8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

1/82

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial

Maria ROTH ...............................................................................................................................2

EU Social Agenda contribution to strengthening families, fighting against child poverty

and promoting child well-being

Agata DADDATO ......................................................................................................................5

Promoting Child Welfare in the Romanian-Serbian Cross-border Region. Practical

Aspects and Good Practice Models

Loreni BACIU, Olivera PASIC ..................................................................................................11

Child poverty in Bulgaria

Dani KOLEVA ...........................................................................................................................22

School performance of adolescents in relation with perceived parenting behavior and

perceived family SES

Ana MUNTEAN, Mihai-Bogdan IOVU, Maria ROTH .............................................................28

The Effects of All-Day Schools on Disadvantaged Youth. Results of a Longitudinal Study

in Germany

Bettina ARNOLDT, Natalie FISCHER, Christine STEINER ....................................................40

Child Poverty and Parental Authority in Canadian Society

Gabriela IVAN...........................................................................................................................47

Poverty, children, and the large families

Zsuzsa Kormosn Debreceni ....................................................................................................53

Relative poverty among Romanian children: a descriptive analysis in the European

context.

Andreea BIRNEANU .................................................................................................................59

The Quality of Life of Children

Brindusa Antonia GRIGORAS ..................................................................................................66

The role of parents and poverty impact upon the educational process of school children

Raluca PREDA ..........................................................................................................................73

Instructions for Authors .........................................................................................................77

Advertising...............................................................................................................................80

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

2/82

2

EDITORIAL.

CHILD POVERTY UNDER SCRUTINY

Prof. PhD. Maria RothChief of Social Work School

Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania

mroth@socasis.ubbcluj.ro

to face in Europe, including marginalization,exploitation, stressful development, discrimi-nation, powerlessness, lack of perspectivesfor the future, school failure and absenteeism,homelessness, child labor, etc.).

The mostly I was impressed by the presenta-tion put on stage by child participants them-selves. Coming from different European

countries, they explained that they want us toact in order to make changes in social policiesand practices that impact on childrens lives.Ambassadors for the Eurochild campaign intheir own countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cy-

prus, Finland, Portugal, and Wales, UK) dur-ing 2010, they represented organizations thatwork with and for children at risk of povertyand promote childrens participation. Thegroup of child delegates present in the rebro

Conference tested us, researchers and childadvocates, and I am afraid we failed. Theywanted to teach us a lesson on the differ-ence of talking and acting, so they built up a

performance-based assessments2, by placinga pair begging adolescents (a girl, and a boy,approx 16-17), staying very silent and peace-ful at the entrance of the castle, that hostedthe event. It was a freezing, windy and dark

2 performance-based assessments requires to: a)

specify the skill or knowledge-set to be evaluated, b) de-

velops an exercise or task that will demonstrate a), and c)have a scoring rubric to measure and interpret results (R.

J. , 1995. Sound Performance Assessments in the Guid-

ance Context. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from: eric.ed.gov)

In Europe welfare society has gone a longway, but still many issues are left uncovered.One of these is child poverty, which leaves be-hind many children and youth. They need ourcompassion, interest and actions. In 2008, theat-risk-of-poverty rate in EU-27 for childrenaged between 0 and 17 years was 20%. Onechild in five is living in poverty, which meansthat for each 100 children, 20 live in poverty.

2010 was the European Year against Povertyand Social Exclusion. Several conferenceswere held, and articles were written to markand campaign for reducing child poverty. Eu-rochild, a large European organization ran a

powerful End Child Poverty campaign.Their petition, signed by some 14,000 peopleduring the year, asked political leaders in Eu-rope to act urgently in the interest of childrenliving in poverty.

The conference organized in rebro, in Swe-den, in November1has offered to participantsa comprehensive picture of the poverty re-lated issues: its extent in EU and other Euro-

pean countries, definition and measurement,as well as programs to fight poverty. Havingthe chance to participate to this conference Iwas impressed by the comprehensive picturethe conference gave on the groups of children

most exposed and the problems they have1 Brighter futures. Building effective partnerships toend child poverty Organised by Eurochild, 3-5 November,

2010

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

3/82

3

evening, when the participants were rushingto the reception, hoping to have a relaxingevening, nice meetings and a good Swedishdiner, included in the price of the Confer-ence. Being in a hurry, they hardly looked at

the youngsters staying silently and waitingfor charity. I am not sure what others werethinking, but the thoughts crossing my mindwere: how can this happen in this rich coun-try? I am sure there are adequate services forthem. They might be addicts, I will not givemoney to them, it would not be a professionalact. I knew better then to show pity. Whatwould others think if I choose to show pity?Giving money would encourage them to look

for cheap money and not appeal to services.These are clichs so often used to excuse ourlack of disposition to be there for children andyouth. Next day, at the ending, we saw eachother on the screen, passing by with quicksteps, merrily talking to each other, headsturned in another direction, not asking anyquestion, convinced probably that our com-munity of professionals fulfills its duties oth-erwise. But the child delegates did not agreewith us. They expected us to interact with the

teenagers, ask them why they are in the streetin wintertime, in the evening. As protectorsof childrens wellbeing and rights, we couldhave act, at least ask them questions aboutwhat made them behave as they did, but wefall in the trap of so many other adults to pass

by without making a difference, not interven-ing, waiting for others to do it. We did whatsociety so often does with children and youthin need. We allowed ourselves to believe that

there is no need to interfere, hoping that thiskind of attitude will make the problem disap-pear (perhaps that those youngsters will heelor go home to loving families).

I understood my lesson, and decided to spreadthe word about the need to act to reduce child

poverty. Waiting for chances of better prac-tices, for the moment, my contribution was to

prepare a collection of articles intended to in-crease awareness of readers about child pov-erty. Some of the selected articles (DAddatoand that of Baciu and Pasic) discuss trans-

national and comparative European issues.Other articles discuss the national policiesand strategies, as well as their outcomes, soas it is reflected in the national evolution ofdata (as did Koleva for Bulgaria, Grigoras

and Birneanu for Romania, and Kormos, forHungary).

In her article,A. DAddato, Eurochild policyofficer, clearly warn policy makers that so-cial economic situation is clearly deteriorat-ing and insecurity is growing as a result ofthe economic crisis which took hold acrossmuch of Europe and government responses.Action is needed from us as individuals, aswell as from us, as professionals. We want toraise the motivation of readers to contributewith their expertise, competences, time andenergies to reduce poverty and its influenceon children.

L.Baciu and O. Pasicbring a comparativeperspective in this issue. They discuss pover-ty in in the South Eastern European area (Ro-mania and Serbia), where in spite of assertingthe rights of children and promoting social

policies dedicated to ensuring the welfare ofchildren, a significant percentage of childrenstill live in poverty, being deprived of accessto services and resources needed in order todevelop their potential.

D. Kolevaputs child poverty in the context ofthe human rights and the CRC, and explainsits consequences. Child poverty and socialexclusion are a denial of childrens fundamen-

tal human rights, which can affect their devel-opment today and undermine the realizationof their full potential in future. She discussesthe objectives and strategies of reducing child

poverty in Bulgaria form the point of view ofchildren themselves, for whom declarationsare not sufficient, they need applicable poli-cies, to reduce the odds they are facing. A.

Birneanuis looking at the influence of Euro-pean policies and the measures that give theopportunity to compare the quality of life ofchildrens and their families. In her articleB.Grigorascompares European and Romanian

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

4/82

4

indicators of poverty. The presented data in-dicate the urgent need for interventions in fa-vor of children affected by poverty.

Apart from the policy perspectives we were

looking for articles that linked poverty to edu-cation, as it is a powerful means for the younggeneration to come out of the cycle of poverty.Romanian researchers, Muntean, Roth and

Iovu, look at different school success profilesof lower and higher social-financial situation.They conclude that different school profile ofrisks and strength for children from poor fam-ilies need specific modalities of support from

professionals, and interventions. Arnoldt,Fisher and Steinerpractically continue thisanalysis, by showing the positive effects ofafter school programs on schooling of chil-dren to families with low social economiclevels. Three articles (ofKormo, of Ivan and

Baciu & Pasic) discuss the necessary mea-sures that social services can make to changethe life course of children and their families.Kormos is opting for Local Alliances forFamilies, meaning partnerships between allsignificant social services and volunteer con-

tributors to help poor families, and especiallytheir children to thrive and break the cycleof poverty. The paper of G. Ivananalyzes

how child poverty impacts parents ability toexercise their parental role and the dilemmasaround the interference of child care servicesin poor, mostly immigrant Canadian fami-lies to assimilate Canadian norms of parent-

ing.DAddato and Kolevamake us aware ofthe importance of early education servicesfor helping mothers raise their children, asa non invasive form of improving parentingand early child development. Preda closesthis series of articles by showing the links

between poor housing, poverty and schoolingof children.

