Protect children on the move
Children on the move in Romania: Situational Analysis Title: Children on the move in Romania: Situational Analysis
This study has been produced with the financial assistance of the Daphne Programme of the European Union as well as the Oak Foundation.
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the project Mario partners and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission or the Oak Foundation.
Children on the move in Romania:
Situational Analysis
2014, Bucharest
Terre des hommes – Mario project 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Children on the move in Romania: Situational Analysis
“When you look out your window, you see a perfect world. When you get out there, it is impossible not to realize that there is no such thing as perfect in this world. Shortly after, you come to realize that the real world pulled you over to blind you from the truth. Then you learn that in the happiest case you are just a statistic. You cannot count on anyone except yourself, and often people don’t count you. You are the invisible nice guy who daily takes his place at the desk. But it is my place, and it is important that I make each day count. Only thinking in this way, I can move to the next step in my life. Tomorrow is another day. Maybe tomorrow is a better one because I will not give up my hopes and I will continue to believe in my chances!” Interview with S., Male, 17 Constanta
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was undertaken with the support and dedication of Terre des hommes and Save the Children Romania, organizations devoted to children and their missions in the best interests of children. These organizations provided the researchers with support throughout the situational analysis process and facilitated access to key stakeholders and to children who directly or indirectly experienced migration and/or exhibited vulnerabilities that can lead them to choose migration as a solution to the problems they face. Further, the research team would like to thank the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection from Constanta, Iasi and Timisoara who dedicated significant resources and efforts and allocated some of their time to the research. We would also like to acknowledge that given the short notice period, all management and staff of these organizations responded in a timely and fulsome way upon receiving notification that their region has been selected for an in-depth analysis of the children on the move phenomenon. This research could not have been completed without essential contribution and support of each professional who participated in the focus groups and interviews representing a wide range of stakeholders including governmental and non-governmental organizations. The input from their own work experiences in relation to children on the move issues was critical for the learnings captured in this report. Deep and sincere appreciation goes in particular to all the children who participated in open conversations and to their parents for consent and support. All of them made substantial efforts and gave up their personal time for sharing life experiences, views, emotions and perception. Their invaluable contribution is a critical ingredient for the adult world including professionals, politicians, mass-media, other interested parties to better understand the needs and desires of our children and the impact of movement on their lives and hopes.
2 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 2
1.INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1. Purpose and Objectives...... 4 1.2. Methodological Overview...... 4 1.2.1. Guiding Principles ...... 4 1.2.2. Research Process ...... 5 1.2.3. Sampling ...... 6 1.2.4. Special Considerations...... 7 1.2.5. Data Analysis ...... 8 1.3. Challenges and Limitations...... 8
2. UNDERSTANDING THE NATIONAL CONTEXT ...... 10 2.1. A Challenging Reality...... 10 2.2. Invisible Children at Risk...... 11 2.3. Overview of the Child Protection Framework...... 11 2.4. Institutional framework ...... 13
3. KEY FINDINGS...... 16 3.1. Operational Definitions and Conceptual Underpinnings ...... 16 3.2. Magnitude of the children on the move in Romania...... 17 3.3. Children on the move in Romania: The Emerging Picture ...... 27 3.4. Needs, Risks, Vulnerabilities and The Impact of Movement...... 30 3.5. Legislative and Policy Framework in Practice...... 32 3.6. Programs, Services and Standards ...... 33 3.6.1. Accessibility...... 34 3.6.2. System Capacity ...... 38
4. LESSONS LEARNED ...... 44
5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 46
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 49
7. APPENDICES...... 52
3 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
1. INTRODUCTION
This situational analysis was commissioned by the Terre des hommes Foundation Romania within the context of the Mario Project, a joint action to protect Central and South East European migrant children from abuse, exploitation and trafficking in Europe. This study has been envisioned as a preliminary exercise to inform and guide the work and efforts of Mario project partners and of key private and public stakeholders and develop evidence-based recommendations to effectively address child protection related concerns challenging children on the move during their journey from the country of origin to their destination country.
1.1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The situational analysis aims to inform the work and efforts of Mario project partners through the assessment of the existing child protection system in Romania and its capacity to identify and respond to the needs of children on the move, with a specific focus on accessibility and inclusiveness and pro- activity. The goal for conducting an analysis from an accessibility and inclusiveness perspective was to provide Mario project partners with an indication of: • The magnitude of the children on the move phenomenon in Romania; • Children’s perceptions and views on how the movement has affected or might affect their lives; • Whether or not the current child protection system is able to identify and respond to the needs of children on the move/or who are at risk of unsafe migration; • Whether or not the system is safe and inclusive for children on the move or at risk of unsafe migration; • Availability of various types of services in the territory; • Awareness and understanding of available services; and • Legal, administrative and practical obstacles that children on the move may face in accessing services.
An analysis from a pro-activity perspective attempts to provide Mario project partners with an indication of: • Structures, tools and methods in the child protection system that allows professionals to prevent children on the move from being neglected, abused and exploited; • Systems and processes for ensuring data collection, monitoring and the utilization of information/data to assist with policy development and interventions; • Resources available in the child protection system and the role of NGOs; and • Mechanisms of both NGOs and governmental agencies for determining and responding to service needs of the children on the move in the community. Overall, the situational analysis intends to contribute to the identification of systemic issues that may call for changes to policy and/or practice by highlighting the strengths and challenges encountered by various stakeholders in their effort to establish priorities for action to improve system’s capacity to find optimum solutions to a wide range of issues affecting the children on the move.
1.2. METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
1.2.1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
In conducting the situational analysis, the research team was guided by the methodological considerations for research and child consultation developed by Mario project experts. Overall, this assessment was guided by the principle of the best interests of the child. As the expectation was to carry out this situational analysis in a child participatory manner, the research team members attempted to the best of their ability to develop tools to reflect child participatory principles (e.g. child friendly questions and interview techniques). Both, the research team and the two partners in Mario project (i.e., Terre des hommes Foundation and Save the Children Romania) carefully considered the
4 2.1. O realitate cu provocări selection of appropriate channels to reach children as well as identification of child friendly facilities to conduct interviews and focus groups. The research team members were trained in ethical and child-sensitive research and paid due attention to ensuring data confidentiality and respecting the privacy of respondents. In the course of this research, the children participating in the open discussions did not reveal unknown information associated with their specific circumstances involving abuse of children or serious exposure to certain risks and dangers that would have required disclosures and would have had the potential to compromise the principles of confidentiality and anonymity.
1.2.2. RESEARCH PROCESS
The research team followed the research process identified within the framework of Mario Project including a desk review and onsite activities (including interviews and focus group discussions with children, stakeholders) described in the section below. The desk review stage involved review and analysis of existing and available information including research and evaluation reports, articles and studies published in academic journals or by relevant institutions (e.g. IOM, ILO, UNCHR, UNICEF, Save the Children, Terre des hommes, etc.), presentations materials, project reports, handbooks, manuals, best practice reports, relevant international, European and Romanian legislation, policies and strategies, Eurostat data, and reports of the Child Consultation Board activities (i.e. Mario Project, Romania) . It should be noted that the research team had limited access to relevant statistics and quantitative data which could inform an analysis of the situation of children on the move as of end of 2013. Terre des hommes on behalf of the research team submitted letters to 34 concerned stakeholders (24 institutions/public authorities, 8 NGOs, 2 international bodies: IOM and UNHCR) requesting for access to important reports and statistics linked to children on the move to inform the development of specific lines of inquiry for interviews and focus groups. Of all 34 stakeholders, only the General Inspectorate for Immigration provided us with relevant statistics given the purpose of this study. The stakeholders approached include the following: • The National Romanian Council for Refugees, • Jesuit Service for Refugees, • Young Generation Romania, • SOS Children’s Villages, • Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly – Child Protection Department, • Social Alternative Foundation, • Ministry of Education, • PARADA Foundation, • Ministry of Interior Affairs - General Inspectorate for Immigration and General Inspectorate of the Romanian Border Police, • National Institute for Statistics, • Regional Centre for Accommodation and Asylum Seeking Procedures – Bucharest).
The onsite activities (empirical research) involved the collection of qualitative data through semi- structured interviews and focus groups discussions in five sites with: • 74 professionals representing public and private organizations directly or indirectly involved in the provision of services for children on the move and their families, as well as in policy-making and advocacy in this field of child protection. • 63 children aged 12 to 18 who belong to one of the following sub-groups: o migrant child (e.g. run-away, with parents or unaccompanied within Romania, or in Europe, or in a third country); o child outside a protective environment (e.g., street children); o vulnerable/at risk child (e.g., living in poverty or poor communities, Roma population, children exposed to domestic violence, physically and/or sexually abused; kidnapped); o child who lived abroad more than 3 months and returned to Romania; o child seeking asylum; and o child trafficking.
5 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Additionally, open discussions conducted with the children members of the Child Consultation Board (Mario Project, Romania) informed the development of tools as well as the analysis of findings and the provision of key recommendations highlighted in this report.
1.2.3. SAMPLING
The researchers used a convenience or opportunistic approach to sampling. Whilst convenience sampling technique is generally disputed by quantitative researchers, it is regarded as an acceptable approach when using a qualitative design. As the generalization was not the main focus of the research findings, the researchers felt comfortable to use this sampling technique.
Selection of the Research Sites The research sites were selected in a more systematic manner taking into considerations the county level, one of the three hierarchical levels of the territorial administrative organization in Romania. The county level is represented by 42 counties and Bucharest Municipality. Thus a research site represents a county of Romania selected to conduct empirical research in accordance with the pre-established methodology within the framework of Mario Project. The research team advanced the following criteria for the research sites selection in this study: • Visibility of various children on the move (e.g. magnitude of the phenomenon, availability of services and programs, etc.): The research sites were selected considering the findings of the existing documentation (e.g. research reports, country reports, program reports and policy issue statements) outlining relevant statistics relevant to the children on the move situation in Romania and major responses of the governmental and non-governmental organizations to address the needs of various children-at-risks groups examined by various organizations including Save the Children Romania, Terre des hommes, Romani Criss, Alternative Sociale, UNICEF Romania, ILO/IPEC, Group of Experts Against Trafficking in Human Beings, and The Department of Child Protection, Ministry of Labor, Family and Social Protection and Elderly. • Prior involvement of a county with similar studies: If a specific county has undergone through a similar study on a topic relevant to the children on the move, then we included that county in the short-list. • Priority for analysis of children on the move: If the county did not undergo a similar study, and the desk review findings suggest a significant number of children at risk in that county or a well-defined problem that is a reflection of how children in that area had been affected by the migration then that county was included in the short-list. • Effective use of the research funding: In order to ensure the best use of funding allocated for conducting this situation analysis (i.e. funds for travel), the research team also considered the geographical distances vis-a-vis the capital of Romania (Bucharest) and their implication for travel time. • Established networks and/or prior relationships: In selecting the sites, the researchers considered personal professional networks as well as the organizational infrastructure and partnerships of both Save the Children Romania and Terre des hommes Romania, the two organizations leading the implementation of Mario Project in Romania, including this situational analysis. When at least one of the two partnering NGOs was actively involved in a county included in the short-list (e.g. a branch or implement a program), it was considered as an important factor to increase buy-in, support and participation of the local stakeholders in this study. By using this multi-step process, the research team used these criteria to establish a short list including eight (8) of the 42 counties. Based on the opportunities and constraints resulting from the consideration of all criteria, the team proposed a preference order of the eight short-listed counties and submitted that list to Terre des hommes Romania for review and final approval. The selection of the research sites has also been informed by critical findings of two major studies which
emphasize that the trafficked and/or unaccompanied minors mainly originate from the Southern regions (Calarasi and Craiova), the Eastern areas (Galati and Iasi) and Bucharest (ILO/IPEC, 20031; Terre des hommes, 20072). As a result, the following five counties were selected as research sites for this study:
1 ILO/IPEC. Rapid Assessment of Trafficking in Children for Labour and Sexual Exploitation in Romania. 2003. Available from www.ilo.org; 2 Terre des hommes. (2007). A new investigation on the trafficking of Romanian children in Spain. Accessed from http://tdh- childprotection.org/content/view/34/
6 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
• Iasi (North-East Region), • Constanta (South-East Region), • Dolj (South-West Region), • Bucharest (South-East), and • Timis (West Region).
Selection of Children The Save the Children branches active in the selected research sites were solely responsible for the selection of children who participated in the study in Constanta, Iasi and Timis. In Bucharest, both project partners (Terre des hommes Foundation and Save the Children) led the process of selecting the children who participated in the interviews with support from the PARADA Foundation and the Association for the Development of Alternative Practices for Education and Reintegration (ADPARE) Bucharest. In Dolj, the participation of children in the study was facilitated by Terre des hommes Foundation with the support from the local Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection.
The children selected to participate in the data collection process through interviews and focus group discussions were selected based on the following considerations: • Children were easily accessible and willing to participate in the open discussions. • Their life experiences were relevant to the focus of this study. • The child demonstrates a satisfactory level of development that will allow the child to express personal views and opinions. • There is a positive relationship between the case worker, child and the parents. In light of this criterion, there was a sort of assurance that the parents of children who were targeted to be included in the sample were more likely to give permission for their child participating in the process. • Parent(s)/legal guardian is willing to provide with written consent for the participation of the child in the focus group or interview discussions.
Establishing contact with children proved difficult. Without the appropriate support from all non- governmental organizations involved in the selection process it would have been very challenging to outreach and identify children to participate in the interviews or focus groups. The organizations involved with the recruitment of the children participating in the research explained in a friendly manner to both the child and his/her parent(s) the purpose of the study, the importance of their participation and what is expected from them. When some of the identified children and/or their parents did not express willingness and/or said they do not feel comfortable to participate their opinion was respected, and they were given additional time for thinking and making a final decision. As in all cases, they were told that they were free to withdraw their consent at any point during the interview or focus groups, and that their decisions would not affect the relationship with their organization and/or their social worker. When they clearly communicated their dissent, there was no further action to influence their decision.
Selection of the Stakeholders The Directorates of Social Assistance and Child Protection in the selected five counties with inputs from Terre des hommes, Save the Children and the research team identified relevant stakeholders and invited them to participate in this study. The adult stakeholders who participated in the interviews or focus groups, reflect a diverse, cross-section of the relevant community of practice, including representation from child protection (i.e. social workers, psychologists, senior leadership, policy-makers, supervisors), police, health care, senior leadership from the school inspectorates, teachers, academia, staff from non- governmental organizations and other community services.
1.2.4. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Use of Interpreter In three instances, the interview was conducted through an interpreter (e.g. Turkish-Romanian, Ukrainian-Romanian and Romani-Romanian) who was acceptable to the respondent (i.e. family member such as brother, mother) since those children did not understand the questions in Romanian language or did not feel comfortable to answer in Romanian language.
7 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Audio-recording of discussions Some of the discussions were audio-recorded when the participants clearly expressed their consent. The audio-recordings are available as follows: • Bucharest (i.e. two focus groups with the stakeholders and the focus group with the children), • Iasi (i.e. focus group with the children), • Dolj (i.e. both focus groups with the children and the stakeholders, two stakeholder’s interviews), and • Timis (i.e. the stakeholder’s focus group).
When the researchers made the requests for explicit consent for audio-recordings, they emphasized that the recordings are for this study use only. However some of the stakeholders and children participants in either the interviews or the focus groups did not grant consent for undertaking audio-recordings. In keeping up with the ethical considerations and the norms of social research, in such cases only interview/focus group transcripts are available. The discussions were not recorded for the following reasons: • When asked, most of the children participating in the focus groups did not feel comfortable to be audio-recorded indicating that maybe people who might listen to the recordings could recognize their voices. • In several instances participants in both the stakeholders and children focus groups expressed their reservations for being audio-taped; therefore, the group suggested the researcher to take written notes only. • Most of the children who participated in the interviews or focus group discussions indicated that they do not want to be recorded, and did not provide any further explanations. Others commented that their situation is challenging enough and the nature of their specific case and lived experiences makes it very difficult for them to talk and share their perspectives. They further indicated that an eventual recording will only add pressure, and it will become even more difficult for them “to find their words”. For example, in one instance the child stated that” If you will record me, I will probably be paralyzed and not able to talk at all.” • In one case, the child came directly from the emergency room due to an anxiety attack thinking of how the interview is going to unfold. The psychologist advised the researcher to ensure that the child is comfortable throughout the interview process and suggested not to use the audio-recorder with this child because most probably it will increase their anxiety level. • Majority of the stakeholders who participated in the interviews did not grant permission for undertaking audio-recording justifying that when voices are recorded, their anonymity is at risk; they indicated that would feel more comfortable if only transcripts are considered. • In one instance, the focus group with the stakeholder took place simultaneously with the children focus group, and only one was recorded.
1.2.5. DATA ANALYSIS
The information analyzed in this report presents data, opinions, views and perceptions shared by the source organizations and stakeholders from November through December 2013. Transcripts of participant interviews and focus groups represent the raw data for this study's analysis. The researchers analyzed the transcripts inductively so as to discover themes and emerging patterns. Throughout the analysis, the researchers consistently attempted to integrate two sets of data and evaluate the full data set to weigh the relevance (i.e., frequency, application to the research question) and to produce the most significant themes under which to present the study's findings.
1.3. CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
The research team does not claim that this report is a complete reflection of the situation of children on the move in Romania since accessibility to relevant information and statistics was a major handicap. Additionally, the information and data collected represent a snapshot in time of the children on the move situation in Romania. Given the complexity and multidimensionality of all problems affecting children on the move, he information collected through the techniques listed above might be missing details, components or might be underreporting issues because the correlation between the primary concern of the identified cases
8 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
(e.g. child labour, child trafficking, children left behind by their migrant parents, etc.) and child migration has not yet been explored. For example, in the case of children left behind, the parents’ migration and children migration appear to be intertwined as a result of mentality and cultural pressures. In small communities, children are expected to help their families with domestic work, agriculture, etc. Prior experiences as “little helpers” for their families, along with the lack of alternatives for their day-to-day life and their future will determine these children to start a dangerous journey to reunite with their families. However, in the absence of proper information and/or due to poor communication with their parents, these children could easily take up a path that would place them in the worst form of exploitation. This example highlights a critical knowledge gap concerning the relationship between an apparent primary concern prior to the move (e.g. children left behind by their migrant parents) and their vulnerabilities once they are on the move. This knowledge gap calls for further analysis. Consequently, the findings and recommendations should also be considered with caution.
