 Service users • Good agreement on principles of supporting service users • Respond to individual need • Timely interventions • All children catered for in policy • But some less visible in documents • Many people can access services • Social assistants increase local access to services • Disparity in access between towns and rural areas • Limited system for monitoring who the users are • We don't yet have routine data on users' satisfaction • Some periodic studies undertaken Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

13. 5.5 Services • Clear definition of aim of service provision • Increase community-based services • Reduce residential care • Many major strategy declarations • e.g.. Deinstitutionalisation strategy, national programme on social services • Some raions waiting for national policies • Implementation not keeping pace with proposed policies • Five institutions closed • Some innovative alternative services being developed but not fast enough for desired rate of deinstitutionalisation • Very few foster carers • Emphasis on constructing specialised rather than community care services • Local authorities generally know what services are being provided Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

14. 5.6 Setting and maintaining standards • Objectives only partly understood • Agreement on need for quality standards • No agreement on what to do with accreditation / licensing / complaints • Policy development at an early stage • We are starting to consider how to develop policy • A few standards approved • Implementation difficult • Standards cannot be enforced (no system of support or sanction) • Complaints system is a burden • No resources yet for monitoring of implementation of standards Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

15. 5.7 Finance • Problem diagnosed but not all acknowledge need for reallocation • Lack of agreement on problem means we haven't yet developed policy to reallocate finance and therefore • Implementation remains challenging • Reallocation not implemented • Since 2009 families with children eligible for new social support benefit • Small increase in allocation of resources to community services • But most still goes to residential care • Law on decentralisation not fully utilised • Monitoring of reform of finances not taking place Problem identification Monitoring and review Policy development Implementation

16. 6. Our priorities going forward