This issue of the Journal Todays childrenare tomorrows parents is aimed to spreadthe idea that child poverty affects childrensrights, creates sufferance, frustrations andtrauma difficult to heal. It also endangers thefuture of those children, and of our commonsocieties. We identified some ways to makea difference but there are many other waysto help reducing poverty. It depends on ourcapability to demonstrate solidarity. In orderto break the circle of poverty, children shouldcome first. Helping them reduce consequenc-

es of poverty can break can make a changefor a new generation to come.

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

5/82

5

EU SOCIAL AGENDA CONTRIBUTION

TO STRENGTHENING FAMILIES,

FIGHTING AGAINST CHILD POVERTY

AND PROMOTING CHILD WELL-

BEING

Agata DADDATOEurochild policy officer

agata.daddato@eurochild.org

Keywords: child poverty; risk of poverty;EU Policies; support services; child-rightsapproach

Rezumat

Eurochild este o reea internaional depeste 90 de organizaii care lucreazn toatEuropa cu scopul mbuntirii calitii vieiicopiilor i a tinerilor. Eurochild este unadintre cele mai largi organizaii militante (deadvocacy) n domeniul drepturilor copiilorla nivelul Uniunii Europene (UE), avndca fundament Convenia Naiunilor Unite

privind Drepturile Copiilor (United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child -UNCRC). Eurochild organizeaz campanii

pentru implementarea drepturilor copiilorn toate rile Europei. Ne concentrmatenia n special asupra copiilor aflai n

srcie, excluziune sociali marginalizare.Srcia este o piedic n realizarea deplina potenialului i autonomiei copiilor sitinerilor, avnd efecte negative asupra

sntii lor, inhibnd dezvoltarea lorpersonal, educaia i bunstarea general.Acest articol se centreaz asupra srciei

Abstract

Eurochild is an international network ofover 90 childrens organisations working

across Europe to improve the quality of lifeof children and young people. Eurochild isone of the largest advocacy organisationson childrens issues at European Union (EU)level whose work is underpinned by the 1989United Nations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child (UNCRC). Eurochild campaigns

for the realisation of childrens rights acrossEurope. We focus particularly on thosechildren at risk of poverty, social exclusion

and marginalisation. Poverty preventschildren and young people from achievingtheir full potential and autonomy, adverselyaffecting their health, inhibiting their personaldevelopment, education and their generalwell-being. This contribution focuses on thechild poverty situation in Europe and how thefight against child poverty and the promotionof child well-being can be addressed. It willthen look at the added value of EU action andat the opportunities presented by the Europe2020 strategy as well as the potential risk

factors.

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

6/82

6

copiilor n Europa i asupra modului n carese poate aciona pentru reducerea srcieii promovarea bunstrii. De asemenea, eldiscut valoarea adugat a aciunilor UE,

precum i oportunitile i factorii de risc

potenial pe care-i creeaz strategia Europa2020.Cuvinte cheie: srcia copiilor; risc de

srcie; politici europene; servicii de sprijin;punctul de vedere al drepturilor copiilor.

1. Child poverty in Europe the situation

In 2007, the latest official data we have fromEurostat on relative poverty rates across theEU, 16% of the population was living at riskof poverty but 20% of children under theage of 18. That is one in five children livingat risk of poverty. Children are among thegroups most exposed to poverty.

Due to specific situations or characteristics,some children face greater risk of poverty(Eurochild, 2010a):

Children in lone-parent households=> 1 in 3 children living in lone-parent

households are at risk of poverty (Source:Eurostat);Children in large families => 1 in 4

children living in families with 3 or moredependent children are at risk of poverty(Source: Eurostat);

Children living in households wherenobody works => 1 in 10 children in the EUlive in jobless households (Source: Euro-stat);

Children with parents born outsidethe EU => 1 in 3 children with parents bornoutside the EU are at risk of poverty (EU-15data) (Source: Lelkes O., Platt L. & Ward T.(2009), page 95);

Young people who drop out of schoolearly => 15% of young people (aged 18-24)in the EU have no more than a secondary ed-ucation and are not in education or training(Source: Eurostat).

The situation is clearly deteriorating andinsecurity is growing as a result of the eco-nomic crisis which took hold across much ofEurope and government responses. We know

from our members that families and childrenare being disproportionally hit by the effectsof the crisis and the austerity measures taken

by several Member States in the face of soar-ing public debt (Eurochild, forthcoming in

2011).

Vital support services from families and chil-dren are threatened by cuts, whilst protectiontends to be ring-fenced. Strained local au-thorities are pulling resources precisely fromthe sectors that will save money in the long-term and make most difference. Dealing with

problems resulting from family breakdown,abuse or neglect are much more costly.

It is essential that governments at all levelsrecognize this challenge and ensure that bud-get cuts do not compromise the well-being offamilies and children. Investment in preven-tion and early intervention services is a majorconcern. It means reach out to families be-fore problems arise, provide support that isnon-judgmental and empowering (DAddatoA., 2010), enable families to find their ownroutes out of poverty and social exclusion. It

means a long-term investment in accompa-niment and support, through family centres,childrens centres, out-reach work - includ-ing health visitors, parent advisors attachedto schools, parents supporting other parents,and community schools. This requires a long-term vision as well as funding.

2. A child-rights approach to address child

poverty and improve childrens quality of

lifeEurochild believes a chid-rights approach isthe most effective way of tackling child pov-erty and promoting child well-being in thelong-term (Eurochild, 2007). Children must

be recognized as citizens in their own right.All EU Member States have ratified the UN-CRC, which should be seen as the foundationfor all policies affecting children and young

people. The promotion of childrens rights isnow embedded in the Lisbon Treaty and theEurope 2020 strategy is the first opportuni-ty to take account of this new development,

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

7/82

7

access to the high quality of services and ahealthy environment. But the policy frame-work at national level also matters a greatdeal employment, taxation, access to edu-cation, training of professionals working with

and for children play a crucial role.

What is the role of the EU? Whilst the EU hasno legal competence, the leadership it sets inthe social policy arena is an important driverof policy reforms at national, regional and lo-cal level. Over the last 10 years of the OpenMethod of Coordination on Social Protectionand Social Inclusion (Social OMC) whichis the mechanism through which EU MemberStates and the European Commission have

been cooperating in the field of social policysince 2000 (Eurochild, 2009) , all MemberStates recognize child poverty as an issue andmany have identified it as a particular poli-cy priority. The Social OMC has provideda framework for benchmarking and mutuallearning, but also allowing convergence of

policy principles and achieving considerableconsensus on the best policy responses. Weneed now to move forward with this agenda.

We stand at a cross-road. The financial andeconomic crisis and the social consequencesof it have generated a consensus that eco-nomic and employment goals cannot be

pursued to the neglect of social and envi-ronmental goals. The entry into force of theLisbon Treaty introduces a transversal socialclause requiring that all EU policies and ac-tivities take into account their impact on so-

cial inclusion. The social pillar of the newEurope 2020 agenda provides an importantopportunity to adopt a systematic, coherentand comprehensive EU approach to tacklingchild poverty and child well-being as a key

political priority for the Union. In the Europe2020 strategy, a headline target on povertyreduction was approved. The poverty target consisting in lowering the number of peoplein the EU who are at risk of poverty and/ormaterially deprived and/or living in joblesshouseholds puts poverty and social inclu-sion among the core objectives of the Union.

mainstream child rights into EU policies andget a systematic, comprehensive approach tochildrens rights as a political priority.

There must be a recognition of childrens own

right to grow up in an environment that nur-tures their full potential. It means supportingthe family as carrying the principal responsi-

bility for the child, but it also acknowledgesthe importance of a whole host of other ser-vices centered around the child (Eurochild,2010b). This includes:

Promoting early childhood servicesthat are focused on the childs de-velopment and needs, rather than be-

ing conceived as a parking placefor children of parents who work(DAddato A., 2008);

Ensuring that free, high-quality edu-cation is provided to all children andthat schools provide the best possiblelearning environment for children,harnessing childrens potential, sup-

porting childrens growing autonomy,giving children the confidence and

skills to develop and express theirown views and opinions;

Ensuring adequate play spaces andsafe communities with a range ofnon-formal learning opportunities including access to leisure, civic, cul-tural and sporting activities;

Promoting a joined-up thinking andan integrated approach to childrens

well-being across different policy ar-eas, enhancing coordination betweenand within ministries as well as atlocal and regional level, and bridg-ing gaps between the measures takenat national and international level,namely with regard to the use of EUstructural funds.

3. How can the EU agenda contribute to

fight child poverty and promote child well-

being?The local authorities are certainly at the front-line of ensuring children and families have

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

8/82

8

tries to keep their commitment to the Bar-celona targets on child care (or adopt moreambitious targets where they have already

been achieved), and to develop and moni-tor quality criteria such as staff-child ratios,

pedagogical approach, accessibility, afford-ability. At the same time, a European Com-mission Communication on early years andeducation is expected in early February 2011,which will include guidelines on accessibil-ity (in its broadest sense, i.e. inclusivity), af-fordability (including the discussion on uni-versal vs. targeted services), and pedagogicalapproach. This process should culminate inCouncil Conclusions. This will launch a EU

process of Member State involvement in set-ting standards, agreeing policy objectives andexchange of good practices.