9 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
2. UNDERSTANDING THE NATIONAL CONTEXT
2.1. A CHALLENGING REALITY
Romania, a medium size country with a population of 20.020.074 (Eurostat, 2013) is located in the eastern part of Europe. One fifth (21%) of the country's population is made up of children and youth aged 0 to 19 years (Table 1). Romania had the third largest economic growth rate at end of 2008 (Eurostat, 2009); however, the financial collapse of 2008 destabilized the economy (Anghel et.al, 2013). As a result, Romania has a fragile economy which combined with unnecessary bureaucracy, lack of/poor coordination among ministries, insufficient collaboration between the state and the non-governmental organizations causes growing levels of poverty affecting disproportionately child population (Anghel et.al, 2013). In 2011, almost 33% of the Romanian children and youth aged 15 to 19 years were at risk of poverty, two thirds (2/3) more than the proportion of children and youth aged 15 to 19 years of the European Union (27 countries) who continued to suffer from poverty, despite EU and national efforts (Eurostat, 2011). An analysis by the NGOs Federation of Nongovernmental Organizations to Protect Your Child (FONPC) of various components of the 2008-2013 National Strategy for Child Protection and Promotion of Children also emphasized the continuing deterioration of the condition of the Romanian children and youth in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. Currently, Romania is run by a mixed cabinet of centre-right, centre-left, social democrat and liberal politicians, a mix that makes difficult to categorize the social welfare model (Anghel et. al., 2013). Anghel et al. (2013) argues that in Romania as elsewhere in Europe, the neo-liberal measures involved funding cuts and shrinking of the public sector which affected the availability of much needed support to vulnerable groups. In the same line of thinking, FONPC maintains that the financial constraints and yearly expenditure cuts limited the provision of services at the local level and resulted in the decline of the quality of existing services, especially in small communities which is consistent with other research findings. Eurostat data (2013) categorize Romania in 2011 as the second highest level of population at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe (41%). In 2013, poverty reduction continues to be a real challenge3 as indicated by the Council of the European Union.
Table 1: Population Data as of January 1 for each year (Data Extracted 16.01.2014) Demographic Profile 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Country Population 21,521,142 21,382,354 21,257,016 21,130,503 20,635,460 20,440,290 20,294,683 20,199,059 20,095,996 20,020,074 Total Children Population Y <19 5,185,696 5,058,172 4,919,871 4,758,351 4,527,663 4,387,539 4,274,217 4,198,150 4,135,086 4,230,964 Children Population (F, Y 10-19) 1,480,553 1,428,143 1,366,968 1,295,355 1,205,275 1,141,642 1,084,056 1,050,199 1,024,737 1,057,997 Children Population (M, Y 10-19) 236,505 230,103 223,858 218,411 210,890 204,614 199,628 195,915 192,398 190,265 Total Children Population Y 10-19 1,717,058 1,658,246 1,590,826 1,513,766 1,416,165 1,346,256 1,283,684 1,246,114 1,217,135 1,248,262 % of Child Population 24% 24% 23% 23% 22% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21%
Source: Eurostat website, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Countries such as Romania with a large proportion of young people struggling with significant economic and social security pressures faced growing demands for social support, access to jobs, health services,
3 Council of Europe. (2013). Council Recommendation on Romania’s 2013 national reform program and delivering Council opinion on Romania’s convergence program for 2012-2016. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_romania_en.pdf
10 2.1. O realitate cu provocări and education. Where expectations and needs were not met, they reflected rapidly in the worsening of the life of children and youth. For the first time after almost 15 years, in 2011 the number of children in institutions increased (137 additional cases) and the system struggled with the difficulty to adjust services to needs which were sudden and unpredictable4. The same material makes reference to an independent evaluation that revealed that 2.7% of children living in vulnerable families in small communities, at risk o various forms of violence were not identified nor registered by the local bodies, the Social Assistance Public Services (SPASs) responsible with the protection of children. Logically, more and more children are being exposed to complex vulnerabilities and multiple risks leading to addictions, violence, school drop-out, homelessness and life in the street, becoming victims of exploitation, trafficking, and or getting involved in situations that place them in conflict with law (.i.e. associations with gangs and local groupings of organized crimes that gets them involved in burglaries, begging, drug and cigarettes trafficking, theft, kidnapping, prostitution, smuggling, counterfeiting money, organ trafficking, and so on). All these lead to deprivation and exclusion and generate so called “hard to solve cases”. However, in the absence of statistics it is very difficult to determine the impact of various realities and policy responses on the situation of children well-being and the respect of children’s rights as well as their implications for practice (FONPC, 2013). Under these circumstances, it should not come as a surprise if in the coming years a significant number of children and young people under the age of 18 will seek opportunities elsewhere thinking that mobility will enable access to a better life. Once children have chosen to move unaccompanied, in the absence of protection systems and actors available to help them, they could easily be caught between resilience and vulnerability (Ensor and Gozdziak, 2010) at any point in their migration journey.
2.2. INVISIBLE CHILDREN AT RISK
Some of the Romanian child welfare researchers and experts argue that many of the children identified as at risk of social and economic exclusion in their communities are invisible and, therefore, their issues are not consistently present on the public and political agendas (Stanculescu and Marin, 2012, in Anghel 2013). The “children at risk” among other groups also include vulnerable groups linked to children on the move phenomenon (i.e. children left behind by migrant parents, children victims of trafficking and child labor, children in the street, asylum seekers, etc.). Accurate statistics about children on the move around the world or related categories are difficult to obtain, and when available data are scattered and problematic because several issues including underreporting, scarcity of information on the links between child migrations, migratory situations, causes of migration and so forth (IOM, 2013).5 In Romania there is no difference; no official statistics to reflect the magnitude of children on the move are currently available. Key players in Romania (i.e. International Organization for Migration, UNICEF, ILO-IPEC, Save the Children, Terre des hommes, Romani Criss, Council of Europe) involved in studying and understanding various aspects in relation to the children on the move phenomenon indicated in their reports that estimates about child migration are based upon a series of extrapolations and assumptions, rather than hard facts. Clearly, many decisive questions remain in the grey zone without specific answers about the number of migrant children and youth, their age and gender distribution, whether or not they are moving alone or with their families, where do they go and so on. The lack of data is a major obstacle to the development of appropriate policies and responses for these categories of vulnerable groups.
2.3. OVERVIEW OF THE CHILD PROTECTION FRAMEWORK
Given the modernized vision of the child protection framework with children seen as active, independent social actors with their own lives and rights (CRC, 1989), more and more requirements for policy and legislative changes were needed to the Romanian child protection system.This transformational process
4 UNICEF. (2008). Roles and accountabilities at local level : Planning services for prevention of separation of children from families www.unicef.org/ceecis/08-5_Denisa_Oana_Patrascu_Romania_EN.pptx ) 5 The International Organization for Migration (IOM) Guide on Children on the Move. 2013. Introduction to six articles by members of the research subgroup of the Inter-Agency Working Group on Children on the Move. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/Children_on_the_Move_15May.pdf
11 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL was oftentimes a cumbersome undertaking due limited capacity of the Romanian authorities for policy and legislative making in the absence of evidence and clear understanding of child protection priority issues. In the last 24 years Romania made significant efforts to adjust and align the national laws with the International and European laws to ensure the observance, promotion and guaranteeing of the rights of the child. The Romanian child protection system refers to the system of services provided to children in need of protection to support the observance, the promotion and the guarantee of children’s rights. Article 45 of the Constitution of Romania states that, “Children and young shall enjoy special protection and assistance in the pursuit of their rights.” In keeping with the Constitutional provisions, Law No. 272/2004 on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child was adopted, and published in the Official Gazette, Part I, No. 557 of 23 June 2004. This Child Protection Law amended and completed by Law 257/2013 to reflect the realities of contemporary Romanian society, the best interests of children and recommendations from the key international bodies, establishes a new legal framework for respecting, promoting and guaranteeing the rights of the child. Under the Child Protection Law (Art. 1) direct beneficiaries are: • Romanian citizen children who live in Romania, • Romanian citizen children who live abroad; • Children without citizenship who live in Romania; • Children who request or benefit from a form of protection under the conditions of the legal regulations concerning the status and regime of refugees in Romania; • Foreign citizen children who live in Romania, in emergency situations (also, Art. 3 of the Law).
The Child Protection Law contains provisions to ensure the following: the respect for child’s individuality and personality; the best health a child can achieve; a non-discriminatory treatment; the child have access to and receive education; and the protection of the child against all forms of violence, abuse, neglect or ill-treatment and all forms of exploitation. This law also outlines the principles which should always guide the policy development and service delivery process in the Romanian child protection system as follows: • observing and primarily promoting the best interests of the child; • ensuring equal opportunities and non-discrimination; • raising the awareness of the parents on the exercise of their rights and on the fulfillment of parental duties; • promoting the primordial responsibility of the parents to observe and guarantee the rights of the child; • supporting the decentralization of the child protection services, the multi-sectorial intervention and the partnership between the public institutions and the authorized private institutions; • ensuring the provision of individualized and personalized care for each child; • preserving the dignity of the child; • hearing and listening to the opinion of the child and giving it due weight, in accordance with the age and maturity of the child; • providing stability and continuity in caring, raising and educating the child, taking into account the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background, in the process of undertaking a protection measure; • demonstrating celerity in making all decisions concerning the child; • ensuring protection against child abuse and neglect; and • interpreting legal norms pertaining to the rights of the child in correlation with the entire collection of regulations in this filed.
The new amendments to the Child Protection Law (see Law 257/2013) clarify the definition of the “best interests of the child” and require that the following considerations should be reflected upon in concert when determining the best interests of child:
• the needs for physical and psychological development, for education and health, security and stability and the affiliation to a family; • child's opinion according to age and degree of maturity; • child's history, considering, especially, the abuse, negligence, exploitation matters against the child, as well as potential risk situation that may occur in the future;
12 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
• parents' or other persons’ capacity who are to take care of the child's nursing and care to respond to his immediate needs; and • maintaining the personal relationships with the persons to whom the child has developed relationships of attachment.
Further, these amendments introduce new requirements for the individual plans which broaden the focus from responding to an urgent issue or crisis occurring at one point in the life of a child to a focus on preventing abuse, negligence, exploitation and other forms of violence against the child and avoiding the separation of the child from his/her family. This approach facilitates the reconfiguration of services around the child and his/her family with services being offered in a more coordinated way and supports enhanced responsiveness to child’s needs, the achievement of better outcomes and greater planning for access to services. This child-family centered approach places a greater emphasis on the importance of early interventions to prevent the worsening of child’s circumstances and stimulates service coordination among various service providers involved in a single case. Thus, when more than one service provider are involved in the case management of a complex case, they are expected to work together and coordinate their interventions into an integrated individualized intervention plan agreed upon by all actors, including the child. This change in practice could result not only in improved outcomes for children and their families, but also in efficient use of the available human and financial resources involved in the case management of complex cases. A successful change of practice requires dedicated, visionary and accountable leadership and frontline staff at all levels of the child protection system. Building on the provisions of the Law 272/2004 on children’ rights protection, Romania has also developed provisions relevant for different categories of the children on move (Appendix 1, Table 2).
2.4. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The Child Protection Department of the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and Elderly is the central authority in the field of protection and promotion of the rights of the child. It is a regulatory authority responsible with the coordination and control of the entire activity concerning the protection and promotion of children on a national level, as well as with monitoring the observance of child rights in Romania. It also elaborates the strategy in the field and programs for the accomplishment of strategic objectives. The Deputy Ombudsman for Child Protection, located within the Office of the Ombudsman, solves complaints about rights violations submitted by children, parents or legal representatives ex officio or upon request. 6 At the local level, the public county entities (i.e., the Child Protection Commission and the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection - DGASPC) together with the local administrative authorities (the Social Assistance Public Services - SPAS) have the primary obligation to guarantee and promote the observance of child rights and the creation of services. In practice, the responsibility for the provision of child protection services is shared between public authorities and authorized private bodies as well as other entities with recognized responsibility for the child’s protection, in conformity with the CRC provisions concerning child rights and other conventions and international treaties ratified by Romania.7 The systematic involvement of the NGO sector in the promotion and implementation of children’s rights through the provision of services is critical today as it was twenty years ago. Fifty eight percent (58%) of all NGOs providing social services in Romania are service providers in the child protection field (Sparleanu C., 2010). Their distribution across the country is heterogeneous based on the county’s
6 The Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Romania available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-ROM-CO-4.pdf 7 Article 19 of the CRC provides that “states shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”. Further it specifies that to ensure such protection, measures should include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement. This implies not only the development of policy and legislative frameworks, but also clear division of roles and responsibilities between various professionals and institutional bodies, along with appropriate capacity building initiatives including training, networking, sharing of best practices, identification of systemic issues and funding and oversight mechanisms.
13 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL capacity to support NGOs sustainability. Only 11% of the organizations owning the „public utility statute” are involved in child protection. This study also indicates that 767 nongovernmental organizations provide 1.600 services in child protection. Historically, the Romanian NGOs were a key player in the development of the child welfare system in Romania. Most of the Romanian NGOs currently active in the child protection field were established between 1990-1997, with support from international donors (intergovernmental bodies, international aid government and private organizations and foundations) that provided financial assistance to be directed to helping poor communities and vulnerable groups (e.g. orphaned living in the Romanian child care institutions, HIV/AIDS children, street children, children with special needs). During that time, the newly formed NGOs took action, initiated programs and delivered services filling in huge service gaps because the state was overwhelmed by the scope and the complexity of the problems needing to be addressed and lacked capacity (e.g. expertise, resources, infrastructure) to be responsive to the needs of children and their families. Beginning with 1997, as a result of intensive technical assistance programs offered by USAID, UNICEF, World Bank and other international donors, the Romanian government realized that Romania needed more than a humanitarian aid and enacted the new legislation that marked the start of the long and difficult reform process.
“The government created the National Department of Child Protection (DPC) in Romania and building upon the NGO experience and accomplishments, made a commitment to community based services and to the devolution of child welfare responsibility to the county. County and local governments found themselves with responsibilities they were not ready to fulfill. Both child welfare and local government actors needed to be trained and to learn the processes associated with moving forward.”(USAID Report, 2006).
As the discourse has begun to lean towards building capacity at local level, the NGOs have reacted accordingly and have moved beyond ‘gap-filling’ initiatives into supporting capacity building activities, while they continued to learn and develop themselves. Starting with 1998, the NGOs service delivery model shifted the focus from providing basic services to providing a continuum of services through testing and promoting community-based child welfare approaches including: (1) family support or preventive services, such as parent education, daycare, family counselling, family planning; (2) family preservation services, involving crisis counselling, intensive family interventions, parental assistance, and emergency financial aid; and (3) protective services, referring to assessment of abuse and neglect and subsequent planning and interventions. In 2001, child welfare became a government priority and the system-wide focus shifted from institutional to community-based approaches. The NGOs active in the child welfare field continued to create child oriented services and generated models of promising practices handed over to local authorities. The national interest programmes (NIP) carried out by National Authority for Children Rights Protection from 2002 until 2006 were an efficient EU-Phare scheme for funding national priorities in the area, and for boosting nongovernmental and public sectors partnerships (FONPC, 2009).8 After Romania joined the European Union, the NGO sector involved in child protection started to be challenged by financial pressures due to a decreased interest of the major international donors from EU member states to USAID to fund projects implemented in Romania (FONPC, Alternative Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009). Adding to this financial pressure, FONPC (2009) underlines that DGASPCs were in the position of holding the monopoly over protection services (and implicitly over the use of funds granted to this sector) following a Government Decision that placed NGOs in a direct competition for funding with these county public authorities. Consequently, the public- private partnerships were discouraged and DGASPCs shifted simultaneously roles and responsibilities as a social services financer, service provider and monitoring/controlling unit. This mix of roles and attributions has been seen as a source of conflict of interests and a potential source of corruption.
The current state of the institutional framework is the product of government and NGO sector working together with expert advice and guidance from the key international and European bodies in the child protection field. The NGOs working in the field of child protection, whether they were established in the early 1990s or whether they came to life in the later years in response to local issues and global pressures, are the most mature in the sector with the oldest accumulating 23 years of frontline services
8 FONPC. (2009). Report of the NGOS Federation for Children (FONPC) to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Geneva, With reference to the Third Romanian Government Periodic Report for 2003-2007
14 2.1. O realitate cu provocări and organizational experiences. These NGOs played a critical role in the lives of many children and families and demonstrated themselves as reliable and comprehensive service providers (Sparleanu C., 2010). There were many bumps in the journey of the Romanian child welfare sector towards development, consolidation and transformation. These included the weak child protection policy and legislative frameworks in the 1990s, financial constrains and systemic issues that threatened partnerships and sector’s sustainability in the 2000s, and blurred lines of accountabilities that challenged the sector from the beginning throughout these days. However, both the governmental and non-governmental key stakeholders in the field of child welfare found their way to work together to build a child protection system that offers a wide array of services designed to ensure the promotion and the respect of children’s rights for all children in Romania.
15 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
3. KEY FINDINGS
3.1. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS
To understand the concept of children on the move and how it plays within the Romanian context, the following learnings and operational definitions identified by international organizations, scholars and policy experts were considered: • According to the Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the unaccompanied minors (also called unaccompanied children) are children under 18 years-old who have been separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so. Consequently, separated children are treated as a distinct category which may include children accompanied by other adult family members. • Migration is the movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border, or within a State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition and causes; it includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants and persons moving for other purposes, including family reunification (IOM, 2011). Migration of a child refers to the same processes when undertaken by a person under the age of 18.9 • Children on the move covers all children who migrate from their country of origin to and within the territory of a European country in search of survival, security, improved standards of living, education, economic opportunities, protection from exploitation and abuse, family reunification, or a combination of these factors. They may travel with their family, or independently, or with non-family members. They may be seeking asylum, victims of trafficking, or undocumented migrants. The status of children on the move may differ at various stages on their journey and they may encounter many differing situations of vulnerability.10 • Children on the move are children in exceptionally difficult circumstances (e.g. trafficked child, child soldiers, street children, child laborers, child slaves) who are passive victims of exploitation and do not have an active role in the decision-making or migration process (Hashim, 2006 in Punch, 2007). • The notion of children on the move was broadly defined intentionally to include a wide range of children who had left their habitual residence to move elsewhere, within their own country or to another country (Dottridge, 2012 in the Terre des hommes, Handbook). • The children on the move concept had been associated with the term forced migration which may be the result of an event or situation (e.g. conflict, human rights violations, state fragility, and natural disasters (IOM, 2013). • Children on the move encompass children from diverse backgrounds and with different experiences “[..] moving for a variety of reasons, voluntarily or involuntarily, within or between countries, with or without their parents or other primary caregivers, and whose movement might place them at risk (or at an increased risk) of economic or sexual exploitation, abuse, neglect and violence”.11 (Dottridge, M. in Children on the move, ILO, 2013).
9 Glossary on Migration. IOM, Geneva. (2011) Available from http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/IML_1_EN.pdf 10This definition was drawn from background paper of European Forum on the Rights of the Child (2012) (see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/background_cps_children_on_the_move_en.pdf) and endorsed by the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC) and included in their statement adopted at the 17th ENOC Annual General Assembly held on 27 September 2013 in Brussels. ENOC was created in 1997 and it links independent human rights institutions for children from 35 countries, 24 of which are EU countries (43 members institutions in total), in Europe. Its aims are: to encourage the fullest possible implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the child; to support collective lobbying for children’s rights; to share information, approaches and strategies; and to promote the development of effective independent offices for children. ENOC´s bureau is headed by Mr. Bernard De Vos, the current ENOC Chair, and General delegate for the rights of the child, of the Belgium/French Community, who succeeded Mrs. Leda Koursoumba, ENOC Past Chair, and Commissioner for Children's Rights in Cyprus. The official ENOC website is currently undergoing redevelopment and will be re- launching in the first quarter of 2014. An archived copy of ENOC Position statement on “Children on the move” : “Children on the Move: Children First” adopted at the 17th ENOC Annual General Assembly held on 27 September 2013 in Brussels can be found at the following address: http://crinarchive.org/enoc/ Retrieved on January 24, 2014. 11 The Inter-Agency Group on Children on the Move was formed in 2011 following a global Conference on Children on the Move held in Barcelona in October 2010. It includes the following agencies: ILO, IOM, UNHCR, UNICEF, Plan International, Save the
16 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
In Romania, “children on the move” is a concept under development pioneered through the implementation of the Mario Project. The definition of this term has received little consideration outside of the specific projects, studies and debates concerning the situation of trafficked children, street children, children left behind by their migrant parents, child labourers, refugees and children seeking asylum. The Mario Project aims at improving the level of protection of C/SEE migrant children who are vulnerable to abuse, exploitation and/or trafficking. The project seeks to find multilateral solutions to the problems that children face and that require coordinated and individual protection schemes. The empowerment of C/SEE at-risk migrant children is one of the key activities of this project the builds upon the research component aimed at identifying the child migration patterns, and the vulnerability factors that affect C/SEE migrant children; detect cases of exploitation and trafficking and document vulnerabilities and risks to offer the authorities evidence for developing sound policies to ensure the protection of children’s rights and implementation of measures in the best interests of children. For the purposes of the Mario Project, it is proposed that children on the move shall be understood as including the following categories of children: migrant children (internal or across borders; legal or illegal; accompanied or not), asylum seeking and refugee children, trafficked children, internally displaced children or children outside a protective environment. Therefore, the child should already have moved, may also be a returned migrant, is moving or/and is susceptible to impending migration. Migration may be either internal or international. The child should possess the citizenship or habitual residence in one of the Central and South Eastern European countries. This conceptualization of the children on the move notion demonstrates the desire to shift the paradigm from a fragmented definition to a more inclusive construct that will allow for a more effective response to a multifaceted issue such as child migration. An increased understanding of the risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities children may experience before, during and post “move” process allows for more clarity regarding the scope, breadth and multidimensional character of children on the move phenomenon. According to the Romanian stakeholders and children who participated in this study, the children on the move are first of all children who have rights. Some participants were of the opinion that no child should benefit from specific attention if the Romanian child protection system would function “like in the books” and the rights of children would be respected in accordance with the provisions of the laws and policies in place. Others argues that given their vulnerabilities and often times dramatic circumstances within their families and communities, children on the move should benefit from enhanced protection and support. An exploration of potential links between the vulnerabilities of various groups of children included in the children on the move concept and their decision to go on the move along with a increased understanding of the circumstances in which these children find themselves at different phases of their move will help to determine the extent to which they need special attention and interventions to ensure a protective environment that will help them to develop and reach their full potential, regardless the final destination of their journey.
3.2. MAGNITUDE OF THE CHILDREN ON THE MOVE IN ROMANIA
The lack of transparency and willingness for data sharing was a major challenge to analyzing and determining the current status of children on the move situation. An analysis of the magnitude of the children on the move phenomenon in Romania solely based on the review of statistics documented in alternative sources (e.g. studies, reports, etc.) poses a series of challenges including: accuracy and reliability of data, data are limited and do not cover the entire spectrum of issues under consideration, inconsistent use of data for identifying and differentiating between various vulnerable groups (e.g. children that are unaccompanied, asylum seekers, street children, and victims of trafficking and child labour), risk of duplication in the absence of standardized data collection and data recording mechanisms).
Children, Terre des Hommes, the African Movement of Working Children and Youths (AMWCY/MAEJT), Environmental Development Action in the Third World (ENDA), World Vision, the Oak Foundation and individual experts (Najat M’Jid as UN Rapporteur, Olivier Feynerol and Mike Dottridge) and academics.
17 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Finding # 1: Romanian stakeholders consider that reliable and comprehensive data on specific groups of children at risk are difficult to obtain and is, therefore, challenging to assess. In this regards there were different attempts by various stakeholders to construct estimates
Child Trafficking In its report on Romania’s progress concerning anti-trafficking initiatives12, the European Commission suggests that the Romanian children are mainly trafficked into begging and petty theft networks and indicated that the Romanian children from the Roma community appear to fall victim to these rings of exploitation disproportionately. The Figure 1 illustrates the dynamic of child trafficking in Romania between 2008 – 2011 according to data presented in various reports by the European Commission (2012), ECPAT International (2012) and Council of Europe (GRETA, 2012).
Figure 1
Sources: European Commission Report on Romania (2012); ECPAT International Report on Romania (2012); Council of Europe Report (2012), GRETA
A monitoring report of the status of actions against commercial sexual exploitation of children in Romania by ECPAT International 13 indicated an increasing vulnerability of children to trafficking in 2011 with most vulnerable children aged between 14-17 years old. The data in this report show that 70% (224 cases) of the total number of child trafficking cases in 2011 (319) were victims of internal trafficking and the remaining 30% (95 cases) were victims of external trafficking. The main destinations of the external trafficking included: Italy-33 children, Germany-15 children, Spain-14 children, France-11 children, and Greece-8 children. Most of the child trafficking cases (255) have been linked to commercial sex work activities, while smaller numbers of children trafficked were involved in begging (21), child labour (12), child pornography (9) and thefting (2). ECPAT International reported that children from two-parent type of families were recruited directly by known persons or friends with the promise of a job abroad or for commercial sex work activities. In the same report, ECPAT International indicated that of the 780 victims of trafficking identified in 2009, 176 (22.5%) were children, victims of both labour and sexual exploitation. The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA)14 indicated that in 2010, 307 juveniles (27%) were victims of child trafficking. Out of this number, 88% were female. About 71% of the minor victims of trafficking (217 victims) were trafficked nationally and 29% were trafficked internationally. The destination countries were mainly European Union countries, particularly Italy (45 victims), Spain (20 victims) and Germany (9 victims). The vast majority of minor victims (239) were sexual exploited. Others had been trafficked for the purposes of labour exploitation in agriculture and construction (17 victims), forced begging (19 victims), pornography (5 victims) or theft (3 victims).
12 European Commission. 2012. Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings: Romania retrieved on January 24, 2014 at http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/NIP/Romania 13ECPAT International. (2012). Global Monitoring of the status of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children: Romania available at http://resources.ecpat.net/EI/Pdf/A4A_II/A4A_V2_EU_ROMANIA.pdf 14 Council of Europe Report. (2012), Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA). Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Romania
18 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Street Children In its 2012 report, the ECPAT International indicates that of the approximately 100,000 homeless children throughout Eastern Europe, over 2,000 are in Romania.
“These homeless or ‘street’ children frequently fall victim to both child trafficking and child prostitution, and estimates have stated that roughly five percent of the homeless children in Romania are forced into prostitution. In Bucharest, 30% of the sex workers are under the age of 18.” (ECPAT International Report, 2012)
A report by United States Department of Labour 15 indicated that the street children, children in urban areas, and Roma children are the most vulnerable to labor and sexual exploitation and that “about 30 percent of sex workers in Bucharest, the capital city, are under 18 years of age” citing a report by UNICEF, UNOHCHR and OSCE-ODIGR.16
Children left behind by migrant parents A study conducted by Alternative Sociale Association (2008)17, reported that approximately 400,000 children aged 0 - 18 have experienced at some point in life the absence of a parent due to migration for economic reasons. This study indicates that in 2008, about 15% of the Romanian children were at risk of becoming children on the move driven by the desire to reunite with their parents. At the end of June 2013, according to the data released to mass-media18by the Child Protection Department (CPD) of the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Protection and Elderly in Romania were reported 81,891 children left behind in the care of relatives, neighbours or social protection services because one or both parents migrated to work abroad. The central authority in the field of protection and promotion of the rights of the child indicated that these children are coming from 59,070 families where one or both parents migrated searching for work in other countries. About 5% of this number are children benefiting from a special protection measure (e.g. maternal placement, residential services), 56% live with just one parent, 39% are taken care by family members (most of the times grandparents or a relative), and for 1% the reported caregivers are neighbours or family friends. A distribution of the number of children per family type and care givers is provided in the chart below and Figure 2.
Reported Reported Children Kin (up to 4th Neighbour Social number number home degree direct s and Protection of of with one and/or friends System families children parent collateral (maternal left family placement, behind relationship) residential center) Both parents 16012 22739 0 21495 0 1112 abroad 34982 48612 45605 778 889 1340 One parent abroad Mono-parental 8076 10490 0 9256 0 1234 families with the parent abroad Total 59070 81841 45605 31529 889 3686 Source: Mediafax, November 2013
15 United States Department of Labour, Bureau of International Labor Affairs (2006), 2005 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor – Romania, Retrieved at http://www.refworld.org/docid/48d749043b.html 16 UNICEF, UNOHCHR, and OSCE-ODIHR, Trafficking in Human Beings in Southeastern Europe: 2003 Update on Situation and Responses to Trafficking in Human Beings in Romania, November 2003, 38 17 Alternative Sociale and UNICEF (2008), National Analysis of the phenomenon of children left behind by migrant parents. Estimates provided in this study considers that in 2008, in Romania there were approximately 5,000,000 children and out of this number 350,000 accounted for children with migrant workers parents at the time of the study and 400,000 accounted for children who had at some point one or both parents abroad. 18Aurelia Alexa, Mediafax. November 2013. All parents who migrate to work abroad have to notify social services of their intention and inform authorities about who is the designated adult to care for their child(ren). Available at http://www.mediafax.ro/social/tudor-directia-pentru-protectia-copilului-toti-parintii-care-pleaca-sa-munceasca-in-strainatate- trebuie-sa-anunte-cu-cine-raman-copiii-11707641
19 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Remigration of Romanian Children Various issues associated with remigration of Romanian children have been captured in an innovative study conducted between 2008 -2012 by Alternative Sociale on a sample of 245 children from six regions of Romania: Vrancea and Vaslui (Moldova), Buzau (Muntenia),Dolj (Oltenia), Arad (Crisana- Maramures) and Cluj (Ardeal). The study indicates that out of the 245 children in the sample, 53% of these children were male and 47% were female. With respect to age, 47% were children aged 14 to 17 years old and the remaining 53% were children aged 12 to 14 years old. Almost half of the interviewed children (42%) spent more than 3 years abroad, 20% less than a year and 38% spent between 1 and 3 years. This study also evidenced that almost 30% of the children in the sample were already separated by their parents prior to their migration experience. These children lived with their grandparents (22%) or with a family member (about 5%) or a neighbour (1.5%). The findings also noted that 50% of the children lived with both parents prior to their migration experience. Only 4% of these children lived only with their father and 17% only with their mother. Additional statistics provided in this study reveal that from February 2008 to May 2012, there were 21,325 children returning from Italy and Spain who applied for the assessment and recognition of the foreign academic credentials and re-enrolment in the Romanian education system (Luca et. al., 2013). The authors acknowledge that the available statistics only refer to these two countries, but through estimation and extrapolation of findings they suggest that the extend of this phenomenon needs appropriate attention and support and calls for interventions by authorities and civil society to ensure that children’s needs concerning school integration and social readjustment are being addressed.
Unaccompanied Minors A document published by IOM (2010)19 reported a number of 7,444 minors who travelled unaccompanied to Italy in the first three months of 2009 (of whom 5,680 unidentified, meaning that they did not have any identification document). Also, it pointed out an alarming increase of the number of unaccompanied minors traveling to Italy in the quarter of 2009, as data reported for that period of time were the same with the number of unaccompanied minors to Italy (7,797) reported for the entire 2008. According to the Asylum Law in Romania (Law 122/2006), an unaccompanied minor will be a minor who is a foreign citizen or Stateless person, who has arrived in Romania unaccompanied by either parent or a legal representative, or who is not in the care of another person according to the law, or custom, or minor left unaccompanied after entering Romanian territory. Statistics on unaccompanied and separated children rarely exists, although some data concerning specific categories such as asylum seekers and victims of traffics are easier to track down (Appendix 2, Table 3).
19 IOM. (2010). Exchange of information and best practices on first reception, protection and treatment of unaccompanied minors” Manual of Best Practices and Recommendations (Second edition)
20 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
An overview of the available statistics regarding unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Romania illustrates the difficulty to access exact numbers. The most reliable data available are those on unaccompanied minors who applied for asylum. According to the 2011 Eurostat data, the number of unaccompanied children applying for asylum in Romania has been steady since 2008 with a declining trend in 2009 and 2010 and a significant increase in 2012 (Table 4).
Table 4: Asylum Applications submitted by Unaccompanied Minors in Romania (2008 – 2012) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Asylum applications 55 40 35 55 135 Source: Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa&lang=en
These numbers are consistent with the numbers included in a report by IOM (2012) that documented a total of 38 unaccompanied children in Romania during 2009. The IOM study identified that eighteen (47% ) of these children were originating from Afghanistan and the rest from countries including Bangladesh, Georgia, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Sudan and Turkey. During 2007 – 2009, the main countries of origin were Republic of Moldova, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan. The primary countries of origin during 2010 – 2012 remained Afghanistan and Pakistan along with additional new countries including Algeria, Morocco, and Syria. In 2010, the IOM study revealed that the number of unaccompanied children in Romania remained stable (39 children) with 62% children from Afghanistan, and the rest coming from Bangladesh, Iraq, Morocco, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, Somalia, Turkey and one stateless. In 2011, the same study documented 36 unaccompanied children with 44% coming from Afghanistan, and the rest coming from the same countries as in the prior years. The UNHCR statistics reflecting refugees and asylum seekers trends for 2007 – 2012, including asylum applications by unaccompanied minors and separated children are presented in the Table 5. According to the UNHCR - Regional Representation for Central Europe (RRCE) - a total of 229 unaccompanied minors applied for asylum in Romania between 2007 and 2012.
Table 5: Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, Trends 2010 - 2012 Type of Data 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Asylum applications 659 1080 995 887 2,064 2,511 Refugee recognition 143 102 64 88 73 161
Complementary Protection 17 36 30 35 129 117 Asylum applications by 30 71 43 39 33 43 unaccompanied minors / separated children Top countries of origin of asylum- 2007 – 2009: Republic of Moldova, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan seekers in 2012 2010 – 2012: Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan Source:UNHCR ( www.unhcr.org)20
At the end of 2013, the General Directorate for Immigration reported a number of 10 asylum requests from unaccompanied minors (i.e., three girls and seven boys, with ages between 0 and 17 years, see Table 6). The unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in Romania in 2013 are native of Afghanistan, Iraq, Moldova, Syria and Turkey (see Figure 3).
Table 6: Distribution of Asylum Applications submitted in 2013 By Unaccompanied Minors in Romania F F M Grand Country of Origin 0-13 years 14-17 years 14-17 years Total AFGHANISTAN 2 2 IRAQ 1 2 3 MOLDOVA 1 1 SYRIA 5 5 TURKEY 1 1 Grand Total 1 2 9 12
20 UNHCR, Regional Representation for Central Europe. Asylum Trends 2007 – 2009 and 2010 - 2012, Provisional statistical figures for Central Europe
21 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Figure 3
The interviews with the stakeholders in Constanta and Bucharest revealed that the crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) has increased in 2013 the number of refugees and asylum seekers in Romania. For example, in Constanta County, representatives of the Romanian Boarder Police (country level) who participated in the focus group discussions emphasized an increasing number of unaccompanied minors arriving at the border in 2013. They reported a number of eight cases that involved 51 children aged 6 months to 18 years, mostly originating from Syria and Afghanistan aiming to go to Germany, Austria and France (Table 7). Following their apprehension, a part of these children were referred to the reception centre in Galati and Bucharest.
Table 7: Responses from focus group discussions conducted in Constanta, November 2013 Cross-border point Number of cases Total number of UAMs Baneasa 1 5 Ostrov 2 9 Mangalia 4 33 Negru Voda 1 4 Total 8 51
Further, the General Directorate for Immigration provided with statistics that document 185 minors identified by authorities in 2013. The most of them were nationals of Syria (85 children), Moldova (21 children), Turkey (13 children) and Afghanistan (8). Appendix 3, Table 8 presents the distribution of all children identified by the Romanian authorities based on their country of origin, and age. Additionally, data from the same source show that at the end of 2013 there were about 7,000 children aged 0 to 19 legally residing in Romania as a temporary resident. The distribution of these children by age, gender and country of origin is represented in Appendix 4, Table 9. Data illustrates that a significant number of children on the move are currently living in Romania. They are coming from diverse socio- economic, political and cultural backgrounds and carry with them a wide range of experiences, needs, risk and vulnerabilities and expectations that need to be considered and addressed.
Repatriated Children Either we think of trafficked children, trafficked children abandoned by trafficking networks, or those who escaped of these networks abuse, or think of children who crossed the European borders searching for a better life together with their parents or alone and ended in illegal activities (e.g. child labour, conflict with laws, etc.), children who simply got on the move out of curiosity and adventure and ended up in problematic situations, their situation requires further attention as they are most of the time subjects of repatriation from their countries of destination to their country of origin, in this case Romania. Rozzi (2002) noted that the decision of repatriation should be made in the light of the principle of the best interests of the child and all other considerations, e.g. the control of clandestine immigration, should be 21 secondary compared with the “best interests of the child”.