A European Commission Communication ona EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child isalso expected to be launched early in 2012,which will hopefully set a framework for EU

policies and actions that bring added valueand support Member States action to pro-mote and protect childrens rights (Eurochild,

2010d). By doing this the EU can have a di-rect effect on the quality of life of every childin Europe.

To conclude, we believe that action at EUlevel has been paramount to gather consensuson the need to prioritise the fight against child

poverty and promote child well-being as wellas driving reforms at national, regional andlocal level. However, follow-up action is cru-

cial for a breakthrough in the fight againstchild poverty.

4. Concluding remarks

Child poverty needs to be a Number 1 prior-ity across the EU. Poverty in childhood canhave lifelong consequences. It is therefore ahuge cost to society in the long-term. Espe-cially during this period of economic crisis,

politicians need to think long-term and boostinvestment in children in particular in edu-cation including early years services, health,housing, culture and leisure, social services.

The strengthening of the social dimension ofthe EU, and in particular the delivery of the

poverty target will depend significantly onthe proposed flagship initiative, the Euro-

pean Platform Against Poverty (Eurochild,

2010c; European Commission, 2010). Withthese ingredients, the European Commissioncan surely be very ambitious in its agenda forthe EU coordination in the social field.

In the frame of Europe 2020, this is how Eu-rochild envisages the development of EUlevel work on child poverty: that the Euro-

pean Platform Against Poverty will create aspace for Member States to report regularly

back on their strategies for tackling childpoverty and we will have a clear, transpar-ent system for comparing outcomes for chil-dren across Member States using a broadrange of child well-being indicators. Child

poverty and well-being has been repeatedlyrecognized as a top political priority by EUleaders. Most recently a Declaration callingfor the EU to give particular priority to child

poverty and well-being, especially in this pe-riod of economic crisis, was signed by the EU

Trio Presidency (Spain, Belgium and Hunga-ry) at the Belgian Presidency conference on2-3rd September 20103. Eurochild with theBelgian Presidency of the EU are callingfor a Recommendation on child poverty andwell-being, which will formalize the exist-ing policy consensus on what works to tacklechild poverty and provide a framework formonitoring mechanisms to measure progressacross the EU27 and follow-up action (Bel-

gian Presidency of the EU, 2010). We hopethis call will be heard and acted upon by theSocial Protection Committee (SPC) and theforthcoming Hungarian and Polish Presiden-cies of the EU.

On 16 November 2010 in the intergovern-mental group LEurope de lenfance led bythe Belgian Presidency of the EU, MemberStates adopted a Declaration calling for coun-

3 The signed declaration by the Trio Presidenciesis available at Eurochild website: http://www.eurochild.

org/fileadmin/Events/2010/09%20BE%20Presidency%20

Child%20Poverty/Signed%20Declaration.pdf.

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

9/82

9

Brighter futures for many children in Europeare under threat. Decisions taken by govern-ments across the EU in response to the cri-sis, risk jeopardizing millions of childrensquality of life and their overall life chances.

In this era of austerity measures it is more im-portant than ever that organisations commit-ted to childrens rights and welfare work in

partnership and promote a common message.As an outcome of Eurochilds Annual Con-ference Brighter futures - Building effective

partnerships to end child poverty (rebro -Sweden, 3-5 November 2010), recommenda-tions to the three main groups of actors wereformulated4.

The European Union needs to adopta comprehensive and ambitious EUstrategy on the rights of the child,and a Recommendation on child pov-erty and well-being. The EU policyframework to fight child poverty must

promote a multi-dimensional ap-proach based on a clear understandingof childrens rights.

Member States have to protect and

even increase budgets for childrenand families. Member States shouldstrengthen cooperation and exchangeat an EU level on child poverty andwell-being. National action to addresschild poverty and social exclusionmust support partnership and coop-eration with different stakeholders.

Eurochild and its members will workon raising awareness of the UNCRCand its influence on decision-makingamong policy makers, practitioners,

parents and children. Our work on theUNCRC creates a uniting force that

brings together stakeholders acrossall sectors and professions. Eurochildhas an obligation to ensure the voicesand concerns of children and young

people themselves are heard and tak-en into account.

4 The full version of the Concluding Statements is

available at Eurochild website: http://www.eurochild.org/

fileadmin/Events/2010/11%20AC%20Orebro/Eurochild_-_An-nual_Conference_-_Brighter_Futures_through_effective_

Partnerships_-_Concluding_Statements_-_November_2010.

pdf.

References

Belgian Presidency of the European Union(2010), Call for a Recommendation on ChildPoverty and Well-being, Background pa-

per to the EU Presidency Conference: Child

Poverty and Child Well-Being, Belgium, 2-3September 2010;

DAddato, A. (2008), Reconciling a childsbest interest with labour market needs, Euro-childs contribution to the peer reviewReturnof women to the labour market, Germany, 17-18 November 2008;

DAddato, A. (2010), Promoting preventionand early intervention, Eurochilds contribu-tion to the peer review The Federal Founda-tion Mother and Child for pregnant women inemergency situations, Germany, 21-22 Janu-ary 2010;

Eurochild (2007),A child-rights approach tochild poverty, Discussion paper;

Eurochild (2009), Open Method of Coordina-tion on Social Inclusion and Social Protection

A Renewed OMC for the post-2010 Lisbonstrategy, Policy briefing n. 1;

Eurochild (2010a),Facts & Figures on ChildPoverty, available at: www.endchildpoverty.eu;

Eurochild (2010b), Eurochilds Policy Posi-tion on Family Policies, Policy position;

Eurochild (2010c), Europe 2020 & the Euro-pean Platform Against Poverty Where willaction against child poverty & social exclu-sion fit within the next EU 10-year strategy?,Policy briefingn. 7;

Eurochild (2010d), Eurochilds proposal forthe development of the EUs strategy on therights of the child, Policy position;

Eurochild (2011),Impact of the economic andfinancial crisis on children and young peoplein Europe: some evidence, Position paper,

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

10/82

10

Lelkes, O., Platt, L., & Ward, T. (2009), Vul-nerable Groups: The Situation of People withMigrant Backgrounds. In Terry Ward, OrsolyaLelkes, Holly Sutherland and Istvn GyrgyTth (Eds.), European Inequalities Social

Inclusion and Income Distribution in the Eu-ropean Union, Budapest: TRKI Social Re-search Institute Inc, available at: http://www.tarki.hu/en/publications/EI/.

forthcoming;

European Commission Communication(2010), The European Platform againstPoverty and Social Exclusion: A European

framework for social and territorial cohe-sion, SEC(2010)1564 & accompanying StaffWorking Paper, COM(2010)758, availableat: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=959&furtherNews=yes

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

11/82

11

families and their lack of access to communityresources and services. In spite of the reformefforts of the last decade made in Romania

and Serbia, the specialists in child protectionstill face a series of great challenges inpromoting child welfare. In the second partof the article, a few project-based modelsof intervention are presented. The projectswere implemented by two NGOs active in thefield of child protection. The main conclusionof the article would be that, many times, inorder to solve a social problem, there is neednot necessarily for more resources, but for a

better planning and a more efficient use ofthem.Keywords:promoting child welfare; poverty;

Romanian-Serbian cross-border region;models of intervention; non-governmentalorganizations.

Rezumat

Demersurile pentru promovarea i aprareadrepturilor copilului au cunoscut o evoluieimpresionant n ultimul secol, att la nivelmondial, ct i la nivel european. ns, naceastepoca afirmrii drepturilor copilului

Abstract

The approaches to promoting and defendingchildrens rights have known an impressive

evolution in the last century, both globally andat European level. But in this era of assertingthe rights of children and promoting social

policies dedicated to ensuring the welfare ofchildren, a significant percentage of children

still live in poverty, being deprived of accessto services and resources needed in orderto develop their potential. In addition to

general policies and programs undertakenby governments and public authorities in

order to address the problem of povertyamong children, there is need for a series ofconcrete and appropriate measures, whoseeffectiveness can be measured and monitored.The contribution that NGOs can bring to thisfield, through their initiated and supportedprojects and programs, is also a substantialone. The present article explores a numberof similarities and differences regardingthe challenges faced by the efforts to fosterchildrens welfare, in the Romanian-Serbiancross-border region. The most important arerelated to the socio-economic status of their

PROMOTING CHILD WELFARE IN THE

ROMANIAN-SERBIAN CROSS-BORDER

REGION. PRACTICAL ASPECTS AND

GOOD PRACTICE MODELS

Loreni Baciu, PhD Olivera PasicAssistent, Social Work School, Psihologist

West University of Timisoara, Serbia, Vojvodina Region

Romania Health Research Center Ada

loreni.baciu@yahoo.com oljapasic@gmail.com

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

12/82

12

European Unions internal and external poli-cies and to support Member States efforts inthis field. The EU Strategy on the Rights ofthe Child is structured around seven specificobjectives (EC, 2006):

Capitalizing on existing activities

while addressing urgent needsIdentifying priorities for future

EU actionMainstreaming childrens rights

in EU actionsEstablishing efficient coordina-

tion and consultation mechanismsEnhancing capacity and expertise

on childrens rightsCommunicating more effectively

on childrens rightsPromoting the rights of the child

in external relations

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Childand its Two Optional Protocols constitute a

basis for the EUs policy on childrens rights.On November 20th2009, it was celebrated the20th Anniversary of the UN Convention onthe Rights of the Child Childrens Rightsare Human Rights5. The 10thAnniversary of

the Optional Protocols to the Convention wascelebrated by the EU on May 25th2010.