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 3).
21 Rozzi, E. (2002). Save the Children Italy. The evaluation of the best interests of the child in the choice between remaining in the host country and repatriation: A reflection based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child
22 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Our review of the research studies, articles, reports along with anecdotal data collected through the interviews, focus groups discussions and other conversations (i.e., meetings with expert subjects) that took place as part of the Mario Project with the child welfare professionals from the General Directorate of Child Protection – Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly with expertise in the area of repatriations of the unaccompanied children shows the magnitude of repatriation in Romania as well as the most frequent situations of the unaccompanied Romania children who are subject of repatriations. A report of a study (2008) conducted by the Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosch, University of Fribourg in cooperation with International Reference Centre for the Rights of Children Deprived of their Family (ISS/IRC) in 2007 – 2008, suggests a notable dimension of repatriation of the Romanian unaccompanied children presenting the example from Vienna, where “until 2007 traffickers brought up to 700 children, mainly aged 10-14 years, annually, and forced them to work as beggars, thieves and prostitutes. 95% of the trafficked children belong to the Roma minority group.” Findings of this study indicate reveal that “traffickers appointed themselves temporary ‘guardians’ of these children and were in possession of a legal guardian document signed by the children’s parents. The children’s parents were usually financially indebted to the traffickers.” A statement by a government official during a meeting on combating child trafficking issue, indicated that “the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Directorate for Fighting organized Crime and Drugs reported 1,034 returned victims from 25 countries in 2003. About 30 per cent of them were child victims of trafficking. The main destination countries were Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.”22 Anecdotal data (Table 10) collected through conversations that have unfolded during a meeting with expert subjects within the framework of the Mario Project (2013) showed an increase of the number of repatriation requests for the Romanian unaccompanied minors identified in Italy, Greece and The Netherlands during 2011 – 2013. According to the same of data set, the number of repatriation completed in 2013 almost doubled in comparison with the number or repatriations completed annually in 2011 and 2012.Clearly, Italy represents the destination country which is the top source of the repatriation requests.
Table 10: Repatriation of Romanian Unaccompanied Children from Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, 2011 – 2013 Trends 2011 2012 2013 Destination Repatriation Repatriations Repatriation Repatriations Repatriation Repatriations Country Requests Completed Requests Completed Requests Completed Italy 143 21 236 23 223 30 Greece 2 1 9 1 9 7 The Netherlands 7 4 9 1 5 4 Total 152 26 254 25 237 41
The unaccompanied minors who can be subjects of the repatriations are children who are not easily visible to the protection and support systems in both the country of origin and country of destination. They may be living in marginalized, dangerous, or harmful situations, or simply they may face challenges and violations of their rights under the CRC due to their irregular legal status and fear of coming into contact with authorities or non-government organizations. The challenges involved in providing protection to these children can be compounded by the fact that identifying unaccompanied minors is not always a straightforward process. Some of these children may not have proper documentation (e.g. birth certificate, passport, etc.) to satisfactory proof of age. Therefore, the problems of repatriated children, who are not necessarily victims of trafficking, child labour and other forms of exploitation, have to be carefully identified, examined and understood to ensure the protection of their rights and appropriate assistance for safe repatriation, reception and re-integration. While child trafficking, unaccompanied minors, refugee and claims for asylum have become a growing concern in Romania, current data collection activities reveal many shortcomings: data are limited in scope, incomparable and insufficient to ascertain the true extent of the problem in Romania. The underground nature of trafficking networks, age of the victims, adults’ reluctance to report crimes to the authorities, difficulties in identifying victims, and the sensitive nature of the data are all factors that present real challenges for reliable data collection.
22 Combating Child Trafficking Forum, Sofia, (2010). The Experience of Romania. Retrieved at http://www.ungift.org/docs/ ungift/pdf/knowledge/Publications/booklet_final_version.pdf
23 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Furthermore, the minimal information that is available in Romania is dispersed across different departments and agencies within Government and other organizations including law enforcement and NGOs, each using their own criteria to define their own clients thus generating non-comparable information. These inconsistencies are also illustrated in the table below (Table 11) which contrasts the data collected from three reliable sources (i.e., EUROSTAT, UNHCR, IOM) for the same years, but with figures that show significant differences for the same reporting period.
Table 11: Asylum Applications by Unaccompanied Minors/Separated Children - Data Accuracy Comparison Reporting Year Eurostat 2011 UNHCR 2013 IOM 2012 2008 55 71 n/a 2009 40 43 38 2010 35 39 39 2011 55 33 36 2012 135 43 n/a Total 320 229 113
In the absence of national-level reliable data, ongoing information to understand the issue, it is unknown whether incidents of child trafficking, refugees, child labour, asylum seekers are increasing or decreasing, and whether the current responses are effective, which in turn, renders policy decision- making a challenge. Some non-governmental actors and authorities involved in initiatives relevant to children on the move issues reported that they collect data in a fragmented, sporadic and inconsistent manner based on their competence and interest for specific population groups (e.g. unaccompanied children, asylum seekers or border monitoring activities, child trafficking, etc.). Other local stakeholders including representatives of the local agencies of the National Agency against Trafficking in Person and DGASPCs voiced that at their level they collect data and submit them on quarterly basis to central agencies. They noted that data analyses, interpretation and report production is a lengthy process that impedes the meaningful use of the findings. Few other stakeholders explained that there is limited access to data permitted only to NAATP and to certain public institutions on the basis of explicit protocols. They also noted that personal data can only be accessed by the user who introduced them, and statistical data are accessible depending on particular indicators, at different hierarchical levels. Stakeholders further indicated that the Child Protection Department collects separately national data specific for child trafficking, including information from: the nominal database of Romanian children who are unaccompanied abroad and of repatriated Romanian child victims or alleged victims of child trafficking, as well as the national system of data collection on child victims of internal trafficking, implemented by child protection authorities from each county. Overall, their views indicate that data collection and analytical approaches lacks common definitions, criteria and indicators. Moreover, majority of professionals who participated in the interviews and focus group discussions indicated that when collected, statistics and information are less regularly exchanged among stakeholders at national level and more often information and data are shared with their funders usually international (e.g. UNICEF, Committee on the CRC, UNCHR) and EU institutions investing funds in this field of work (e.g. Council of Europe, Directorate General, Home Affairs, Directorate for Migration, Asylum).
Finding # 2: There was wide agreement among stakeholders that “Romania is more often regarded as a transit country rather than a destination country despite the increasing number of asylum seekers”.
“Romania is a country of transit. I feel that the practice of unaccompanied children crossing the Romanian borders is increasingly fast. Countless others who made the trip without caught. Those who get caught most often choose to pursue asylum claim procedures to solve their status.” (Social Worker, NGO, Constanta) “Most of the asylum seekers are not interested about Romania, but traffickers trick them and leave them in Romania, most often near the boarders. So that’s way Romania is considered only a transit area attractive for the asylum seekers just because they can solve their status within European Union area.” (Senior Manager, NGO, Timisoara)
24 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
“The number of cases involving unaccompanied minors has been very low at local level. Further, an unaccompanied migrant child receives support and services according to the child protection law as soon as they are spotted. As a result they are less likely to become our clients. ” (Manager, Public Institution,Constanta) “I think that the unaccompanied minors seeking asylum represent a challenge for the Romanian child protection system. We are not ready as a system to provide with estimations about any sort of statistics about the unaccompanied minors, in particular about those outside of the asylum process including the type and breadth of various services. Our system does not have capacity to provide customized responses.” (Stakeholders Focus Group, Bucharest)
The participants overwhelmingly concluded that there is a clear need to gain a better understanding of the dimension, particular circumstances and specific needs of the unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in or transiting through Romania to support the shaping of a common approach to ensure the protection of their rights and appropriate support and services.
Finding # 3: In Romania, what is known about children on the move represents “the tip of an iceberg”. Several voices indicated that despite the lack of reliable statistics, the practice shows that in Romania children on the move is a growing reality that requires concentrated efforts to find optimum solutions.
“To decide if it is a phenomenon or not it is necessary to have statistics. In Romania, I haven’t seen any relevant statistic regarding children on move.” (Representative from DGASPC, Senior Manager, Public Institution, Timis) “We know so little about facts and figures associated with the children on the move issue. What we know is just the tip of an iceberg. Icebergs hide a lot. Their biggest part is under the sea and cannot be seen. Same happens with children victim of trafficking, exploitation, and unaccompanied children; they are bits and pieces of the children on the move notion. An important number of them are not visible. Additionally, numerous dangers for the safety and well-being of these children are also hidden under both the vulnerabilities and opportunities associated with the move. Personal perception and experiences as a simple person overlaps with professional observations and experiences in support of an overall conclusion: “Children on the Move” is a growing problem in Romania. It will not be long before we will see it transforming into a monster phenomenon.” (Stakeholders Focus Group, Bucharest) “There is a gap between the reality and the reports. Sometime the situation collected at the national level doesn’t reveal a realistic perspective because we know how statistics are collected – superficial, inconsistent and leave room for personal interpretation.” (Stakeholders Focus Group, Dolj)
The majority of stakeholders discussions concluded that the lack of relevant data leads to difficulty in formulating appropriate response to whether or not children on the move represents a phenomenon at national level, and thus children on the move problems are caught between anecdotal evidence showing a growing issue and awareness of a growing issue raised by various cases presented in mass-media (see Figure 4).
Figure 4 Children on the Move phenomenon caught between ‘Awareness’ and ‘Anecdotal Evidence’ Anecdotal Evidence of a Growing Issue Awareness of a Growing Issue “Annually, about 100 at risk children are identified “The dimension of the children on the move is not through our regular reporting mechanisms at the dramatic, but we should be worrying because at the county level. Further, through my case work moment the authorities have no knowledge about practice I recorded at in-take about 900 cases of the reality of these children.” (Stakeholders Focus children at risk and just few cases of children Group, Bucharest) victims of trafficking. ” (Social worker, DGASPC Dolj) “We are coping with a growing phenomenon. “Certainly, the children on the move represent an According to the news in media, this is a real anxiety provoking problem if we are mindful of its problem. It is necessary to identify the magnitude of causes and consequences.” (Stakeholders Focus the problem and to find the most optimum and Group, Bucharest) feasible solutions to addresses the complexity of this multidimensional problem.” (Psychologist, DGASPC Dolj)
25 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
It is important to note that while a large proportion of stakeholders talked about an increasing number of cases that can be linked to children on the move issue (i.e. anecdotal evidence of a growing issues), others noted that this increase is not significant at their level and, therefore, did not feel comfortable assessing children on the move as a nation-wide spread phenomenon (i.e. awareness of a growing issue). Some stakeholders further noted that due to the nature and complexities of child migration situations, many children may pass undetected (i.e. visibility issue of children at risk). This idea was also emphasized during discussions with children involved in this study.
“For so many times the Romanian children identified outside their home country disappear again from the microscope although authorities and NGOs are willing to help them. Why? Sometimes they are under big pressure from their traffickers and they need to escape authorities, often times they are traumatized and hardly establish trustful relationship with anyone, and most of the times they escape authorities and don’t want any help because they do not want to return home. Can you imagine how they feel when all sorts of adults - foreign police, social services, psychologists, etc, are coming into their life with an offer for help? There many questions and many people. Our children are not used with getting help and don’t know how to behave receiving help. They are scared because they don’t want problems. You know, in Romania when you deal with the police and specialists you are a trouble maker or you have big problems. That is why these children rather prefer to live in the underground world in a country that is not their home land, than to be sent back. I don’t blame them. It is overwhelming, for a kid who has no idea how tough the life can be and how dangerous could be when you end up in a situation when you could be exploited. Always there is someone who wants to get advantages from you! Look at me, I came back and what do you think? It is easy for me today? No. No one knows how much I struggle now and how much I struggled when I took the life in my hands. Teachers, psychologists, social workers, parents, friends and neighbors know what I want to let them know. That is nothing. Let’s face it! People look at me and think that if I am a Roma girl, I am not capable of making good choices. That is not true at all. I maybe make the wrong choices because I am a teenager who likes the freedom. I am an emancipated teenager who learnt her lessons in another European country. With all the challenges I faced and all the minuses of life in Europe, that time were one of the most life’s transforming experiences of my life.” (N., Female, 15 years, Children Focus Group, Constanta)
Finding # 4: In Romania, the existing conversations and work in relation to children on the move reflect a focus on the parts not on the whole A large proportion of stakeholders view the issue of children on the move convoluted. They believe that information about various categories of children on the move (e.g. child trafficking, migrant smuggling, child exploitation, unaccompanied, separated, asylum seeking, refugee children, children left behind, street children, etc.) need to be collected, disseminated, collated and synthesized concurrently and on an ongoing basis. However, many stakeholders repeatedly pointed out that while there may be various data sets available about the situation of these groups, these statistics do not say anything about how many of these children have either been or are currently involved in the migration phenomenon. Few invoked that the existence of multi-layers in the service delivery process further complicates the collection of data. As such, significant knowledge gaps remain in the field due to the lack of synthesis of these data and further analysis of the correlation between vulnerability of these sub-groups and child migration will enhance the understanding of children on the move situation and inform policy and program development. Children who were part of this study demonstrated great interest in sharing their experiences and views regarding the scope of the children on the move phenomenon in Romania. Many of the participants indicated that children who are 15 and older tend to run away from home. They also pointed rightfully that counting these children is challenging because “their families do not always report them missing, or when they report it is too late as they are already across borders in other countries”. (Children Focus Group, Constanta). However, more than half of the children who expressed their views during the interviews and focus group discussions consider that a Romanian child who runs away from home is more likely to choose to live far from their family within Romania, rather than in another country. Some children commented that they know so many of their peers and friends who did run away from home at least once in their childhood and they spent more than a week far from their families. One of the adolescents (G, Female, 18 years old, Timis, Sexual exploited and victim of child labour) pointed out very clearly - “we all are searching for what we haven’t founded with our families”. Further, sharing her life experience she indicated that “even if I tried to adjust my life in different setting (foster family, orphanage) I haven’t found places like - HOME”. In few instances, children were more practical and
26 2.1. O realitate cu provocări suggested that “as a starting point adults should take a look at how many children are in the street, how many children run away from home, who are they, why they are in the street, what their life plans are, how many are victims of serious problems (e.g. in conflict with the law, HIV/AIDS, sexual exploitation, people taking advantages of them, etc.), who knows that they are in the street or run away, the extent of these children are moving within Romania and abroad, etc.” Most of the children who shared their views in the context of this study believe that no one knows do not know exactly the number of children in motion.
“I am afraid I cannot say if there are many children on the move. It is so difficult to have an opinion about this issue. Do you know? I think that not even those who have to know the number of children on the move, are not able to answer this question. I mean authorities and others who work in this field. Also, now that you make me think, I am pretty sure that no one knows exactly how many children are entering Romania crossing the borders. I would say that this is also the case for those children who return to Romania because they are tired of living abroad with their parents who migrated to find a job in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey. And there are so many children who get in trouble because they trust adults; they should not trust them. I am afraid the government and other specialists are not aware these children are a number that should be counted. Maybe it is the time when everyone should think more about how to best collect information about all these children and more importantly how are we going to use the information and help them and others.” (S., Male, 17 years, Constanta)
The majority of adult stakeholders agreed that although scarce and inconsistent, there are some studies and estimates concerning particular groups of children on the move that can be used as the starting point in shifting the focus from parts only to a more integrated approach. The adult stakeholders also emphasized how important it is to find the best ways to manage the data that are currently dispersed across many different organizations and governmental departments and working groups with neither definitional standards nor sharing mechanisms in place. They also questioned the feasibility of centralizing the data, analyzing and using it for policies and programs development. Specifically, stakeholders wondered which organization(s) would have access to the data; whose responsibility would it be to maintain and manage the database; concerns about the security and confidentiality of databases; who will provide capacity building training; and, whether the information collected could be used for public awareness and education.
3.3. CHILDREN ON THE MOVE IN ROMANIA: THE EMERGING PICTURE
“Children on the move represent a sacrificed young generation. This is a sad reality because it is in the detriment of the future of our country, Europe and the entire world.” (Stakeholders Focus Group, Bucharest)
Who are the children on the move in Romania? This section attempts to provide a profile of the children on the move based on discussions with the stakeholders and children who shared their views and experiences to support a better understanding of the children on the move situation in Romania.
Stakeholders’ perspectives It is noteworthy that when asked about the reasons of a child being on the move, the discussions with the stakeholders in all five research sites unveiled a wealth of knowledge and information which indicates that various stakeholders in Romania have a solid understanding of the root causes of the children on the move related issues. In all six stakeholders focus group discussions (Dolj, Constanta, Iasi, Timis and two in Bucharest – one with national level stakeholders and one with local stakeholders), a recurrent theme dominated all the conversations. This refers to the importance of differentiating between “children at risk”, “children victims of trafficking”, “child labour”, “street children”, “children left behind”, “refugees and asylum-seeking children”, and the notion of “children on the move” to support the shift of the conversations and interventions from a fragmented to a more holistic approach.
27 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
“There is a very fine, blurred line that delineates between the circumstances of various categories of children at risk and children impacted by migration because their specific issues are compounded by a complex of problems that originates at micro-level including their personality, developmental stage, family universe, and their community realities. However, we have responsibility to identify and deal with particular causes that place our children in dangerous spots.” (Stakeholders Focus Group, Iasi)
The table below provides a landscape of what seems to be pushing the children on the move wave, as reflected thorough the conversations with the stakeholders.