The first goal of the UN Millennium Devel-opment Goals is to Eradicate extreme pov-erty and hunger. The UN Summit on theMillennium Development Goals (held on20-22 September 2010) concluded with theadoption of a global action plan to achievethe eight anti-poverty goals by their 2015 tar-

get date and the announcement of major newcommitments for womens and childrenshealth and other initiatives against poverty,hunger and disease.

In the next 5 years a total of more than 40 bil-lion USD will be invested in the implementa-tion of the Global Strategy for Womens andChildrens Health. This strategy is dedicatedto saving the lives of more than 16 millionwomen and children, preventing 33 million

unwanted pregnancies, protecting 120 mil-5 1 ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/

child/2009_20th_anniversary_un_crc_update.pdf

i a promovrii politicilor sociale dedicateasigurrii bunstrii acestuia existncun

procent semnificativ de copii care triesc lalimita srciei,fiind lipsii de acces la serviciii resurse necesare valorificrii potenialului

de care dispun. Pentru a rspunde problemeisrciei n rndul copiilor este nevoie ca, pelngpoliticilei programele asumate de ctre

guvernei autoriti publice, sse ia o serie demsuri concretei adaptate, a cror eficien

poate fi msurat i monitorizat. Aportulpe care organizaiile neguvernamentale lpot aduce n acest domeniu, prin proiectelei programele iniiate i susinute, este deasemenea unul substanial. Articolul de faexploreazo serie de similitudini i diferenen provocrile cu care se confruntdemersulde promovare a bunstrii copilului, lanivelul regiunii transfrontaliere Romnia-Serbia. n pofida eforturilor de reformrealizate n ultimul deceniu n Romnia iSerbia, specialitii din domeniul protecieicopilului nc se confrunt cu o serie deconsiderabile provocri n promovareabunstrii copilului. Cele mai importante

sunt legate de statutul socio-economic al

familiilor lor i lipsa lor de acces la resursei servicii comunitare. n finalul articoluluisunt prezentate cteva modele de intervenie,implementate pe baz de proiect, de ctredou organizaii neguvernamentale dindomeniul proteciei copilului. concluzie aacestui articol arfi aceea c, de multe ori,

pentru a rezolva o problem social, estenevoie nu neaprat de mai multe resurse, ctde o mai bunplanificare i o utilizare mai

eficienta acestora.Cuvinte cheie: promovarea bunstriicopilului; srcie; regiunea transfrontalier

Romnia-Serbia; modele de intervenie;organizaii neguvernamentale.

Introduction. The evolution of the

perspectives on the child, with focus on the

status

One of the most fundamental initiatives of theEuropean Council was to establish a compre-hensive EU strategy to effectively promoteand safeguard the rights of the child in the

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

13/82

13

lions of children from pneumonia and 88 mil-lion children from stunting, advancing thecontrol of deadly diseases such as malaria andHIV/AIDS, and ensuring access for womenand children to quality facilities and skilled

health workers6

.

We can basically say the first decade of theThird Millennium has been a golden age inthe Childrens Rights affirmation movementfor the entire world, but especially for the Eu-ropean Union7.

Things look far better now than 140 yearsago, when, the only argument one could in-voke in the defense of the abused child wasthat the child is an animal and he/she has theright to be protected against cruel treatment8.

Important progress has been registered instrengthening the policy framework regard-ing childrens rights and the future steps thathave to be taken in order to value these effortsare those to ensure a correct and adequate im-

plementation of the policy, adapted to the na-tional, regional and local contexts, keeping in

mind that the wonder recipe can never be ageneral one, but a specific solution, that keepstrack of all the characteristics of the popula-tion its targeting.

6 The official web-page of the UN Summit on the

Millennium Development Goals http://www.un.org/en/mdg/

summit2010/

7 Most recent policy documents include:

Communication Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of

the Child (2006), EU Guidelines on the Rights of the Child

(2007), EU Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts,

Communication A Special Place for Children in EU

External Action (2008), Council Conclusions on children in

development and humanitarian settings (2008), Commission

Staff Working Document on combating child labor (2010),

and the Council conclusions on child labor (2010).

8 In 1874, when Etta Wheeler, a friendly visitor (a

forerunner of the current social worker) looked for support

from different organizations in New York, USA, in order to re-

port the repeated abuse of the foster family on the little Mary

Ellen McCormack, who was 9 years old at that time, the only

support she got was from SPCA The Society for the Pre-

vention of Cruelty to Animals (that existed since 1866). The

organization took the case and managed to win the trial, Mary

Ellen being placed to another foster family, while her former

foster family was convicted for the abusive behavior against

the child. These events seem to accelerate the founding of

the SPCC - The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Chil-

dren (in 1975) and the later progress registered by the Chil-drens Rights Movement. Source: Gelles, R.J. and Schwartz,

I. (1999) Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 95-

110

1. Romanian-Serbian cross-border region.

General characteristics9

The Romanian-Serbian cross-border regionincludes three Romanian counties (Timis,Caras-Severin and Mehedinti) and five Ser-

bian districts (Severno-Banatski, Srednje-Banatski, Juzno-Banatski, Branicevski andBorski).

Timis County is located in the Western part ofRomania, at the Serbian and Hungarian bor-ders. It has a surface of 8.696,7 square kmthat represents 3.65% of the countrys totalarea, being the largest county in Romania.Total population: 659,299. Timis County has2 municipal towns - Timisoara and Lugoj, 8towns - Snnicolau-Mare, Jimbolia, Buzia,Fget, Deta, Ciacova, Recai Gtaia and 86communes. Situated in the South-Western

part of Romania, Caras-Severin county bor-ders the Republic of Serbia for 70 km in thewest side and in the south-west is bordered

by Danube for 64 km. In Caras-Severin theindustry represents an important part of thenational economy and it is concentrated incountys municipal towns and cities. Total

population: 331,876. Mehedinti County issituated in the South-Western part of Roma-nia, on the left shore of Danube and, at South,it borders Bulgaria and Serbia. The countycomprises 2 municipal cities (Drobeta-TurnuSeverin and Orsova), 3 cities (Baia de Aram,Strehaia and Vnju Mare) and 61 communes.Total population: 303,069.

The Severno-Banatski (North Banat) district

expands in the northern parts of the Republic ofSerbia. It encompasses the municipalities of:Kanjiza, Senta, Ada, Coka, Novi Knezevac,and Kikinda. It has a population of 179,783.Seat of the District is in the city of Kikinda.The Srednje-Banatski (Central Banat) districtexpands in the northeastern parts of Serbia. Itencompasses the municipalities of: Novi Bec-

9 The source of the information used in this part of

the article: the official web-site of the Romania-Republic of

Serbia IPA Cross-border Cooperation Programme - www.

romania-serbia.net. The main goal of the programme is toincrease the overall competitiveness of the economy in the

Romania-Serbia border area and to improve the quality of life

for the border communities in both countries.

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

14/82

14

ej, Nova Crnja, Zitiste, Secanj and Zrenjanin.It has a population of 202, 286. Seat of theDistrict is in the city of Zrenjanin. Economyof Zrenjanin is diverse: industry, agriculture,forestry, building industry, and transport.

The Juzno-Banatski (South Banat) districtexpands in the eastern parts of Serbia. Itencompasses the following municipalities:Plandiste, Opovo, Kovacica, Alibunar, Vr-sac, Bela Crkva, Pancevo, and Kovin. It has a

population of 310,862. Seat of the District isin Pancevo. The Branicevski district expandsin the north-east of Sebia. It encompasses themunicipalities of: Veliko Gradiste, Pozare-vac, Golubac, Malo Crnice, Zabari, Petrovac,Kucevo, and Zagubica. It has a population of197,194. Seat of the District is in the city ofPozarevac, a famous cross-roads, with nu-merous communications running through itstill today.

The Borski district expands in the easternparts of Serbia. It encompasses the munici-palities of: Bor, Kladovo, Majdanpek and Ne-gotin. It has a population of 140,367. Seat ofthe District is in the city of Bor, remarkable

by its historic and cultural heritage.

Even if the two countries are separated onlyby the Danube river and have a somewhatsimilar history (they have both underwent along period of Socialism after the World WarII), the characteristics of their population andculture are quite different. The Timis countyand Vojvodina province, though, show somesimilar specificities, related to multi-ethnic

cohabitation (Mitchell, Kicoev, 1997; Tomis-lav, 2009; The Economist, 2010), that reflectupon the general status of the population.

2. Characteristics regarding poverty and

child welfare in Western Region (Timis

county) and Severno-Banatski district

(Vojvodina province)

An article from 2003 (Popescu, 2003) showsa poverty rate among Romanian childrenhigher both than the poverty rate in adults andin the total population.