Table 12: Driving Forces behind Children on the Move – Stakeholders’ Perspective Driving Forces Behind Children on the Move Constanta Bucharest Iasi Dolj Timis 1. Curiosity, adventurous spirit . ****n/a 2. Peer group pressures. The children want to follow the examples of their peers, they want to do the same as their friends. ***** 3. The children want to make some pocket money. * n/a n/a n/a n/a 4. The children want to gain work experience. ***n/a n/a 5. The children live in poverty and are coming from families, struggling with complex issues including domestic violence, parents' addiction (i.e. alcoholism, parent(s)' detention, etc.) ***** 6. The children lack respect for their parents and ignore their advices. n/a ****
7. Parental lack of supervision, neglect (i.e., migrant parent to work in a different country, parents are too busy with their work and day-to-day activities). *****
8. Children assumes parental roles and responsibilities, beyond their capacity and feel pressure to explore ways to fulfill those roles and responsibilities. n/a n/a * n/a n/a 9. Parental overprotection. n/a **n/a n/a 10. Poor engagement of children by their parents and other significant adults (i.e., grandparents, teachers, professionals, etc.) in decisions that affect their lives. ***n/a n/a 11.School drop-out, lack of activities. The children have too much time and get engaged in dangerous situations. ***n/a * 12. Lack of roles models, and excessive exposure of children to inadequate role models that place the focus on success resulting from opportunism as opposed to success resulting from discipline, hard work, commitment and determination (i.e., propaganda models, false celebrities models that are visible because they attract mass-media attention due to their potential to attract advertiser and money) n/a **n/a n/a 13. The choice to go on the move represents a family tradition. n/a n/a * n/a n/a 14. Emergency situations (i.e. war, natural disasters, torture, discrimination, etc.) ** ** 15. Search for better opportunities for education. **** 16. Children feel guilty and shamed by choices they made which are in conflict with the traditional social norms of their communities (i.e., pregnant minors, forced marriage, conflict with law, etc.) n/a * n/a n/a
Children’s Voices The children interviewed for this study did come from a variety of personal, situational and social backgrounds. Some of these children have migrated within Romania and/or internationally, with or without their parents, or as separated children; some have been trafficked and exploited; some came from poor families; some were street children; other declared they are Roma children; few of them were children left behind by their migrant parents who went to work in other European countries; others were children who returned home from their migrant experiences while others were seeking asylum in Romania.
There was a relative balance in terms of age and gender and clearly they all seemed to have a strong desire for a better future. These children see their future life in their own country but when they refer to the feasibility of having a better future they often spoke about what other countries might offer revealing what their friends have told them.
“Life in other country is not easy, but I was told that there are much more opportunities for us to find work and have a financial stability.” (A, Female, 16, Iasi)
28 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
“I heard that the medical services are far better in other countries than here. I heard that when you run away in another country you really get to understand independent life, you earn money and practically you enjoy the freedom. It is true that most often young people fail to enjoy the freedom and end up in so many problems that put them at very serious dangers. I would want to get moving just for better medical services and more justice when you have to solve your problems.” (C. 15 years, Iasi) “My friends told me that I would be rich if I go in Europe. I am a musician, I play the clarinet. If I had to choose a country, I think that a good fit for me would be Austria, Italia and America. I would choose to go and live somewhere else to secure my future, a brighter and stable future. In Romania it is still difficult to succeed without connections and doing the right things.” (M., 15 years, Male, Constanta) “I left Romania when I was 13 and went to Italy to reunite with my mother who works and lives there. My dad died a while ago because of cancer. I lived with my grandmother from my father side. In the first week, I felt that I am living like in the paradise. I found my mom changed, changed for the better. I was happy to be with her, the rest mattered less. My first impression was that I made a good decision to go and live with my mom. In Italy I learned to smile again. People were nice and supportive, and more important I was with my mother. I also have a very clear objective: to learn Italian and I made it.” (L. Female, 15 years, Constanta) “My situation is relevant for your study because I lived in another country and I returned to Romania to settle here. My parents are currently living in that country, but they are divorced. My mother is Romanian and my father has a different nationality. My brother and I stayed here to finish our education in Romania. My parents work together to ensure a good future for me and my brother. I can tell you that in Turkey there are many Romanian children. The Turkish government find them alone and take them in the care. There are many cases, but I do not believe it is a phenomenon. Also, I noticed that in Constanta there are more and more Syrians with children, many from mixed families who left their country because of the war and conflict and came to Constanta searching for safety and a peaceful life.” (S., Male, 17,Constanta) “I made a mistake asking my parents to come back to Romania. Now we have so many problems: my parents struggle with medical problems, we live in a tough financial reality, my father drinks a lot and family conflicts are present in our daily life. {…} When I came back to Romania I was very happy because I’ll meet my family and all my favourite place, but soon I’ve faced the difficult part too, as I described earlier. I think that people are more helpful over there. I think that the financial struggles are the causes for all our problems today. Now is different. I still think my home is in Spain. (C, Female, 12 years, Bucharest) “We’ve been twice in another European country with our parents looking for a better future. It is much better there. There are enough jobs and there are more rules and people are more disciplined. Also, people are more respectful and careful, ready to help you with your problem. (A&A, female and male, Bucharest, 12 and 13 years)
An analysis of children’s views expressed in the focus group and interview discussions, as well as during the consultations with the children member of the child consultation boards identifies the following broad categories of children on the move as a reflection of the current reality of Romania:
• children who migrate in search of opportunities, economic stability, social justice and access to quality services; • children who are exploited in the context of migration, particularly through trafficking; • children who return to Romania voluntary; • children who flee dangerous situations and seek asylum; • children who migrate to reunite with their parents; • children left behind by migrant parents; and, • children who migrate out of curiosity and in the spirit of adventure.
Children enjoyed exploring the driving forces behind child migration, benefits and opportunities associated with the possibility of being on the move and they acknowledged the severity of many problems and difficult situation that can challenged their move journey. The discussions with the children also included questions raised by the participants regarding the legality of the move, benefits, and opportunities available and whether the migration is planned, temporary or a long term option. The children demonstrated knowledge of the legal requirements and ability to differentiate between legal and illegal migration. Their migration patterns are a result of children’s diversity in terms of age, gender and ethnicity, social and educational backgrounds. The causes of, and the opportunities for these children in migration differed case by case, but overall there were significant similarities in all five research sites (Table 13).
29 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Table 13: Driving Forces behind Children on the Move – Children’s Perspective Driving Forces Behind Children on the Move Constanta Bucharest Iasi Dolj Timis 1. Curiosity, adventurous spirit. Children love all the fun in the life. ***** 2. Peer group pressure. The children want to follow the examples of their peers, they want to do the same as their friends. ***** 3. The children want to make some pocket money. ***n/a * 4. The children want to gain life experience. *** 5. The children live in poverty and are coming from families, struggling with complex issues including domestic violence, divorce, parents' addiction (i.e. alcoholism, parent(s)' detention, drug addiction, etc.) ***** 6. The child is in conflict with his/her parents. *****
7. Poor communication between the child and his/her parents. ***** 8. Parental lack of supervision, neglect (i.e., migrant parent to work in a different country, parents are too busy with their work and day-to-day activities). ***n/a n/a 9. Parental overprotection. ****n/a
10. The children are not given opportunities to express their views regarding decisions that affect their lives. Adults do not listen to the voice of children. ***n/a *
11. Multiple disappointments from parents, family members and/or friends. ***n/a *
12.The children have too much time and get engaged in dangerous situations. ****n/a 13. Lack of healthy roles models ***n/a n/a 14. The choice to go on the move represents a family tradition (e.g. Roma children go on the move as musicians, circus entertainers and acrobats to make good money in other countries) ***n/a n/a 15. Emergency situations (i.e. war, natural disasters, torture, discrimination, etc.) **n/a **
16. Search for better opportunities for education. ***n/a n/a 17. The children want to reunite with their parents who left them behind to work in other countries. * n/a * n/a n/a
18. The children are searching for stability. ***** 19. The children feel guilty and shamed by choices they made (e.g. addictions, in conflict with law, etc.) and they want to start a new life elsewhere. ***n/a n/a
20. The children are seeking for a place where to be accepted as they are and want to escape violence and abuse at they home, or at their institutions. n/a **n/a *
21. One or both parents are deceased. * n/a * n/a n/a 22. Children decided to leave their family after finding a secret (e.g. they were adopted). * n/a * n/a n/a
3.4. NEEDS, RISKS, VULNERABILITIES AND THE IMPACT OF MOVEMENT
Building on the definition outlined by Brooks-Gun (1990), for the purpose of this analysis, we understand risks as a sum of factors and conditions that increase the probability of starting-up, exacerbating or maintaining a problem that will negatively impact the life of a child on the move. From the children on the move perspective, a vulnerable child means a child who is unable to protect him or herself because of the exposure to conditions and circumstances that the child is not prepared to deal with and manage. The vulnerability is not necessarily attributed to the age of the child, but to his/her physical and emotional development, ability to communicate needs, expectations and desires. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a framework to address the needs of the child from a rights-based perspective23 with respect to: participation of children in decisions affecting them and listening to their views; protection of children against discrimination and all forms of neglect and
23 UNICEF.(2012). FACT SHEET: A summary of the rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf
30 2.1. O realitate cu provocări exploitation; prevention of harm to them; and provision of assistance to children to address their basic needs (Table 14). In light of these definitions, the impact of migration on the life of children represents in fact the intersection between the identified risks, the manifestation of vulnerabilities and the degree of fulfillment of the needs of children.
Table 14: The Needs of Children on the Move in Contrast – Stakeholders vs. Children’s Views Stakeholders' Perspectives Children's Voices The needs of the children on the move are exactly the same with The needs of migrant children are exactly the same as the needs of any the needs of any child. However, their intensity and the extent to child, but sometimes children on the move end up in more difficult which are satisfied varies depending on the specific situations, situations. As a result some needs will manifest differently. These needs backgrounds, contexts and associated problems. can include: the need for protection, the need for material support, the need for parental affection and support, the need to talk about their problems, the need to be accepted, the need to be trusted, the need to integrate in their new communities, the need to learn a new language, the need to understand the dangers of the world in which the child live at one point in his/her life (Focus group Constanta, Participants from the Roma ethic group) The need for adaptation, integration and socialization The need for material support and basic needs (food, accommodation, health, etc.) The need to be respected and recognized as a valued individual The need to be respected The need for education The need for education The need for protection The need for protection and safety The need to communicate The need to communicate and listened to The need to discover new things The need for your parents and familiar environment The need to search and find new opportunities The need to be accepted as we are The need for affection and supervision The need for affection, love and emotional support
Stakeholders’ perspective
Finding #1: It is important to map out the needs and vulnerabilities that have occurred over time during the move experience. A decision by the child to leave his/her family and the immediate environment perpetuates vulnerability and compromises the chances for success. The children are traumatized by new experiences that require them to prove themselves, not always with positive connotations. Often children are subjects of a circular migration which necessitates a good understanding of various contexts and circumstances that challenged the child at different points in time during the move. Understanding the needs of children on the move require contextualization and comprehensive assessments of risks and vulnerabilities. The stakeholders further concluded that contextualization and proper assessment of risks and vulnerabilities will support the development of a homogeneous rights based protection and service model that will support a coordinated response at community, local, government and transnational levels.
Finding #2: Child migration provides with both positive and negative life experiences and valuable lessons can be drawn for the future of the children. Most of these children cannot imagine the consequences of their decision to go on the move and how influential will this experience be for their life. Most of them will likely transit faster to adulthood. This is not necessarily good or bad, but how they cross the lines between childhood, adolescence and adulthood it is critical. Some of them can end up in happy circumstances (e.g. find a job, settle down, build a family, continue education, move on); others can experience continuous challenges, end up in sensitive situations from which is very difficult to get out (e.g. victims of trafficking, labour and other forms of exploitation) or may experience mental health problems, health issues (e.g. HIV/AIDS, STDs, etc.), lack of confidence in their capabilities, uncertainty, anxiety, and financial constrains, suicidal thoughts, poor living conditions, limited access to education, health services and social life opportunities.
31 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Children’s Voices
Finding #1: If you leave your home, your community and your country only by yourself, for sure a time will come when you will be disappointed.
„Unfortunately, the children do not talk to adults.Their communication with the adults is practically out of questions and most of the time the decision to go on the move is a reaction to personal struggles and hurt feelings. Most of the time we make decisions, but we ignore to think about the consequences. We like to be independent but we overlook the risks, and most of the times is no one around to tell us that we need to think twice, because what seems an attractive promise, it may be a dream that will never come true. This will only add negative feelings and more pain.“ (B, Girl, 16 years, Iasi)
Finding #2: An unaccompanied child will struggle with concurrent issues including the fight for survival, lost of identity, and the fight with temptations (e.g. drug addiction or making easy money by getting involved in robberies, beggings, commercial sex, thefts, etc.)
“The first thought that crosses children’s mind when they start going is a positive thought. They want to search opportunities for a better life; they are looking to find stability and build a robust future. However, when you are on the move it is so easy to fall on the bad temptation route, instead of searching opportunities for starting a new, promising life and achieve your aspirations. The next thing you know, you are homeless, without no friends, you do not know the language and you do anything to make some pocket money. But is this “anything” worth it? Not really, because you may end up in dangerous, life threatening situations, consuming drugs, trafficking and being trafficked; you might end up in conflict with law instances and you will be constantly running and hiding from the police and authorities; and consequently, you will feel like you are the last man on the Earth. Thus, you will miss the train to take you to the opportunities land not to the failure land. You will find yourself alone and disappointed and you never know what the next move will bring to you.” (C, Male, 15 years, Constanta)
Finding # 3: The experience of being on the move is more challenging than beneficial. A recurrent theme stemming from the focus groups and interviews with children across the five research sites emphasized the challenges that may be experienced by an unaccompanied child during his/her journey. More specifically, children noted that should they choose to trust anyone, they should keep in mind that an unknown person most probably will take advantage of the child and will expose him/her to dangerous situations (e.g. kidnapping, physically, sexually and emotionally abuse; trafficking, labour exploitation, sexual exploitation, etc.). Some of the children, especially the girls, feel that boys are more likely to be involved with illegal activities (e.g. theft, sexual abuse) and to exhibit violent behaviours. Other children maintained that children on the move could feel “empty”, drained, and a stranger without family, friends and somebody to trust (Children Focus Group, Constanta). Other children indicated that “the journey can have many bumps on the road, but it is important to accept that nothing is easy and find solutions to keep going. They also suggested that in a such bumpy circumstance, you need to put yourself together, step back and reflect, shake hard and move on”. (Child Consultation Board, Bucharest)
3.5. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK IN PRACTICE
Finding #1: Romania has a comprehensive policy and legislative framework, including specific legislation aligned with the international and European standards; however, the implementation is problematic due to the lack of human resources capacity, limited funding, and inconsistent practices across the 42 counties, Bucharest Municipality as well as at the local community level.
Stakeholders’ perspective Throughout discussions with stakeholders, several challenges to the implementation of the legislative provisions and national strategies were identified. Stakeholders reported several key issues: lack of human resources; limited funding; difficulty in understanding legislative provisions that are written with a very technical wording; the lack of clear and user-friendly methodological guidelines that outlines the steps of legal proceedings; clear expectations and accepted practices; discrepancies between the provisions of the law, the implementation principles and methodological guidelines; and a discretionary decision-making process using the existing laws. These issues are reflected in some of the stakeholders comments detailed below.
32 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
The legislation is the starting point for our interventions. However, their provisions are subject to so many interpretations. In the absence of a clear methodological guidance and realistic funding allocations to support their implementation, key barriers and bottlenecks negatively activities and outcomes associated with our interventions. (Social Worker, NGO, Constanta) The implementation of our laws and understanding their provisions in a meaningful way is very problematic. (Psychologist, NGO, Iasi) Those communities that really care about their children make use of the legislative provisions in the best interests of the child because the legislation framework is complete and comprehensive and provides them with the foundation for their interventions. However, I have to admit that they always face barriers to the implementation when funding and competent human resources are neither available, nor sufficient. (Manager, Public Institution, Constanta) All the laws can be improved! But the most important is to have a consensus between the professionals and theoreticians! (Middle management, Public Institution, Dolj) We all participated in the development process of the Law 272/2004, but the end product was different. I do not know where they got from all the perspectives reflected in the law. In many instances, I found the legislative provisions as they are today, to be difficult to understand and follow through. (Social worker, Public Institution, Dolj) The Romanian child protection system is on the right track with respect to the legislation and policy framework; however, it clearly lacks the adequate human resource capacity, proper funding, a consistent service delivery philosophy, standardized core interventions and clear methodologies and guidelines for translating and synthesising pieces of legislation in practice in a coherent manner. (Stakeholders Focus Group, Iasi)
Of concern with respect to the legislation, stakeholders indicated the weakness of the law enforcement, the lack of sanctions and consequences when non-compliance with legal provisions is identified. A representative of the local police who participated in one of the focus groups indicated that “there are neither sanctions, nor incentives for those who are found in the street to convince them return home or to their placement arrangements”. Other examples provided by two social workers interviewed in Bucharest and Timis, revealed that “although the legislation provisions include monetary compensations for victim of trafficking, I have never witnessed it because the procedures for implementing this provision have not been designed yet. Furthermore, complex details associated with this process have not been thought through.”
Children’s Voice When children were asked whether or not they could give examples of the laws that could be relevant for any child, including children who are on the move or coping with various vulnerabilities, some children expressed their lack of interest in the legislation because they did not like politics and they think the legislation is strongly linked to politics. A significant number of participants in the discussions exemplified a wide range of laws including “the law to protect children’s rights”, “the education law”, “the health law”, the law for people with disabilities”, “the law for immigrants”, “the law for crossing the border with a child”, “laws for thefts, sexual abusers, baggers, prostitution”, “the law for monthly allowance for children”, “the laws for drug users and traffickers”, “the laws for parents who go and work abroad”, “the laws for Roma people to go to school”, “law for Roma children who were repatriated from Italy, Spain and France”. One child noted that despite so many laws are currently in place, “a law to prevent children leave their home doesn’t exist yet.” (G, 14 years old, Male, Iasi). Another adolescent (Girl, 15 years, Constanta) indicated that “There are so many laws out there. So many, that the adults loose count of them. Honestly, I do not understand these laws and I have no idea how these can be used to help with my situation. Most of the times I hear that there is no money to put in practice these laws. There is no sufficient money for allocations, for the education, for our health, for fighting discrimination, for helping poor people, for creating jobs, for helping young people start their life. I think that these laws are not always correct because their impact on people feels very tough and is not always logical. If these laws would help people to search for and find answers to their problems, than these laws would be good, otherwise, politicians have to change them and make them better. I think that laws are made because people from the European Union asked Romania to make them.”