Poverty rate in children, compared with

adults and the total population in Romania,

2002

Children(0-16 yrs)

Adults(over 16

yrs)

Totalpopulation

Under the level of ex-treme poverty

7% 4% 5%

Under the level of se-vere poverty

13% 8% 9%

Under the poverty level 33% 26% 27%

Source: Popescu, 2003: 3, apud. CASPIS,2002

Also, another observation emphasized by thesame article concerns the fact that the numberof children in a family is the most important

predictor for the poverty risk, each new childin a family, over the second, increases consid-erably the chances for that family to become

poor. In fact, in 2002, 60% of the Romanianfamilies with 3 or more children were livingunder the rate of poverty (Popescu, 2003, p.4).

The Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion(Romanian Government, 2005, p. 14) from2005 shows a poverty rate of 29,9% in Ro-

manian children under 15 years.

The National Report regarding social inclu-sion in Romania (MWFSP, 2008, p. 53),shows a substantial decrease in absolute pov-erty rate, in the first decade of the millennium:from 35,9% in 2000, to 5,7% in 2008.

According to European Joint Report on SocialProtection and Social Inclusion 2008, even

if, in Romania, the Social protection expen-diture (Esspros), as percent of the GDP, hasincreased between 2000 - 2006, from 13,2%to 14%, the Social protection expenditure forFamily and children, as percent from the to-tal benefits has decreased from 10% to 8,9%(EC, 2009, p. 263). Compared to the situationof Bulgaria, Hungary or Greece, Romania hadin 2006 the smallest percent of the GDP spenton social protection (Bulgaria spent 15%,Hungary - 22,3% and Greece 31,1%).

The same report shows for 2007 a 25% rate

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

15/82

15

population under 20 years old (INS, 2009).

In other aspects regarding poverty and childpoverty, Timis county is not doing badly,compared to other counties: it has one of the

lowest rates of unemployment in the coun-try (around 4,4% in 2009-2010, being on thesecond place, after Bucharest) (INS, 2010), alow number of beneficiaries of Complemen-tary family allowance in 2010 (on the fifth

place from 42 counties) (MWFSP, 2010c)and a low number of beneficiaries of Supportallowance for single-parent families in 2010(on the 11thplace from 42 counties).

One of the most striking differences about the

situation of Timis county, compared to thegeneral welfare status of its population is thehigh number of Maintenance allowances paidfor the children in family placement, which isone of the highest in the country (2.137), put-ting Timis on the second place in 42 counties(MWFSP, 2010c). This observation is consis-tent with the high number of children placedin the special protection system, mentionedabove.

According to The World Bank, Serbia is amiddle-income country with great potentialfor rapid economic development, due to itsnatural resources and fertile and arable agri-cultural land (WB, 2010). After the tense pe-riod the country has crosses after the 1990s,starting with 2001, the macroeconomic sta-

bility of the country has been restored and theincomes have risen strongly, with a GDP per

capita increasing from about 2.000 USD in2002 to just over 5.800 USD in 2009 (WB,2010).

In 2009, influenced by the global financialcrisis, the Serbian economy went into reces-sion and currently it shows modest signs ofrecovery. More than 400.000 jobs were lostsince the crisis started. Unemployment rate,which was decreasing steadily prior to thecrisis, has raised from 14% in April 2008 to20% in April 2010 (WB, 2010).

index.php?page=domain&did=48

of risk-of-poverty among Romanian childrenunder 17 years, 30 to 50% higher than in otherage categories (17% for the age group 18-64and 19% for the age group 65+). The estima-tion, for the same year, of Romanian children

living in jobless households was of 10%,lower than in Bulgaria (12,8%) and Hungary(13,9%), but higher than in Greece (8,7%).

Even if the estimation made by experts fromUNICEF and World Bank in 2008 about theabsolute poverty rate in Romania, for 2009,indicated an absolute poverty rate of 7,4%(Crai et al, 2009), at the end of 2010, the Ro-manian Government reported a slightly dif-ferent situation: the preliminary Report re-garding social inclusion in Romania in 2009announces an absolute poverty rate of 4,4%(MWFSP, 2010a, p. 2), the smallest Romaniahas known in the last decade.

The segment of population that was most af-fected by absolute poverty in 2009, was thesegment with ages between 0 19 years (withan average rate of 6.36) and the least affectedwas the segment with ages between 60 64

years (2,2%) (MWFSP, 2010a, p. 32).

The West Region of Romania (where Timiscounty is situated) is reported as having oneof the lowest absolute poverty rates in 2009(MWFSP, 2010a, p. 21), compared with theother counties in fact the rate of 3,2 situatesit on the second position at a national level(after Bucharest, with a rate of 0,5). WestRegion is, thus, hosting 6,6% from the entire

poor Romanian population.

The most recent Quarterly Bulletin of theRomanian Ministry of Work, Family and So-cial Protection reports 6.886 children that are

beneficiaries of the special protection system,in the Western Region. This represents 10,5%from the total population of children that are

beneficiaries of the special protection system(MWFSP, 2010b), at the national level, whilethe region hosts just 8,95% of the countrys

population10and 8,64% of the total national10 The official web-site page of the Agency for

Regional Development Western Region - www.adrvest.ro/

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

16/82

16

The UNICEF report about The state of chil-dren in Serbia 2006 shows over 155.000children in Serbia were poor and that an ad-ditional 155.000 were at risk of falling be-low the poverty line (UNICEF, 2007). These

children suffered material, social and culturaldeprivation and were limited in the achiev-ing their rights to education, healthcare, equaldevelopment and protection. Analysis of datafrom rural and urban areas, from householdsof different sizes and structures revealed sig-nificant disparities within the country. Thelargest percentage of children who were un-der the average risk of poverty were childrenfrom large families; children living in ruralareas, especially in Southeast and WesternSerbia; children belonging to certain minoritygroups, particularly Roma; refugee children.

67% of Roma children living in Roma settle-ments were poor and practically all indicators

pointed to their unacceptable deprivation andmultidimensional discrimination. Research

presented in the Report shows that these chil-dren more often suffer from illness and stunt-ing as a result of malnutrition and hunger

four times as many Roma children are stunt-ed compared to the national average. Thesame report shows that, in Serbia 2006, only33% of children attended pre-school institu-tions, but this percentage is drastically loweramong Roma children just 6% among the20% poorest. 6% of children living under the

poverty line did not go to primary school andonly 13% of Roma children completed their

primary education.

In 2008, the poverty rate in Serbia was 6,1%.Compared to 2007, the poverty rate raisedwith 0.2 percentage points. At Severno-Banatski district level, between 2003 and2007, the percentage of beneficiaries of so-cial assistance increased from 3% level to5%. The percentage of poor population inVojvodina province was 8,7%. (WB, 2010)The percentage of poor population, in 2002,according to the type of regions in the coun-try was of 14.2% in rural areas.

The largest number of population that quali-fies as poor in Serbia consists in childrenunder 13 years and population aged 65+.Compared to the 2007, the profile of povertyhas not changed in the Serbian Republic. The

largest increase in the percentage of poor incomparison to 2007, has been recorded inhouseholds headed by unemployed (from10.3% to 19.3%). In 2010, the unemploymentrate was 20,9% in Vojvodina province (Gov-ernment of the Republic of Serbia, 2010, p.2).

Expenditures from the budget for social pro-tection and security of family and childrenis very small: in 2003 it represented 2.7% of

the total state budget, while in 2004 it wasreduced to 2.4%. Between 2005 2010, itmaintained a the rate of 2,5%, in spite of theobvious increase in poverty (from 6,1% in2008 to 8,8% in 2010) (WB, 2010).

3. Common challenges and joint efforts

in promoting child welfare Serbian-

Romanian collaborations and public-

private partnerships

In spite of the reform efforts of the last decademade in Romania and Serbia, the specialistsin child protection still face a series of greatchallenges in promoting child welfare.

The most important are related to the socio-economic status of their families and theirlack of access to community resources andservices. Research has shown that the mostdramatic effects of poverty among children

include (Popescu, 2003, p. 3):an increase in parental abandonment;an increase in the rate of underweightchildren, with the risk of future physi-cal development to be adversely af-fected;health degradation;delayed physical development, due tounbalanced nutrition and poor health;intellectual development delayed dueto inadequate living conditions, insuf-ficient stimulation of family, schoolnon-participation etc.lack of education, school drop-out;

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

17/82

17

exposure to abuse and neglect;increasing juvenile delinquency or

begging practice.

One of the main reasons for which peoplebelonging to disadvantaged categories keepfinding themselves trapped in a permanentcycle of poverty is their lack of access to a

permanent income that can provide them witha reasonable living standard. In most cases,this happens because, somewhere during theireducational path, because of objective or sub-

jective reasons, they gave up school, thus, be-ing unable to complete an education. Withouta school degree, their access to successful

professional insertion becomes increasingly

difficult (if not impossible), most of themending in becoming dependent on financialaid from the local welfare system. Not hav-ing resources to provide their children withan adequate access to education/training norhaving a mentality that encourages education-al attainment in them, their children will alsofind themselves repeating the same choicesof their parents, thus thickening the crowd ofthose relying on welfare support.