3.6. PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND STANDARDS
In terms of services, a comprehensive review of policies, legislations, standards and reports along with information collected from the children and stakeholders indicate that overall, in Romania governmental
33 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL institutions and non-governmental organizations working together or independently provide children on the move with a wide range of services and programs aimed at addressing their needs. Further, the desk review, interviews and focus group discussions suggest that governmental authorities and non-governmental actors with responsibility for promoting, guaranteeing and ensuring the respect of the rights of the child, shall consider moving towards better identifying and responding in a more integrated manner to issues faced by the various categories of children on the move. It seems that these issues are tackled and addressed in a fragmented way by sub-groups of the sector active in the areas including child labour, child trafficking, street children, children left behind by their workers migrant parents, children in conflict with the law, repatriated children, refugees and children seeking asylum. Throughout our review of documentation and formal discussions, we noted that these sub-groups in the sector are at different stages of organizational development and their capacity varies widely as a result of different levels of funding and availability of specialized human resource in their intervention area for specific groups of beneficiaries.
3.6.1. ACCESSIBILITY
Finding #1: In Romania, there is a wide array of services with relevance and utility for the children on the move. Over the past decade, the Romanian authority with responsibility in child protection identified the following categories of children at high risk24: child victims of abuse, neglect, trafficking, unaccompanied migrant children, children living on the streets, children from very vulnerable families (extreme poverty, very low level of education, alcoholism, domestic violence, etc), children from poor Roma communities, neglected or abused children, children who dropped out of school, children, particularly those in rural areas, subjected to work exploitation, children with disabilities, children whose parents both work abroad, migrant children accompanied by vulnerable families, etc.
Typical services and supports currently provided for these groups of children include a wide array of services (Table 15). The intervention programs are not mandated in legislation, and therefore services can be provided only up to the system’s existing capacity, which is determined largely by the amount and allocation of European funding and in some instances governmental subventions rather than by need.
Table 15: Service Spectrum
Types of Services Constanta Bucharest Iasi Dolj Timis 1. Identification, intake and assessment of vulnerable children * * * * * 2. Group, individual, and family counselling * * * * * 3. Support groups and psychotherapy n/a * n/a n/a 4. Juridical assistance * * * n/a * 5. Material support * * * * * 6. Residential or day centres services/projects * * * * * 7. Crisis interventions * * * * * 8. Skills development for all children and particular vulnerable groups to deal with stress, group pressure, conflicts, anger management, and sensitive situations * * * n/a n/a 9. Accommodation services for asylum seekers and refugees n/a * * * * 10.Integration services for asylum seekers and refugees including language programs, cultural orientation, information and juridical assistance, financial support for credentials assessments and professional development * * * n/a * 11. Awareness campaign to provide information for the prevention and combating of child trafficking, child exploitation for commercial purposes * * * * *
24 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Ionescu, I. And Fusu- Plăiaşu, G. (2009), Thematic Study on Child Trafficking Romania 2009 Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications
34 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
12.Awareness campaign to educate professionals working in the field and the general public on children’s rights, focusing on preventing abuse, neglect, exploitation, trafficking and other forms of violence against children * * n/a n/a n/a 13.Awareness campaign among vulnerable groups on the risks associated with trafficking in persons to support the development of self-protection capacity, thus aiming at reducing the vulnerability of groups at risk, including children, as well as at reducing the demand for sexual exploitation of women, and work exploitation n/a * n/a * * 14.Workshop sessions and debates involving children in schools * * * n/a n/a 15. Establishment of the children’s forums and children consultation boards n/a * n/a n/a n/a 16. Support for children’s initiatives to engage in and organize education campaign for children’s rights and drafting children’s report on the situation of the children’s rights in Romania. n/a * n/a n/a n/a
These services are delivered through projects limited in scope and time, which pose major problems regarding the accessibility of these services for all the children who need them. Due to financial problems there are huge gaps in the service provided for various types of beneficiaries from across the country as well as major sustainability issues in the delivery of these services. The lack of funding results in the limitation of the range of services provided and limited number of clients who can receive assistance. For example, although ten transit centers administrated by the Local Directorates for Social Assistance and the Protection of the Children’s Rights established in 2004 through a program of national interest, and another one established in Mehedinti with funding from the local budget, in 2012 only six out of the 11 transit centers were operational25.
Finding # 2: The current state of the service delivery system in Romania is characterized by discrepancies with respect to the service delivery philosophy, the service delivery model and practices within the NGO sector, within the governmental sector and between the two sectors. These discrepancies impact the availability of services across Romania as well as the access to services by children and their families. The stakeholders noted discrepancies regarding the service delivery models, philosophy and practices of both NGOs and governmental agencies throughout the country. Therefore the value added by specific interventions of particular organizations in a specific area is impeded by these discrepancies, and is much more troubled when more complex interventions are needed to address a myriad of issues to ensure the best interests of the child. The stakeholders indicated that the system has to think of ways to improve the service delivery to prevent situations where: • A parent of a child in need of assistance does not know where to go to get help (especially those living in small communities) or may have to make many trips to different agencies to try to determine and understand what services are available, what services would best serve the child’s needs, and what process to follow to get that service for the child; and • A child with less severe or less urgent needs is being treated in one region of the country while no services are available in another region for a child with the same or more severe or more urgent needs. Some of the children’s needs could be met creatively in ways that are not expensive. Other children can have really complex needs, and meeting them requires skilled staff, intensive and costly supports. Further, many social services are delivered by multiple teams or multiple providers and this lack of consistency in staffing can be difficult for kids. It has also been clearly voiced by the stakeholders that there were no assessments of and no preoccupation to conduct an assessment of how the current service models and practices guiding the work of both the NGO community and governmental sector might contribute collectively to address effectively the service challenges and complex needs of children. As result there is no plan to address this systemic challenge. Enabling effective access to social care for children at risk involves an in-depth knowledge of what their individual needs are. Focus group discussions and interviews with several stakeholders identified challenges in making a clear distinction between risks and vulnerabilities. In the stakeholders’ view, not
25 Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), Council of Europe ( Strasbourg, 31 May 2012), Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Romania
35 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL being able to clearly identify risks and vulnerabilities poses additional challenges in predicting the impact of the migration on the life of children, and consequently will negatively impact system’s capacity to identify issues, establish priorities for action and find the optimum solutions. Furthermore, stakeholders indicated that there will always be specific circumstances unique to the child and family situation, or unique to the community that can pose barriers to access, including: • Utilization of services takes too much time or is inconvenient (e.g. the service is not available in the community and access to service involves costs as it requires transportation); • Lack of health insurance (i.e., If a child is not registered with a family doctor can receive medical attention in the emergency room or after 30 days of his /her registration with a family doctor. The window of 30 days is called ‘accreditation’ and represents the processing period of the registration that will allow the patient to be legally included on the family doctor’s list of patients.) • Lack of financial resources; • Fear of stigma associated with use of services; and • Potential benefits of the use of service are not recognized by the children and their families. Whether or not appropriate services are in place will depend ultimately on local needs and local decisions to establish priorities.
Finding #3: The more services are available, the better outcomes are achieved for the kids. The children who participated in this study were familiar with the services provided by the organizations they are affiliated with (e.g. Save the Children, the Second Chance for Education Program, The Local Directorate for the Protection of the Rights of Children, The Islamic Foundation, PARADA, Young Generation, etc.). Many children noted their organizations provided them with access to counselling, reintegration, and emotional support services which helped them mentally and thought them how to cope with the difficult moments they experienced. Additionally, they indicated that they received supports such as after-school programs, leisure activities, circus activities and language learning programs and concluded that the more services available for them, they will have more opportunities for skills development and better integration in the society. Most of the children involved in this study indicated that they could go to the local child protection services and ask for help or they can call the green helpline and get guidance and support for their situations. They further indicated that they learned about this green helpline from the TV and in the school. Overall, the focus group and interview discussions showed that children have a limited understanding of what services are available for them should they find themselves in need of protection and support. This means reaching out to various groups of children at risk and their families to ensure they understand their entitlements and access the services they need should become a priority for both NGOs and governmental agencies nation-wide and at community levels. It also means the need for recognising the formal and informal roles of family and community in improving and sustaining social well-being in society, and the need for proactive actions such as information, education and awareness campaigns using multiple communication channels to bring these roles into life.
Finding #4: The children felt that access to health services depends on their specific situations and differ from urban to rural areas. In Romania, the children's access to medical and recovery services is guaranteed, without any discrimination, by the State and the related costs are borne by the National Fund for Health Social Insurances and the state budget. All children up to 18 years old benefit from free insurance, in the absence of any contribution to the National Fund for Health Social Insurances. Some children who returned to Romania commented that upon their return they went to a family doctor who “wrote their information in the book and told them that all is good”. Some of the asylum seeking children who participated in this study who are not Romanian citizen indicated that they have access only to emergency health services. . They argued that for the rest of
medical assistance they are expected to pay, but based on their experiences most of the times these services are covered by NGOs with European funding available through the projects they implement or with private money raised through fundraisings at local level. None of the participants mentioned situations when medical assistance was not offered.
“When I was sick, the costs of medicines were covered by our NGO because we didn’t have enough money. It already happened three times since this fall (2013) and we are at the beginning of winter.” (I, 12 years, Male, Timis, Asylum seeker)
36 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Some of the children members of the Children Consultations Boards, indicated that their lack of confidence in the medical system (including hospitals and doctor) limit the accessibility to services. They invoked their experiences and argued that without money there are less chances to benefit from quality medical care services, or if you do, the financial constrains can determine you to drop out from the treatment. Others indicated positive experiences with the health system and spoke of almost fully trusting the health system.
Finding #5: Most of the children felt they have good access to the educational services. Most of the children who participated in this study were of the opinion that their right to education is well respected in Romania. They were very happy with their access to school and indicated that despite ongoing financial issues their parents do the best they can to support them in school. Few girls interviewed who experienced kidnapping, sexual exploitation and child trafficking situations talked about how much support they received from their schools when the leadership and their teachers found out about their problems. Some children who returned to Romania after leaving abroad commented that their re-enrollment in the public educational system was very smooth because they had the necessary documents to prove their educational level. They indicated that their requests and all papers submitted were assessed by the representatives from the Ministry of Education who also made suggestions regarding their enrollment in an appropriate level of education which was not always aligned with their school age. Some older children pointed out the necessity of having Regional Evaluation Commissions to speed up the evaluation of credentials and be more accessible for children. In the case of asylum seekers, these children were of the impression that the process for school enrollment is lengthy. First they had to learn the Romanian language. They indicated that the Romanian language classes that they attended were conducted by volunteers of the NGOs. These children were informed by their NGOs that Romanian language classes had to be delivered by volunteers because the Ministry of Education at local level said they do not have money, space, and teachers available to help them learn the language. Further, these children explained that upon the completion of the language courses, all students have to pass an exam. If they fail the exam, than the school inspectorate will not enrol them in the school. So, in that case a child would waist several months up to a year until the school enrolment will be possible. When successful, most of the children are enrolled in the “Second Chance” Programme implemented by Save the Children, a program initially designed for children who have aged out without receiving education. Some of the stakeholders working with these children clearly pointed out that the quality of the Romanian language programs need to be exemplary to ensure successful examination and this work cannot be completed only relying on volunteers. They advised that the volunteers can help as tutors, but the language programs should be delivered systematically by qualified professionals who are well aware of the Ministry of Education’s expectations so that children will pass the exams from the first try. Some of the children seeking asylum noted that sometimes they struggled to access and exercise their right to education because schools are situated far from their centres, or because they prefer to work as their age allows for it rather than attend school. A member of the Child Consultation Board in Bucharest commented that strengthening the inclusiveness element within the educational system along with the creation of more opportunities for children for being heard and being listened to would support a better integration and reintegration of children in the school and in their communities and will help them develop real communication skills. This child also suggested that some teachers will need to change their attitude and become more available and responsive to special needs of their students while recognizing and valuing the uniqueness of each student.
Finding #6: Regardless of availability of services, the use of services is dependent on the level of trust children have in adults. Most of the children are of the opinion that when they need help to find solutions for their struggles, they should ask their parents or adults they trust. The children who are members of the Child Consultation Board in Bucharest asserted that “you need to trust before asking for help” (Figure 5). This group of children expressed a high level of trust in the child protection and education system, while they indicated a very low level of trust in the police. The family members and their friends are two important groups of people whom these children seem to be trusting and willing to share their experiences with.
37 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Figure 5 Trust in the Services
Finding # 7: Fear of stigma and marginalization can trigger reluctance among vulnerable children and their parents to seek care and support. During an interview in Iasi, a 16 years old girl noted that “many of the children in need of protection as well as their parents would refuse to use these services - if they would know of their existence - because first, they do not admit they have a problem and second, if they admit, they are afraid of being labeled and rejected by their relatives, neighbours, friends or acquaintances.” In the same line of thinking, few children who participated in the interviews and focus group discussions in Constanta and Bucharest maintained that “those in need might refrain from using the services because they will become visible in their communities and will be labeled, marginalized and discriminated against.”
“When people find you have a problem, first they gossip about you, than they feel sorry for you, and lastly they stay away because they do not want to interfere. If you go and ask for help from child protection or NGOs and you live in a small community, it becomes problematic because social workers visit you home, and your neighbours wonder why and as soon as they find out, they stop talking to you. Isn’t this discrimination or marginalization?” (L. Female, 15 years, Constanta) “Curiosity is part of the Romanian culture but also part of the culture is not to get into anyone else family matters. People need more information and education about the most pressing issues in their community. Thus, when they know of specific children struggling with these issues, instead of gossiping and staying away, they would give a hand of help and support to those in need to cope better with their problems. Any neighbour has a responsibility to announce the authorities when they see bad things happening in their community, or in a family they know." (C. 15 years, Iasi)
3.6.2. SYSTEM CAPACITY
Finding #1: The stakeholders identified challenges in making a clear distinction between risks and vulnerabilities. In the stakeholders’ view, risks and vulnerabilities are linked together and the prevention and protection measures are strongly dependent on an accurate and timely assessment of both. How can the child protection system, both the service delivery agents and policymakers do a better job
of responding to the needs, risks and vulnerabilities affecting the children on the move and their families? The stakeholders believe that a child-centered approach to the protection of children is the starting point in answering this question. This approach needs to be informed by an enhanced understanding of the multiple and often intersecting vulnerabilities and risks that children and their families or temporary care givers experience throughout their life. Thus, the protection of the rights of children could not function without a strong prevention component that brings together public institutions and nongovernmental organizations, coalitions and other child protection networks. Further, the stakeholders highlighted that more studies about the factors that contribute to the development of
38 2.1. O realitate cu provocări successful interventions and services are needed; the findings would be useful for policymakers as they strive to ensure the development of supportive and inclusive policies for all children and a wide range of groups of children in need for special supports. For example, few stakeholders draw the attention on the repatriated children. They argued that their return and reintegration in the country of origin might result in further marginalization in their communities, and will increase their vulnerabilities (e.g. gender vulnerability, reintegration vulnerability, and discrimination vulnerability). As their vulnerability increases, the likelihood for more and greater risks increases (i.e. risk of persecution, risk of abuse, risk of exploitation, risk of trafficking, risk of being denied/ delayed the access to their rights – i.e. education, health, etc.). Therefore, more prevention activities and more support services must be available in some communities that are more likely to confront with challenges steaming from repatriation of children. Yet, these stakeholders maintained that the existing child protection system in their region, including public and nongovernmental organizations mandated with ensuring the protection of the rights of the child and the delivery of preventive and responsive services lacks awareness about child subgroup -specific vulnerabilities, and is weak and under-resourced.
Finding # 2: The quality of services depends on the quality of people who provide those services Several children advanced the idea that service quality and service accessibility are both dependent on the quality of people who provide those services. They also said that it is very helpful when the adults know their job and are able to identify and understand children’s struggles especially when they have a complicate situation. In their view, the adults working in the field of child protection should be knowledgeable of laws and many more, but most importantly they should be respectful and talented to work with the children and help them get out of stressful situations. Another child observed that “Everyone talks about money and money is never enough. Some people can do a lot with a lot of money, others can do a lot with little money if you have a heart and you really want to help” and voiced his opinion that “there are more resources out there which have been overlooked. Somebody need to sit and think – how can we better use what we have and help our children because children are the future of any country who need an extra-chance for healthy development and integration into society.” (S.,Male, 17,Constanta).
Finding # 3: The minimum standards have to be revisited, assessed and appropriately adjusted to reflect the current reality of children on the move as well as the wider range of non-residential services provided in broad areas of focus (e.g. child trafficking, street children, asylum seekers, refugee, domestic violence, child exploitation, etc). Studies in the area of unaccompanied children indicate that there are numerous international standards and recommendations concerning the delivery of services to migrant children, however, they seem to be unrealistic and impossible to achieve in light of scarce economic and human capacities, or the absence of political will. Generally speaking, there is an expectation which is not always formalized through standards, protocols and other means, that different actors including the governments of countries of origin, transit and reception, NGOs, and civil society at large will address the situation of children on the move and respond to their problems in an adequate manner. How will the notion of adequacy be defined, what does it mean high quality of services and the establishment of the implementation standards will continue to challenge the responsible bodies as long services will be delivered on a project basis, an approach that is limited in time and does not contribute to a sustainable spectrum of services. The purpose of any child protection standards is to promote consistently high quality service delivered to children and their families. Although Romania made significant progress designing and implementing quality standards for delivering residential services with respect to children’s rights, the setting of quality standards for the new service created in response to specific problems of children on the move will continue to remain problematic because most of the specialized services for children on the move are not legislated, are delivered within the context of specific project and initiatives and there are conflicting and overlapping responsibilities as a result of multiple players with different perceptions and understanding of the issues and priorities and their mandates. The mandatory minimum standards (Appendix 5) have been developed for services complementary to the efforts of the child’s own family, as these derive from parental obligations and responsibilities as well as to the services provided by the educational facilities and other service providers, according to the child’s individual needs in his social and family context. They establish a minimum level of performance and create a norm that reflects a desired level of achievement. These standards guide the child protection practitioner in his/her practice at each phase of service delivery. These services are aiming at
39 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL preventing child abandonment and institutionalization and to support the promotion and respect of the rights of the child through a wide range of activities including education, recreation-socializing, counseling, development of independent life skills, school and professional orientation and guidance, education activities for parents or legal representatives, as well as for other individuals having children in care. The standards describe the activities that are required during distinct phases of child protection service, and sometimes prescribe the preferred institutional arrangements and approaches to management and collaborations. In general, the standards are grouped based on areas of interest that can include advocacy and relationships with the community (i.e. advocacy in the community and active collaboration activities with the families of children attending the day care center); core activities (i.e., personalized intervention plan, children daily schedule, educational activities, recreation and socializing activities, school and professional guidance and psychological counseling, parent counseling and support); administration and management (i.e., location, financial resources and facilities, structure and design, and annual action plan); human resources (i.e., staff recruitment and employment, staff initial and ongoing training, supervision); inter-institutional collaboration (i.e., child protection against abuse, collaboration with relevant institutions and professionals). More specific standards such as the national standards for specialized assistance services provided to trafficking victims, include customized indicators regarding accepting victims of human trafficking in specialized centers; providing assistance within the centers to victims of human trafficking documentation of the cases and data protection psycho-social rehabilitation of the victims assisted within the center. However, it is stated that the provision of special support to victims of trafficking is not possible if the other relevant mandatory minimum standards of child protection services are not being fully met (e.g. Standard 6). This requirement could explain the limited number of the specialized services in the counties that were subject of this research in the light of the challenges identified by the stakeholders during the focus group and interviews discussions (e.g. lack qualified human resources, inadequate funding, and a NGO sector that is not sustainable).
Finding # 4: In practice, compliance with the minimum standards is problematic and results in poor outcomes.
Challenge: Unrealistic standards result in the poor outcomes Few stakeholders concerned with the child trafficking work pointed out to a difficult case documentation process mainly due to limited resources along with the use of an inconsistent language and confidentiality of data (Standard no. 8 - Case documentation and data protection). As a result, professionals have to always be prepared to appear in the Court and further explain. In many instances this challenge is complicated by a comprehensive service delivery model (e.g. other services including legal assistance, reintegration, educational support, and medical support are provided along with shelter services) that requires even more standards to be considered. In their interventions during the focus groups discussions, some of the participants commented that their educational background in social work, psychology, sociology, special education, and other human science disciples has helped them to better understand the context of their work and make decisions in regard to their interventions. Some of them also mentioned that they receive some targeted training within the framework of their projects, but the biggest challenge noted over and over again was the lack of specialized human resources and sustainable financial resources to secure the long term implementation of their projects. Adding to this complexity, stakeholders also indicated that unrealistic expectations from the victims of trafficking in tandem with lack of financial support and highly specialized people represent key barriers to the sustainability of the reintegration activities which in turn result in re-exposing the victim to another trafficking situation. Another example concerns the standard regarding the psychosocial rehabilitation of the victims of trafficking. The psychosocial rehabilitation process requires time, commitment and effort from all parties involved - the victim, professionals, family members, etc. The attribution of outcomes can become problematic as there are many factors which can drive the case towards success or failure (e.g. too high expectations set by the victim, family circumstances, interdependencies on other services – education, social assistance, child protection, etc.) A final example revealed by the stakeholders is in relation with the standard referring to the critical importance of and necessity for –the initial and ongoing training for staff. During the discussions there was a general agreement that in many instances these trainings are not very efficient because they are too long and requires them to be absent from work which is problematic from a service delivery
40 2.1. O realitate cu provocări perspective and many times training is conducted by people who do not have a relevant background for the topic of the training. Further they noted that the training approaches seems to be not very efficient as they are more like presentation, theoretical and less practical and participatory.
Challenge: Cumbersome processes can become very frustrating for the victims One key problem highlighted during the interviews as well as focus group discussions was the provision of pro bono juridical services from time to time by different lawyers (by request), or by students volunteers who can only prepare the file without representing the victim in the Court. Further, the same victim can be represented in the Court by multiple lawyers requested by the client or appointed to the client for the same case law. The information sharing is lengthy and the involvement of too many professionals can become very frustrating for the victim.
Strength: Clients are involved in the development of the intervention plan. Most of the relevant stakeholders indicated that most of the clients receiving counselling services are actively involved in the development of the intervention plan which shows a high degree of compliance with the standard requiring a personalized counselling /psychotherapy program.
Challenge: Minimum European standards on reception conditions have been transposed into the Romanian national law, but problems remain with legislation or limited financial resources. The receipt, registration and solving of applications for asylum, the provision of assistance to asylum seekers during the procedure and assistance for integration are activities carried out at the level of Regional Centres for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum Seekers, which are territorial structures specialised in asylum issues. The co-ordination of the local authorities involved in the migrant integration process is achieved by the Regional Centres for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum Seekers of the Romanian Immigration Office. The total accommodation capacity of the RIO in its 6 regional centres is 920 places, divided as follows: Bucharest (320), Galati (250), Timisoara (50), Radauti (100), Somcuta Mare (100) and Giurgiu (100). According to Jesuit Refugee Service Europe26, asylum seekers and refugees are able to access reception conditions of a decent standard, comparable with similar countries but financial constraints poses serious challenges including insufficient allowances and the lack of supplementary support for vulnerable persons (pregnant women, women who have just given birth, new-born babies, elderly persons, etc.) according to their specific needs. In their report on Romania (2013), the Jesuit Refugee Service Europe indicated that at the moment of the report none of the open centres had a psychologist and the accommodation facilities are not always adapted to the specific needs of pregnant women or children (i.e. not all the open centres have children’s room and special services provided). The asylum directorate may notify specialised institutions able to provide needed assistance and may collaborate with NGOs if needed.
“Asylum Law in Romania is applied with due regard for the best interest of the child. Unaccompanied minors who express the wish to obtain asylum, in writing or orally, in front of the competent authorities, they are registered as asylum seekers, with the asylum application being submitted as soon as a legal representative is named. If they have reached the age of 14 the asylum application can be submitted personally. If they are under 14, they are usually placed in centres for minors, run by the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Care. If they are older and they have family members (but who are not their representative) or community members in the open centres, they can be accommodated there. If there are any doubts regarding the minor’s age, a medical opinion is obtained by the authorities, but the written consent is required from the asylum seeking minor and their legal representative.” (Stakeholder Focus Group, Bucharest)
Finding # 5: The child protection sector has to capture and report more meaningful information about the types of services rendered for funds received, and the outcomes achieved with these funds. The stakeholders advised hat since there had been less and less funding opportunities and/or no sustainable funding from the government for their core programs - Including their administrative activities - over the last decade, they had had considerable difficulty in maintaining their core services. However, funding constraints notwithstanding, stakeholders admitted that both NGOs and governmental agencies
26 Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, (2013). Protection interrupted. The Dublin Regulation's Impact on Asylum Seekers' Protection. Retrieved at www.jrseurope.org/DIASP%20Publications/RO_DIASP.pdf
41 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL need to be more vigilant to ensure that they receive, and can demonstrate that they received, value for money spent. In this regard, stakeholders recommended that both governmental and non-governmental sector should establish and/or adhere to a more transparent funding and expenditures practices; and the management units responsible with monitoring of funding programs as well as financial units within each organization need to ensure that all paid invoices contain sufficiently detailed information to establish the reasonableness of the amounts billed and are appropriately approved before payment.
Finding # 6: The state should support, not just trust NGOs (NGO Executive, Timis). There was an overwhelming agreement among stakeholders who participated in this situational analysis that the child protection system in Romania lacks appropriate financial and human resources to undertake transformation initiatives that enables a more holistic, community driven approaches to protecting the needs in need of protection and promoting the respect of the rights if all children regardless their vulnerability status. Focus group interviews and discussion with stakeholders also identified that the existing level of funding available for the child protection sector is neither encouraging nor supporting the recruitment and retention of experienced staff. For example, one social worker from Dolj indicated that the caseload include more than 30 clients and commented that “It is difficult and challenging at the same time to effectively service my clients given the complexity of their cases”. Further, the stakeholders in Dolj commented that due to various factors challenging the NGO sector (i.e., voluntary work, inconsistencies and sustainability issues as services are provided as part of projects limited in time and funding, and high levels of employee turnover due), would not be feasible to view them long-term partners to address time sensitive issues. In Timis, stakeholders identified a service gap to address the issues of trafficked children. The Young Generation NGO seems to be the only organization that provides unlimited hosting services for this group of children in need of protection. All the other services provided by different organizations have rules and regulations in place that will not allow children to live there for an unlimited period of time. The reality is that ”most of the times, the victims of trafficking need assistance and are in need of protection for a long period of time“(Social worker, Public Institution, Timis). “
Unfortunately, I have to say that often times in my day-to-day activity I feel like the state is not working for these children but against them. It is not enough to have innovative ideas and ability to translate them in projects that address the real needs of our children. Funding is critical, but currently is not originating predominantly from the State budget. Most of our projects are operational with the European funds or funding from the international donors (e.g. Switzerland, Norway, etc.). I am wondering when we will start to put together in one envelope all the funds that we can get. I am wondering when we will start to really work together to ensure that children receive seamless services whether or not they are stable or they move within county, within country or between countries. I think it is time to come up with optimum solutions and transform this system for a better life for our children.” (Psychologist, NGO, Iasi) The Romanian child protection system is underfinanced. The availability of or lack of availability of appropriate funding to support the creation and implementation of services is strongly linked to service availability and accessibility (Stakeholders Focus Group, Iasi) NGOs are closer to the needs of their target groups, but they are missing effective leverages for systemic change (Stakeholders Focus Group, Constanta).
In conclusion, as one executive rightfully commented, “the continuity of services, ongoing adaptation of services to changing realities and shifting priorities in the life of our children, along with coherent and consistent practices and systematic efforts for continuous improvement of service quality for children and their families in large and small communities regardless contextual disparities, all are signs of development and real transformation of the system that demonstrate sector’s capacity to think outside the box, beyond the financial constrains. (Stakeholders Focus Group, Iasi)
Finding # 7: The capacity building and professional development opportunities are not sufficient given high demands from the sector. Although stakeholders indicated their participation in the capacity building initiatives involving specialized training (i.e. working with trafficked children, children victims of various forms of exploitation), they also admitted that training opportunities are limited with respect of (1) the breadth of themes covered and (2) geographical and system coverage.
42 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
For example, the stakeholders indicated that there are subjects poorly covered such as working with refugee and asylum seekers, trafficked children, reintegration of repatriated children, translation of the policies and legislation in practice, working with transnational partners, innovative practices and lessons learned locally, nationally and internationally by the field, etc. Also, they noted that up to date, the training opportunities were available to a limited number of specialists working at more central levels of government and NGOs, and less to those working at community level. Most of the stakeholders were of the impression that some counties benefited from more training opportunities than others trying to explain this situation with the disparities regarding the visibility of these issues across counties if the national level perspective is considered as well as disparities intra-counties, when the local dimension is considered. Further stakeholders from Iasi, Constanta, Dolj and Timis commented that staffs who work for the local social assistance public services (SPAS) were often time left out as the realities of local communities are often times overlooked.
Finding # 8: The coordination of services and collaboration of multiple service providers represent a dual reality. Another common institutional weakness pertains to cross-agency coordination and difficulties in bringing together the multiple agencies responsible for different elements of the protection of the rights of the children, Theoretically, the collaboration is great and evidenced by many institutional partnerships, collaboration protocols and agreements and joint action. However, many stakeholders pointed out that in practice, following through with these agreements is heavily dependent on the interpersonal relations especially on the personal connections and networks. Most of the stakeholders were in agreement that there is an impetuous need to identify concrete measures to strengthen the coherence and cooperation at all levels with a view to enhancing services for children on the move. Some participants exemplified their opinion with the joint order (published in the Official Monitor of Romania, nr.849/ December 17, 2008) that brought together several ministries (e.g., Ministry of Public Administration and Internal Affairs, Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour, Family and Equality of Chances, the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of the Children, Ministry of External Affairs, General Attorney, and Ministry of Justice) to support the establishment of a national mechanisms for identifying and referring victims of trafficking by using both formal (law enforcement agencies) and informal identification (Diplomatic Missions, consulates, NGOs, by hotlines). The mechanism aims to adopt a unitary and coordinated response of all anti- trafficking institutions and organizations, regardless of the institution or organization the victim initially gets in contact with. The referral procedures – depend on the identification process and require cooperation between all the actors involved. Furthermore, Romania has a National Agency against Trafficking in Persons (NAATP) with 15 Regional Centres which work as a link between trafficked victims and the law enforcement agencies as well as between authorities and national NGOs providing services in this field. The NAATP is responsible for coordinating, evaluating and monitoring at the national level the implementation of counter trafficking and helping public institutions put in place policies for victim protection and assistance. Some of the stakeholders actively involved in the area of child trafficking commented that they are not well aware of the most recent developments and progress of the implementation of the National Identification and Referral Mechanism in Romania at national and local levels and expressed their interest to learn about results and lessons learned. Based on their experiences and day-to-day practice, these stakeholders were of the impression that Romania is still struggling with the identification and reintegration of trafficked persons to gaps in the capacity of police forces and other authorities. They were not aware of existing actions undertaken by the NAATP to fulfill its mandate and progress documented as well as specific results (e.g. 2013 statistics regarding child trafficking in Romania). Stakeholders concluded that in order to comply with inter-sectoral cooperation standards, more efforts are needed to enforce these formal collaboration settings and put them at work in the right direction based on formal and clear rules. Qualitative analysis of secondary data (e.g., country specific reports by GRETA) support the ideas expressed during the discussion with the stakeholder groups and also indicated the lack of strategic partnership among stakeholders and lack of inter- and intra sectoral coordination (e.g. child protection, education, health, education, etc.) as well as limited participation of affected or most at risk groups.
43 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
4. LESSONS LEARNED
This section presents a summary of findings from a lessons learned perspective in an effort to make the best use of the rich set of information gathered from multiple stakeholders and children at risk of and/or affected by the move situations. The lessons learned throughout this situation analysis can be used to inform policy and program development and further research contemplated with respect to children on the move or relevant areas of focus. The two important caveats for these lessons learned include (1) the strong sentiment expressed by participants that “on the paper the protection of the children of the move appear perfect, but the reality of practice is different because there are so many bumps in the implementation process” and (2) “the children on the move is both a concept and a transition phase in the life of some children most of them vulnerable children; children on the move is not an end in itself.”
Lesson # 1: Romania has been identified as a country of origin, transit and destination from the children on the move perspective. Overall, children on the move represent a sizable and rapidly growing group with a profound effect on local communities, and Romanian society at large. Many issues related to financial constrains and lack of capacity to effectively identify the magnitude of the children on the move situation in Romania emerged through discussions and analysis of the data. Lesson # 2: In all five research sites, all categories of vulnerable children defined as children at increased risk for becoming “children on the move”, are widely represented. It has been learned that vulnerability is shaped by many factors, including the local socioeconomic and political landscape, community resources, visibility of the problems, availability of services, local culture and traditions, poverty level, stigma and social marginalization. Lesson # 3: Strictly with respect to the children on the move situation, in Iasi and Dolj the local authorities and NGOs seem to be struggling predominantly with children left behind by their migrant workers parents, in Constanta the most recurrent problems seem to be associated with the refugees situations and voluntary remigration of children (from Romanian families or mixed families) who lived abroad and returned to Romania, while in Bucharest and Timis issues concerning the refugee and asylum seeking children seem to dominate specific conversations in reference to the children on the move. However, there are differences among these subgroups regarding their access to various services in a timely manner and the respect of their rights. Lesson # 4: Romania has a well developed legislative and policy framework with relevance for children on the move. However, it seems that it still lacks the appropriate harmonization of child protection policies with the larger context of the social policy in Romania – family policies, immigration policies, educational, health, refugee and asylum, boarder control, including a correlation between the legislative provisions and allocation of funding to support the effective implementation of laws and policies. Lesson # 5: The general objective of the Child Protection Strategy is to ensure respect for the rights of the child in Romania and continuously improve children’s quality of life by sustaining and granting responsibilities to the communities and local authorities to support families in coping with their obligations towards their children. Lesson #6: The development, diversification and durability of services at community level, especially in small communities are jeopardized by the lack of funding to support and sustain activities and projects initiated by NGOs or local authorities. Lesson # 7: The public-private partnerships are limited in time and not sustainable. In the absence of funding and qualified human resources to deliver services beyond specific projects implemented with the European funding, the stigmatization of vulnerable children and children on the move can be exacerbated. Under these circumstances, an equal focus should be placed on stimulating and supporting the local communities to develop programs aimed at preventing child separation from their parents as a result of migration along with a focus on ensuring that the right services provided by the right people address the issues as they arise.
Lesson # 8: The coverage of services tends to be more generous in counties with an active NGO sector that have capacity to absorb the European funding or in those counties where the issues are more visible and captured public attention. Lesson #9: The eligibility criteria for beneficiaries of the programs funded through the European and government funds should be inclusive to ensure the access of a wide range of vulnerable groups and encourage clients to seek supports and services and attach themselves to these safety-net programs. For example, in the case of refugees and asylum seekers, fear revolves around their personal concerns over the possibility that if they seek for example health care it will negatively impact their applications.
44 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
The state and non-governmental actors should clarify that receipt of social, juridical, material, health, educational and other range of services is consistent with the Romania’s efforts to ensure the respect of the rights of the children and will not jeopardize their applications aimed at solving their legal status. Lesson # 10: Lack of service sustainability, systems capacity issues including financial constraints and human resources challenges along with inconsistent and poor access to and the poor performance of the health care, education and child protection systems vis-a-vis children on the move and vulnerable groups have serious implications for the social, mental and physical health these children, and, ultimately, for the sustainable development of Romania and Europe. Lesson # 11: The primary goal of children on the move discussion is to put the issues of vulnerable children into a broader child protection policy context by framing the discussion beyond fragmented debates on issues of unaccompanied child migration in relation with child trafficking, child labor, child exploitation, refugee and asylum seeking. Lesson #12: The integration of children on the move into their country of origin, transit or destination is a complex undertaking and the implementation of specific measures legislated or non-legislated raises significant concerns among child protection specialist, advocates, policy makers and practitioners. Therefore, it become critical to understand how different pieces of legislation and policies work together for or against children on the move given their complex circumstances at different points in time during their migrant situation. Lesson # 13: Tackling the learnings, challenges and their implications for access, quality, and cost of assistance for children on the move will be important to make informed policy decisions in the future. Further, it will increase the long-term viability of the measures and supports at intersection of multiple policy areas (i.e., child protection, education, health, employment, immigration, etc.) and considering the disparities (e.g. geographical, administrative, legislative, resourcing, capacity, technology, information and data management, etc.). Lesson # 14: It has been widely acknowledged by key international players in the protection of the rights of the child that the voices and views of children directly involved in migration are still too often ignored in debates on migration and child protection. In Romania, as in many other countries, the views of the children are sometimes not solicited or if solicited they are often ignored and not considered when policy, protection measures and strategies for the promotion of the rights of the child are being developed. Children participation and consideration of children’s views are critical in order to understand their interests, vulnerabilities, how they experience mobility and the impact of migration – both positive and negative – on their life and development.