The main challenge for non-government orga-nizations should be to identify measures thatwould contribute to the inclusion of the poorin the process of economic growth; not as the

beneficiaries of better welfare programs, butrather as persons who have access to employ-ment and higher incomes. Fostering coopera-tion and improving NGOs capacity withinthe community (and wider) in order to gain

better effi

ciency in implementing programtasks are very important social elements, thatthe Government institutions should not losesight of. At the same time, it is importantto establish adequate cooperation between

public and private institutions, in order to in-crease the impact of their joint efforts amongthe beneficiaries of the programs.

Around the EU Accession (2007), Romaniahas undergone major transformations, in or-

der to be prepared to assume a truly Europeanidentity. Most of these adaptations consisted

in transformations of the legal frameworkfrom various fields. Social Work activity wasno exception to that. Major Laws (e.q. ChildProtection Law, Adoption Law) have beenchanged around the period of accession, in

order to suite better the European policies.Standards, Norms, Quality indicators ap-peared and had to be implemented and re-spected. So, the practice was left behind andhad to catch up with the legal framework.

Now, looking behind, one would be surprisedto see how major was the change brought byEU accession of Romania, to the field of so-cial work.

Most of the evolution was also stimulated byNGOs participating in the provision of so-cial services. The comparative advantage ofthe non-government organizations is in theirreadiness to observe problems and potentialsfrom the beneficiaries perspective, as wellas flexibility and the ability to adjust the pro-grams to certain specifics. Such programs may

be financed by the State, private companies inlocal communities, municipalities or foreigndonors, and should be implemented in coop-

eration with public institutions (UNDP, 2005,p. 23).

Serbia is currently crossing a very similarsituation, of adaptation and improvement ofthe legal framework in child protection legis-lation and services. This task requires a mul-tidisciplinary attitude, and therefore a closecooperation between NGOs and public in-stitutions is of great importance. To simply

recognize relevant organizations and repre-sentatives is not enough. It is also importantto take steps towards creating and sustaininga reliable partnership, that involves specificresponsibilities for each of the partners in-volved. Sadly, in Severno-Banatski district,the cooperation between the civil sector andlocal authorities is based almost exclusivelyon giving symbolic donations, which are inreturn distributed among the final beneficia-ries by the NGOs and this is where the co-operation ends. According to our knowledge,Serbian NGOs have a common problem:

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

18/82

18

they stay uninformed about other NGOs andtheir work, they lack information, lack thecapacity to organize themselves as a networkand this situation causes their interests to be

pushed into background. There is an urgent

need to improve the possibilities of the Serbi-an local civil society organizations to accessEuropean financing, to improve cooperationof NGOs between each other and at the sametime the cooperation of NGOs with local au-thorities.

In the following part, we chose to present twoproject based models of intervention withsocio-economic disadvantaged children inthe Romanian-Serbian cross-border area. The

projects were implemented by two NGOsworking in child protection (one from Roma-nia and another one from Serbia), in collabo-ration with public institutions from Romaniaand Serbia, and financed through a cross-bor-der cooperation programme.

The two main project partners were BethanySocial Services Foundation and Associationof Citizens Duga. Bethany Social Servic-

es Foundation is a not for profit RomanianNGO, founded in 1994, in Timisoara, Timiscounty. Its mission is to improve the qualityof life for disadvantaged individuals, groupsor communities, especially children and fam-ilies, by delivering social services and pro-moting professional social-work practices.In order to achieve this mission, the NGOdevelops social services and actions regard-ing: child abandonment prevention; life skills

development for disadvantaged groups (likeyoung parents, people with special needs,youth leaving the placement centers); fostercare services for abandoned children; volun-teering programs for the community.

Association of citizens Duga, seated inAda, Severno-Banatski district of Serbia, wasfounded in 2001. Formal organisation andregistration of the Association was a logicalcontinuation of the activities and initiative ofa volunteer group, enthusistic to give a handto those who need it most, the focus being on

children from socially disadvantaged, mar-ginalized and vulnerable groups. The goalof the Association is to help disadvantagedchildren and family to overcome, by schooland professional insertion, the difficult socio-

economic situation theyfi

nd themselves in.

The first joint project, developed by the twopartners was implemented between 2007-2008. Short description of the project:

Title: Come on over!

Problems and needs addressed in the proj-

ect:inefficient social insertion in mainstreamcommunity of two types of vulnerable cat-egories youngsters from placement cen-ters and ethnic minority groups; insufficientknowledge and experience among Serbianrepresentatives of organizations and institu-tions about the methods and techniques of de-veloping independent life skills in youngstersfrom placement centers; insufficient knowl-edge and experience between Romanian rep-resentatives of organizations in dealing withdiscriminated ethnic minority groups.

Target groups:Representatives of institutions and

NGOs from Romania and Serbia thatdelivered child protection services and/or promoted minorities rights.Poor communities in Timis county andSeverno-Banatski district, who experi-enced problems in accessing resourcesand services needed in order to over-come their problems.

Beneficiaries:

institutionalized children from Timis

county and Severno-Banatski district;Rroma communities from Timis countyand Severno-Banatski district.

Aim of the project:To establish a long-lastingpartnership between social services providersfrom Romania and Serbia, in order for themto improve their professional experience, thus

leading to increasing the quality of the socialservices offered to their beneficiaries.

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

19/82

19

Activities implemented through the proj-

ect: joint work-shops between Serbian andRomanian representatives of (public and pri-vate) social services providers that work withethnic minorities and communities affected

by poverty; trainings addressed to Serbianand Romanian representatives of (public andprivate) social services providers that workwith youngsters that are about to leave the

placement centres; study visits on both sidesof the border; direct services addressed byeach of the partners to communities affected

by poverty, on their side of the border (theservices addressed were designed based onan evaluation of the local needs, that each ofthe team implemented and consisted in: indi-vidual information services about rights andresponsibilities, group-work sessions, and le-gal assistance in order to obtain birth registra-tion certificates for the babies and IDs for theadults and to access legal rights).

Results of the project:100 representativesof NGOs and governmental institutions from

both countries were involved in project ac-tivities, participating in work-shop activities,

training sessions or study visits; 180 vulner-able beneficiaries received direct services;20 births registered and 80 families receivedassistance in accessing their legal rights; thework-shop conclusions and training mate-rial was published in three languages, underthe form of a Theoretical and Practice Guideon Developing Independent Life Skills inYoungsters and Promoting Minorities Rightsand distributed to 300 stakeholders in both

countries.

Project partners:

NGOs: Bethany Social Services Foundation(Romania), Association of citizens Duga(Serbia), Clementina Association (Romania),Association Pomoc Deci (Serbia).

Public institutions: The Local Social Workand Child Protection Department from TimisCounty (Romania) and The Poverty Reduc-tion Committe Municipality of Ada (Serbia).

Main project donors: Neighborhood pro-gramme Romania-Serbia 2005 (Ministry ofDevelopment, Public Works and HousingRomania, Ministry of Finance Serbia)

Why the project was considered innova-tive:it was based on two types of partnerships(public-private and Serbian-Romanian); thedesign of the activities (especially the work-shops and trainings) involved a high degreeof complementarity between the participantsfrom the two countries (both Romanian andSerbian participants had something to gainfrom the exchanges); it involved provisionof direct services addressed to the vulnerablegroups; the project results were valued by

publishing a Guide, that allowed dissemina-tion to a wide number of stakeholders.

The second joint project was focused more onthe direct beneficiaries (children from vulner-able categories) and tried to use a more funand attractive approach, in order stimulate thechildrens involvement in project activities.The project was implemented between 2008and 2009. Short description of the project:

Title: Friends by Nature

Problems/needs the project addressed:de-veloping, in children from disadvantaged cat-egories, a taste for tolerance, fellowship,responsibility, team-work, school/educationalactivities and environment protection.

Target-groups:disadvantaged children from elemen-

tary and secondary schools from Timiscounty and Severno-Banatski district;teachers from elementary and second-ary schools from Timis county andSeverno-Banatski district.

Final beneficiaries:disadvantaged children from elemen-tary and secondary schools from Timiscounty and Severno-Banatski district;

poor communities from Timis countyand Severno-Banatski district.

Aim of project:stimulating and developing

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

20/82

20

bia and one from Romania) were rewardedwith materials and equipments needed forteaching activities; 2 joint camps (7 dayseach) have been organized with a total of 80children. During the camps, the participants

developed cross-border friendships, learnedand excercised environment protection ori-ented behavior and developed their knowl-edge about each others country.

Project partners:

NGOs: Bethany Social Services Foundation(Romania), Association of citizens Duga(Serbia).

Public institutions: The Timis County SchoolInspectorate (Romania), Poverty ReductionCommitte Municipality of Ada (Serbia).

Why the project was innovative:it used aplayful and interactive approach in orderto make children understand serious sub-

jects like human and cultural diversity, non-discriminative behavior, the importance ofteam-work and responsibility towards theenvironment; it combined theory and practice

in direct activities implemented with the ben-eficiaries; it made the traditional school ac-tivities look more interesting and attractive tochildren that are often confronted with schooldrop-out problems.

Main project donors: Neighborhood pro-gramme Romania-Serbia 2006 (Ministry ofDevelopment, Public Works and HousingRomania, Ministry of Finance Serbia)

These are just a couple of examples abouthow NGOs can contribute, through theiractivities and programs, to public ends likereducing poverty, preventing school drop-outor increasing social cohesion.

Conclusions

The main conclusion of the article would bethat, many times, in order to solve a social

problem, there is need not necessarily formore resources, but for a better planning anda more efficient use of them, taking into con-

(in an attractive manner), among childrenfrom disadvantaged categories, the aware-ness about environmental issues, the impor-tance of a healthy life style and the respectfor the nature and environment, as a way to

understanding and valuing diversity, coop-eration and social responsibility.

Activities implemented through the

project:environment protection educational/-debate sessions dedicated to disadvan-taged children from elementary andsecondary schools from Timis countyand Severno-Banatski district, in orderto increase their knowledge about en-

vironment, ecology, human rights andresponsibilities concerned on ecologyand its preservation, pollution materi-als, learning about team work , toler-ance, good communication and part-nership;an environment protection action, im--

plemented at a large scale, under theform of a contest: during the education-al sessions, the students were asked toget involved in gathering and recyclingdifferent materials. The materials weredeposited in their schools. At the endof the action, all the materials collectedhave been sold and, from the moneyraised in this way, the project team

bought trees. The trees were plantedin the schools gardens/parks, with thestudents help. The school that managedto plant the most trees won the prize ofthe contest;

based on the participation at the volun--teer action, children from each school

were selected to participate in two the-matic joint camps (one in Romania andone in Serbia).

Results of the project:20 schools from poorcommunities in Timis county and Severno-Banatski district participated in the project;400 disadvantaged school children fromRomania and Serbia attended environment

protection educational/debate sessions; more

than 200 disadvantaged school children vol-unteered for the environment protection ac-tion; the two winning schools (one from Ser-

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

21/82

21

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei iProteciei Sociale (2010a), Raport privindincluziunea social n Romnia n anul2008 consideraii preliminare, Romnia:Bucureti;

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei iProteciei Sociale (2010b),Buletin statistic ndomeniul munciii proteciei sociale, trim. 3,Seciunea Protecia drepturilor copilului;

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei iProteciei Sociale (2010c),Buletin statistic ndomeniul munciii proteciei sociale, trim. 3,Seciunea Asistensocial;

Popescu, R. (2003), Promovarea incluziuniisociale a copiilor n societatea romneasc,

Revista Calitatea Vieii, nr. 3-4, p. 1-23;

The Economist (2010), Vanishing Vojvodina.Demographic changes are killing off a once-cosmopolitan province of Serbia, May 18th2010, on-line edition http://www.economist.com/node/16155218;

Tomislav, Z. (2009), Relatiile interetnice siidentitatea voievodineana, Europe - Journalfor Literature, Art, Culture and TransitionEurope -Journal for Literature, Art, Cultureand Transition,Issue 3, p. 37-45;

UNDP (2005), Poverty Reduction in Serbia The role of civil society, Beograd: UnitedNations Development Programme;

UNICEF Belgrade (2007), The state of chil-dren in Serbia 2006 with focus on poor andexcluded children, Belgrade: UNICEF;

The World Bank (2010), Country brief 2010.Serbia, World Bank official web-site.

sideration also the opportunities offered bythe public-private collaboration and the char-acteristics of the targeted population.

References:

Commision of the European Communities(2009),Joint Report on Social Protection andSocial Inclusion2008, Country Fiches - Ro-mania, Belgium: Brussels;

Crai, E., Grigoras, V., Pauna, C., Pop, L.,Stanculescu, M. (2009),Romnia O evalu-are rapida impactului crizei economice asu-

pra srciei. Nota comuna a Unicef si BanciiMondiale, 2009;

European Commission (2006), Towards anEU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, COM367, Brussels;

Government of the Republic of Serbia (2010),Quarterly newsletter on social inclusion and

poverty reduction, no. 3;

Guvernul Romniei i Comisia European -Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Op-

portunities DG (2005), Memorandumul Co-mun n domeniul incluziunii sociale Roma-nia, p. 14;

Institutul Naional de statistic(2009), Anu-arul statistic al Romniei2008;

Institutul Naional de statistic(2010),Bule-tin statistic lunar judeean, judeul Timi;

Mitchell, B., Kicoev, S. (1997), A brief pop-ulation history of Vojvodina 1638-1718, Geo-graphica Pannonica, No 1, p. 18-21;

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei iProteciei Sociale (2009),Raport privind ac-tivitatea de incluziune socialn anul 2008,Romania: Bucureti;

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

22/82

22

Abstract

Child poverty and social exclusion are adenial of childrens fundamental human rights,which can affect their development todayand undermine the realization of their full

potential in future. Viewed through the lens ofchildrens rights, child poverty is understoodas multi-dimensional, encompassing not onlyincome deprivation, but also other formsof deprivation and loss of dignity lack of

access to appropriate housing, education,health services, and a more general lackof opportunity in society. Reducing child

poverty and setting up conditions for socialinclusion of children is a key objective ofthe Bulgarian National Child Strategy 2008

2018.11 However, despite the ambitiousobjectives and targets and the measuresoutlined in the written documents, theres stilla poor track record of their implementation.

Theres no specification of the resourcesavailable to implement measures and exactlywhich Ministries or agencies are responsible

for delivering them.Keywords: social exclusion; Nationalchild strategy; implementation of social

policies; EU-SILK data; early childhoodinterventions.

Rezumat

Srcia i excluziunea social a copilului11 Specific charter of the streamlined National Strat-egy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion since

2006.

reprezint negarea drepturilor umanefundamentale ale copiilor, ceea ce le poateafecta dezvoltarea de azi i le poate subminarealizarea deplinn viitor a potenialului decare dispun. Vzutprin prisma drepturilorcopilului, srcia este neleasdin punct devedere multidimensional, cuprinznd nu doardeprivarea de venituri ci i alte forme dedeprivarei pierdere a demnitii pierdereaaccesului la locuin adecvat, educaie,

servicii de sntate, i la nivel general, lipsade oportuniti n societate. Dimensiuniledezavantujului social i a deprivrii

sunt interrelaionate i interdependente astfel, dac copilul locuiete ntr-un spaiu

supraaglomerat, localizat ntr-o arie srac,acestea pot contribui la o stare de sntate mai

precar, la absenteismcolar,i pot subminaansele n via ale copilului. Dimpotriv,accesul la un venit familial suficient, ngrijiri

adecvate, locuin decent i sntate decalitate, vor avea un impact pozitiv n viaacopilului, imediat i n viitor12.Cuvinte cheie: excluziune social; strategienaional pentru copii; implementarea

politicilor sociale; baza de date EU-SILK;intervenie timpurie.

Introduction

Viewed through the lens of childrens rights,

child poverty is understood as multi-dimen-12 Eurochild. A child rights approach to child poverty.

Discussion paper, 2007

CHILD POVERTY IN BULGARIA

Dani KolevaPolicy Director,

National Network for Children-Bulgaria

dani.koleva@nmd.bg

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

23/82

23

of the Crisis Monitoring Survey carried outby World Bank and Open Society Institute inFeb/March 201016 shows that the economiccrisis has further hit the most vulnerable andthe poor.

The data in fig. 2 show that every third fam-ily in Bulgaria with two or more childrenup to 6 years old is poor. 54 % of the poorhouseholds have children. It shows the un-evenly distributed impact of the crisis acrossethnic groups.Poor households reported re-ducing essential expenditure as lighting, heatand water; necessary clothing and food dueto economic hardship. Government has alsoreduced investments in health almost 20 %stopped buying regular medicines and 10 %dont visit the doctor after falling ill.

Fig. 1. Crisis Monitoring Survey carried outby World Bank and Open Society Institute inFeb/March 2010. http://www.econ.bg/analy-sis/article182488/vliyanieto_na_krizata_16 http://www.econ.bg/analysis/article182488/

vliyanieto_na_krizata_vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya

sional, encompassing not only income depri-vation, but also other forms of deprivation andloss of dignity lack of access to appropri-ate housing, education, health services, and amore general lack of opportunity in society.

The dimensions of disadvantage and depriva-tion are interrelated and interdependent forexample, if a child is living in overcrowdedaccommodation, located in a poor environ-ment, this may contribute to poor health,low educational attainment and underminelife chances. Conversely, access to sufficientfamily income, supportive care, decent hous-ing, and good quality health care, will havea positive impact on a childs life, both nowand into the future. 13

The situation in facts and figures

326 157 children in Bulgaria live at risk ofpoverty according to the EU-SILC 2008 data.This represents 26 % as compared with 21.4% for the total population and is one of thehighest in Europe. A national child-at-riskof poverty rate identifies the proportion ofchildren living under the national povertyrisk threshold in a given country. It is essen-

tial to complement this information with thenational poverty risk gap/relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap14, which indicates how

poor the poor children are that is the depthof child poverty risk. The poverty risk gap forchildren varies from 13 % in Finland and 15% in France to 40 % in Romania and 44 % inBulgaria.15

Given that EU-SILK data is collected through

households, it should be noted that informa-tion is still missing on the most vulnerablegroups, namely on children in alternativecare, street children, separated children andmigrant children. It is crucial that researchis undertaken and data on these groups col-lected in order to be able to address correctlytheir specific needs. The preliminary results13 Eurochild, A child rights approach to child poverty:

Discussion paper, 2007

14 Measures the distance between the median equiva-

lised income of people living below the poverty risk threshold

and the value of that poverty risk threshold and is expressedas a percentage of the threshold.

15 Hugh Frazer, Eric Marlier and Ides Nicaise, A social

inclusion roadmap for Europe 2020, 2010

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

24/82

24

vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya

Fig.2 Crisis Monitoring Survey carried outby World Bank and Open Society Institutein Feb/March 2010. http://www.econ.bg/analysis/article182488/vliyanieto_na_kriza-ta_vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya

Government actionsReducing child poverty and setting up condi-tions for social inclusion of children is a keyobjective of the National Child Strategy 2008

2018. Another positive development is theinclusion of a quantified target for the reduc-tion of child poverty in the National ActionPlan/inclusion. 17The quantified target to beachieved by 2020 is a reduction with 78 000children which is 30 % of the general national

target and approximately 24 % of the number17 Specific charter of the streamlined National Strat-egy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion since

2006.

of children at risk of poverty in 2008.

However, despite the ambitious objectivesand targets and the measures outlined in thewritten documents, theres still a poor track

record of their implementation. Theres nospecification of the resources available to im-plement measures and exactly which Minis-tries or agencies are responsible for deliveringthem. This issue becomes even more acutein a period when economic decline meansthat resources are likely to become scarcerand expenditure cut-backs. Given the inter-dependent nature of the problem, child pov-erty and well-being must be addressed acrossa range of policy areas. Such an integratedapproach requires formal arrangements to co-ordinate the efforts of all actors horizontally(across different government departments)and vertically (between different levels ofgovernance). If no such mechanisms are putin place, policies are likely to be fragmentedand less efficient and there is a danger that theimpact of policies on children is ignored orunder-valued.18

The newly established at the Council of Min-isters National Council for Social Inclusionwhich consists of various government andnon-governmental stakeholders is a step inthe right direction to ensure integrated hori-zontal approach however mechanisms toensure vertical co-ordination should be alsostrengthened.

Early childhood education and care offers

enormous opportunities for societies to re-duce poverty, inequality and disadvantage.Educational disadvantage is strongly asso-ciated with home background and becomesmeasurable even before formal schooling

begins: three-year-old children of more edu-cated parents, for example, often have doublethe vocabulary of children from poorer, lesseducated homes and are significantly morelikely to achieve higher qualifications by theage of 15. A significant body of research sup-

ports the idea that offering good quality early18 Frazer and Marlier: A social inclusion map for Eu-

rope 2020, 2010

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

25/82

25

education and care toallchildren tends to re-duce disadvantages.

The National Child Strategy 2008-2018 en-visages the development and introduction in

practice of early childhood standards. How-ever, this is another area where theres noclarity when and how this would be imple-mented.

Policy recommendations

The National Network for Children Bul-garia is an umbrella organization of 73 non-governmental organizations working withchildren and families. The organization is amember of Eurochild, an European networkof organizations and individuals working inand across Europe to promote the rights andwelfare of children. We support the conclud-ing statements of Eurochilds annual confer-ence, held in rebro, Sweden from 3-5 No-vember 2010:

Brighter futures for many children in Europeare currently threatened. Decisions taken bygovernments across the EU in response to

the crisis, risk jeopardizing millions of chil-drens quality of life and their overall lifechances. In this era of austerity measures it ismore important than ever that organizationscommitted to childrens rights and welfarework in partnership and promote a commonmessage.

Every child has equal rights, to all rights, asdefined in the UNCRC. Childrens rights are

indivisible and this understanding must un-derpin policies to fight child poverty. Policiesmake a difference. Governments have a re-sponsibility to support families to protect and

promote their childrens best interest, as wellas ensuring every child can access high qual-ity education, health, housing, leisure, sports,culture and arts. A child rights approach rec-ognizes and nurtures childrens own agencyand evolving capacities. Involvement andempowerment of children and families istherefore a key component of successful pol-icy and practice intervention.

Recommendations to the EU

1. Organizations working for the rights andwelfare of children recognize the importanceof the European Union as a key driver of re-form within Member States. Entry into force

of the Lisbon Treaty is an important stepforward as it makes protection of childrensrights a specific objective of the EU. It is cru-cial the EU respect this obligation and nowadopts a comprehensive and ambitious EUstrategy on the rights of the child ensuringall relevant EU policy and programs reflectthe principles enshrined in the UNCRC, andsupporting EU member states in their effortsto apply the UNCRC at national level.

2. The introduction of commitment to lifting20 million people out of poverty over the next10 years in the Europe2020 strategy is wel-comed. However, the seeds of poverty andsocial exclusion are sown in childhood, anda specific priority is necessary to address in-equalities faced by children from their young-est years. The EU should pressure memberstates to adopt specific targets to reduce childpoverty and provide policy guidance through

the adoption of a Recommendation on childpoverty and well-being. In particular we ac-knowledge the value and importance of cross-country comparisons and benchmarking toolsto monitor and push for progress.

3. The EU policy framework to fight childpoverty must promote a multi-dimensionalapproach based on a clear understanding

of childrens rights. It is important to dem-

onstrate evidence that child poverty cannotbe tackled through a focus on labour marketactivation alone. Many parents cannot workand across the EU in-work poverty is grow-ing. A child rights approach protects and pro-motes childrens best interest regardless oftheir parents employment situation. A com-mon framework against child poverty shouldfocus on families access to adequate income(including but not limited to access to thelabour market), as well as childrens accessto high quality services. The importance oflistening to and empowering children in all

8/10/2019 Revista Nr 28

26/82

26

Recommendations to Eurochild & its

members

7. Childrens rights are still poorly under-stood and applied in policy making acrossthe EU. The Eurochild network can raise

awareness of the UNCRC and its infl

uenceon decision-making among policy makers,

practitioners, parents and children. The fightagainst child poverty and social exclusioncannot be separated from childrens rights. Itis important to show how recognition of chil-dren as subjects of rights changes policy de-sign and implementation and produces betteroutcomes for children.

8. Focusing Eurochilds work on the UNCRCcreates a uniting force that brings togetherstakeholders across all sectors and profes-

sions. The conference has demonstrated withmany interesting good practice exampleshow working together makes a difference tochildrens lives. The Eurochild network aimsto provide a platform for all organisations andindividuals committed to the rights and wel-fare of children and young people in Europe.This diversity is its strength.

9. Eurochild has an obligation to ensure thevoices and concerns of children and young

people themselves are heard and taken intoaccount. This conference as previous Euro-child events has demonstrated the creativ-ity, insights and energy brought by childrenand young people to the debate. We alsoheard how different projects successfully em-

power and involve children to find the best

long-term solutions to poverty and social ex-clusion. Childrens participation must be anintegral part of our work and our efforts to

promote childrens well-being and inclusion.

References

Review of Bulgarian legislation, policies andpractices regarding the rights of the child, Na-tional Network for Children - Bulgaria, June2010, http://nmd.bg/en/campaign/reports/

Frazer, H., Marlier, E. and Nicaise, I. (2010),A social inclusion roadmap for Europe 2020;

types of policy intervention must be empha-sized.

Recommendations to the Member States

4. In times of fiscal consolidation and public

spending cuts, it is crucial that budgets tar-geting on children and families are protect-ed and increased. Investment in universal,high quality education, early years, familysupport and health promotion (among otherservices) provide the bedrock of a more equalsociety and will save costs in the future. Uni-versal services must be coupled with targetedinterventions for the most vulnerable ensur-ing a strong safety net for all children. Gov-ernments can and should strive to improveservice efficiency and impact, but never at thecost of undermining their ability to deliver aquality service to all. Governments must in-vest in training and capacity building of pro-fessionals working with and for children andfamilies.

5. Member states should strengthen cooper-ation and exchange at an EU level on child

poverty and well-being and lend their sup-

port to the Trio Presidency declaration callingfor a Commission Recommendation in 2011.In setting their Europe 2020 targets, memberstates should adopt a specific target on the re-duction of child poverty. Targets must be ac-companied by realistic, achievable national,regional and local strategies to fight child

poverty and social exclusion.

6. National action to address child poverty

and social exclusion must support partner-ship and cooperation with different stake-holders. Coordination across different levelsof governance and across different depart-ments is essential. Involvement of civil so-ciety, practitioners, parents and children andyoung people themselves in policy and