45 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. INFORMATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
In 2009 the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Romania will establish a comprehensive nationwide system, for example under the inter-ministerial coordination council, to collect and analyze data on all areas covered by the Convention, and for all persons under 18, with a specific emphasis on vulnerable groups of children, including Roma children, as a basis for assessing progress achieved in the realization of children’s rights and to help design policies to implement the Convention. The Committee further recommended that a uniform set of indicators, for all persons at the age of 18, are developed and applied across agencies to allow for the collection of comparable and complementary data. In 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly called upon the European Union to establish a harmonised method for gathering relevant information on unaccompanied children Europe-wide, to enable an accurate comparison at European level, while ensuring that personal data is protected; and to support national independent institutions capable of collecting the data and creating a suitable resource centre regarding all areas touching upon the situation of unaccompanied children (Resolution 1810). In keeping with the recommendations of CRC, 2012-2015 Council of Europe’s Strategy for the Rights of the Child and recommendations of the EU Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors, in order to support an understanding of the scale of this phenomenon, priorities for action and lessons learned through the implementation of various data collection mechanisms the following actions are recommended: • The Child Protection Department of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly by involving all relevant stakeholders shall establish a Task Force representing a broad cross-section of the key stakeholders, in terms of profession, experience working in the children on the move areas of focus, expertise, and geography. • The Task Force shall conduct public hearings and working sessions throughout the country on topics relating to data collection, data analysis, monitoring frameworks, use of data, duplication of data, availability of data, resourcing, roles and responsibilities, administrative burden, and other oversight activities in the field of protection of children at risk/children on the move. Information will be collected to capture the perspectives of various relevant stakeholders, including the children. • The Task Force shall conduct or coordinate an Information Management Maturity Assessment, a comprehensive review of the current status of data collection, monitoring and reporting with relevance and/or focus on children on the move. The main goal of this review is to gain a better understanding of the availability, quality and use of the data both on national and international level. • The Task Force shall provide the government with advice regarding an approach for harmonization of data collection mechanisms and analytical frameworks to that would facilitate the identification of the most relevant indicators, data sources and collection methods, provide tools and guidance for data analysis, and show how the data can be communicated and used for decision-making in all phases of the migratory process. Ongoing consultations with the sector and children should inform the recommendations made by the Task Force. • The Task Force working together with the government shall develop a multi-year strategic plan for monitoring the progress tracking specific indicators and identifying shortcomings and good practice. • The Task Force working together with the government shall develop an analytic strategy to support comparative reporting across various aspects of children on the move and establishments of benchmarking whenever possible. • Build sector capacity for collection and analysis of data by offering specialized training to groups within the child protection sector. Thus, the sector will have expertise and knowledge about how information is collected, kept, secured; how it is defined and how it can be accessed and shared for decision-making purposes. • Design and implement a functional mechanism to routinely collect and analyze children on the move data. Working methods to gather and share data should be standardised, reinforcing cooperation with relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and research centres. Data should be reliable, exhaustive, detailed and up-to-date. • Identify a single National Authority or body with responsibility for implementing an integrated approach to data collection and analysis for all categories of the children on the move children.
46 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
5.2. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
• Conduct assessments of legislation and current policies to identify potential overlaps, redundancies and gaps and identify priorities for action. • Legislation upholding the rights of children should be enforced, and necessary amendments carried out to address any shortcomings in laws and policies. • Effective child protection policies and risk and vulnerabilities based mechanisms should be established in linkage with other policies (e.g. education, health, immigration, anti-poverty, etc.) so that a holistic, integrated strategy to protection of the rights of children on the move is developed to effectively address cross-sectoral issues. Policies should be linked to clear implementation plans and risk mitigation strategies. • Undertake policy-relevant research to enable and support policy-makers and key stakeholders at all levels of the child protection system to make informed and evidence-based decisions about effective strategies for improving service quality and promoting equity.
5.3. SECTOR CAPACITY, COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION
• Public sector governance has to be strengthened through evidence-based decision-making and planning, streamlined implementation arrangements and greater coordination between different agencies, greater investment in service delivery facilities and personnel (including capacity building), modern management techniques and robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms. • Conduct a comprehensive sector review and analysis to identify current capacity of the sector including areas of strengths and areas needing improvement. A human resource capacity analysis of the child protection system will enable the identification of capacity gaps and better inform the design of a systematic plan to build and strengthen national and local capacities, particularly in such areas as policy, planning and management, education financing, streamlined training to develop and strengthen skills necessary for working with specific subgroups of children of children on the move (e.g. asylum seekers, refugees, trafficked children, etc.) • Conduct capacity building for staff in the public and nongovernmental sector on participatory methods and child-friendly interventions. Multi-disciplinary training for staff working with various groups of children on the move should be conducted on a regular basis, including training for border guards to support the victim identification and referral process. • Strengthen the coordination among the various governmental and nongovernmental institutions and bodies at all levels of child protection system to promote and ensure a convergent approach to achieve common goals together with respect to the protection of the rights of children on the move; and to establish knowledge management mechanisms to facilitate sharing and dissemination of information and practices to improve the quality of services, services accessibility and equity.
5.4. FINANCIAL SUPPORT
• Public investments in the child protection system need to be increased to support assistance and integration pathways for children on the move that are consistent and aligned with the international and European standards. Additional European funds will need to be strategically targeted to meet the needs children on the move given the contexts of their communities. • Increase transparency of the public budget and promote bottom-up planning to ensure that local needs are identified and addressed. The best interest of the child must prevail in any financial decision that concerns a child. • Promote the efficient and effective use of the limited public financial resources and hold various layers of public managers accountable to approved budgets.
5.5. PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND STANDARDS
• Ensure that children are heard and their views are properly taken into consideration and are promptly informed about their rights and protection opportunities, in a child-friendly manner.
47 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
• The Romanian authorities and NGO sector should pursue their joint efforts to strengthen the prevention programs relevant to children on the move situations. • Revise and harmonize the existing standards of services to ensure that durable solutions are identified and implemented in the best interests of the children and ensure the quality and conditions are conducive to the child’s harmonious development. • Advocacy and social mobilization should be carried out to promote children’s participation and to tackle the societal values and norms that hamper the realization of children’s rights. • Psychological care for unaccompanied minors who in many cases are traumatised has been indentified problematic. Therefore, adequate psychological assistance is needed to close this service gap. • Improved integration measures into the education system through a greater offer of integration and language training offers for children with migration background and additional support teachers are recommended .Access to education opportunities should be facilitated for both elementary and secondary education as well as vocational training. • The stakeholders emphasized that the child welfare is a dynamic and continually evolving field of practice ad advised that reasonable and clearly articulated standards need to be developed through meaningful consultations with representative pools of stakeholders. These pools of stakeholders have to reflect a variety of field of practice and expertise and be representative of communities they serve. For example, some stakeholders recommended that ongoing consultations will include various professionals (e.g. social workers, psychologists, educators, family doctors and other health professionals, police, financial experts, lawyers, notaries, counsellors, school counsellors, business people, etc.) working in the all sectors (i.e., NGO, government and private) and performing various functions (i.e., execution- administrative and clinical interventions, management, policy making, advocacy, policy analysis, donor) along with representatives of children and members from different communities (i.e., national/local; rural/urban) representative of all administrative regions (i.e., North East, South East Dobrogea, South – Muntenia, South West – Oltenia, West , North West, Central and Bucharest- Ilfov). This approach will ensure that standards are owned by the stakeholders across Romania, shared and understood by the staff, and developed with the participation of children and their parents.
48 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alternative Sociale and UNICEF (2008), National Analysis of the phenomenon of children left behind by migrant parents 2. Anghel, R., Herczog, M., Dima, G. (2013), The challenge of reforming child protection in Eastern Europe: The cases of Hungary and Romania. Retrieved from http://psychosocial- intervention.elsevier.es/es/the-challenge-of-reforming-child/articulo/90260049/ 3. Brooks-Gun, J. (1990) , Identifying the vulnerable child’. In D. E. Rogers and E. Ginsberg (eds), Improving the Life Chances of Children at Risk. Boulder, Colorado: Westview. 4. Buzducea, D. (2013). Copiii in alte situatii de vulnerabilitate [Children in situations of vulnerability]in M. Preda, D. Buzducea, D. Farcasanu, V. Grigoras, F. Lazar, & G.-C. Rentea (Eds.), Analiza situatiei copiilor din Romania [Analysis of the situation of children in Romania], Bucharest 5. Centrul de Informare si Documentare Privind Drepturile Copilului. (2007). Copilul meu e singur acasa. Carte pentru parintii care pleaca la munca in strainatate. [My Child is Home Alone. A Handbook for the Parents who are Labor Migrants], Chisinau 6. Children Consultation Board “Spune!”. (2007). Children’s report on the situation of the children’s rights in Romania. Phare 2003 – Awareness campaign to promote the rights of the child. 7. Council of Europe (2013), Council Recommandation on Romania’s 2013 National Reform Program and Delivering Council Opinion on Romania’s Convergence Program for 2012-2016, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_romania_en.pdf 8. Council of Europe (2012). Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2012 – 2015) 9. Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (2011), Resolution 1820 (2011). Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe. Retrieved from http://assembly.coe.int /Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta11/ERES1820.htm 10. Council of Europe Report (2012), Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Romania 11. Council of Europe (1997), Council Resolution of 26 June 1997 on unaccompanied minors who are nationals of third countries Official Journal C 221 , 19/07/1997 P. 0023 - 0027 12. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009), Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Romania available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-ROM-CO-4.pdf. 13. Diop M. (2010), Unaccompanied Minors’ Rights within the European Union: Is the EU Asylum and Immigration Legislation in line With the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Retrieved at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/oct/eu-unaccompanied-minors-asylum-and-immigration- legislation-Marie-Diop.pdf 14. Dottridge, M. (2013), in International Organization for Migration (IOM) Report: Children on the Move. http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/Children_on_the_Move_19Apr.pdf 15. Dottridge M. (2012), What can you do to protect children on the move? Handbook published by Terre des hommes International Federation 16. Dottridge, M. (2011), Exploring Methods to Prevent Children on the Move. A Handbook for organizations wanting to prevent child trafficking, exploitation, and the worst forms of child labor published by, Terre des hommes International Federation. 17. Dottridge, M. (2010), Glimpses into the numbers of children on the move. http://mhpss.net/ 18. Dotrridge, M. (2006), Action to Prevent Child Trafficking in South Eastern Europe. A Preliminary Assessment, UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS & Terres des hommes Foundation cited by Focus Migration. Retrieved from http://focus-migration.hwwi.de/Romania.2515.0.html?&L=1 19. ECPAT Group in Romania (2007), Stop Sex Trafficking of Children and Young People 20. ECPAT International (2012), Global Monitoring of the status of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children: Romania. Available at http://resources.ecpat.net/ EI/Pdf/A4A_II/A4A_V2_EU_ROMANIA.pdf 21. European Commission (2012), Together Against Trafficking in Human Beings: Romania. Retrieved on January 24, 2014 at http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/NIP/Romania 22. Europa. Summaries of EU legislation (n. d.). Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/ legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigratio n/
49 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
23. Eurostat (2013), European social statistics. Population and social conditions (Pocketbooks), Luxembourg 24. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Ionescu, I. And Fusu- Plăiaşu, G. (2009), Thematic Study on Child Trafficking Romania 2009 Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/ en/ publications-and-resources/publications 25. FONPC (2009), Report of the NGOS Federation for Children (FONPC) to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Geneva, With reference to the Third Romanian Government Periodic Report for 2003-2007 26. The General Inspectorate of the Police. National Agency against Trafficking in Person (2009), Trafficking in Children in Romania. Study on the recruiting process. 27. Gozdziak E., Ensor, M.O (2010), Children and Migration: At the Crossroads of Resiliency and Vulnerability, Palgrave Macmillan. 28. GRETA (2012), Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Romania. Available at http://www.coe. int/t/dghl/monitoring/trafficking/docs/Reports/GRETA_2012_2_FGR_ROU_en.pdf 29. The Hague Global Child Labour Conference 2010 - Roadmap adopted, http://www.ilo.org/i pecinfo/product/viewProduct.do?productId=13453 30. Institute for Rights, Equality and Diversity (2010). The reception and Care of Unaccompanied Minors in eight Countries of the European Union. Comparative Studies and Perspectives of Harmonization. 31. ILO/IPEC (2003), Rapid Assessment of Trafficking in Children for Labour and Sexual Exploitation in Romania. 2003. Available from www.ilo.org; Terre des hommes (2007) “A new investigation on the trafficking of Romanian children in Spain this summer”. Accessed from http://tdh- childprotection.org/content/view/34/; Terre des hommes Romania. 32. ILO (2003), Support to the Child Centre in Bucharest and prevention of irregular migration of minors (2002-2003) http://www.iom.cz/aktivity/migration-and-development/romania/support-to- the-child-centre-in-bucharest-and-prevention-of-irregular-migration-of-minors-2002-2003 33. IMAS (Institutul de Marketing si Sondaje), (2006), Policy Evaluation Report regarding the Trafficking of Human Beings in Romania. 34. IOM, (2011), Unaccompanied Children on the Move. 35. IOM, (2012), Exchange of information and best practices on first reception, protection and treatment of unaccompanied minors. Manual of Best Practices and Recommendations (Second edition) 36. IOM, (2012), Overview of guardianship systems for unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers in Central Europe, Synthesis Report 37. IOM (2011), Glossary on Migration, Geneva. Available from http://publications. iom.int/bookstore/free/IML_1_EN.pdf. 38. Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosch, University of Fribourg in cooperation with International Reference Centre for the Rights of Children Deprived of their Family (ISS/IRC), (2008), Project Report: Unaccompanied Children – What happens once they are back home? 39. IPEC and Child Helpline International (2012), Child migrants in child labour: An invisible group in need of attention - A study based on child helpline case records http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/ product/download.do?type=document&id=20535 40. J. Jaap E. Doek, Hans Van Loon, Paul Vlaardingerbroek, (1996),Children on the Move: How to Implement Their Right to Family Life. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Kluwer Law International 41. Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, (2013). Protection interrupted. The Dublin Regulation's Impact on Asylum Seekers' Protection. Retrieved at www.jrseurope.org/DIASP% 20Publications/RO_DIASP.pdf 42. Luca, C., Foca, L., Gulei, A.S., Brebulet, S.D, (2013), The Remigration of Romanian Children, in Migrant Children in Europe: The Romanian Case 43. Luca, C., Gulei, A. S. with Azoitei, N.D., Karacsony, N., Lacusta, O.M., Pascaru, G. (2008), Alternative Sociale Working Methodology: Social, Psychological and Juridical Assistance for Children left home alone as a result of their parents going to work abroad, Iasi 44. Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and the Elderly (2008),The 2008 -2013 National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights 45. Migration and Children Global Migration Group/joint publications and documents available at: http://www.globalmigrationgroup.org/en/migration-and-children
50 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
46. GMG Symposium (2011), Migration and Youth: Harnessing Opportunities for Development. New York 47. GMG – UNICEF,(2010), Fact-Sheet on the Economic Crisis and Migration, Remittances and Children Left Behind 48. GMG – UNICEF,(2009),Fact-Sheet on the Impact of the Economic Crisis on Migration and Children’s Rights, GMG-UNICEF 49. IOM,(2013), Children on the Move (2013) 50. Committee on the Rights of the Child (2012), Day of General Discussion on The Rights of All Children in the Context of International Migration 51. IOM (2011), Unaccompanied Children on the Move 52. UNICEF,(2011),Human Rights Standards Relevant to Repatriation Procedures of Unaccompanied and Separated Children: Technical Note 53. OHCHR,(2010),Study on the Human Rights of Migrant Children 54. Preda, M., Buzducea, D., Farcasanu, D., Grigoras, V., Lazar, F., & Rentea G-C. (2013), Analiza situatiei copiilor din Romania [An analysis of the situation of children in Romania] Bucharest 55. Punch S. (2007), Migration Projects: Children on the Move for Work and Education. Paper presented at: Workshop on Independent Child Migrants: Policy Debates and Dilemmas, Organised by the Development and Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, University of Sussex and UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 12 September 2007, Central Hall, Westminster, London 56. Reale D. (2008), Away from Home: Protecting and supporting children on the move. Save the Children, UK. http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Away_from_Home_LR.pdf. 57. Save the Children Italy. (2002), Rozzi, E. The evaluation of the best interests of the child in the choice between remaining in the host country and repatriation: A reflection based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child 58. Save the Children (2007), Impact of Parents Migration on Children Left At Home 59. Spârleanu, Cătălina (2010), Organizatiile neguvernamentale din Romania active in domeniul protectiei copilului. Analiza Generala. [Analysis of the Romanian NGOs active in the child protection field in Romania] Social Work Review/Revista de Asistenta Sociala, Issue 4, p185-198. 60. Soros Foundation (2009), The Effects of migration: the children left behind. Retrieved from: http://tdh-childprotection.org/documents/the-effects-of-migration-the-children-left-behind 61. Stanculescu, M. S., & Marin, M. (2011), Impacts of the Economic International Crisis in Romania 2009 - 2010. UNICEF Romania VANEMONDE Publishing. 62. Stanculescu, M. S., & Marin, M. (2012), Sprijinirea copiilor invizibili [Supporting the invisible children] Romanian Government, CERNE and UNICEF 63. The Universal Periodic Review Report (2012), Children's Rights References in the Universal Periodic Review (Second Cycle). Retrieved from http://crin.org/library/countries/romania, Child Rights International Network 64. World Bank (2013), Romania Overview. Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/ country/romania/overview47/2007 65. UNICEF (2006), Reference Guide on Protecting the Rights of the Child Victims of Trafficking in Europe 66. UNICEF (2008), Roles and accountabilities at local level: Planning services for prevention of separation of children from families. Retrieved from www.unicef.org/ceecis/08- 5_Denisa_Oana_Patrascu_Romania_EN.pptx ) 67. USAID, Lucia Correll, Tim Correll, and Marius Predescu (2006), USAID and Child Welfare Reform in Romania: Challenges, Successes and Legacy. Report prepared under Task Order 12 of the Global Evaluation and Monitoring (GEM) IQC, Contract No. FAO-I-00-99-00010-00. 68. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 6 (2005), Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children outside their Country of Origin, CRC/GC/2005/6. 69. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2011), Being a refugee How refugees and asylum-seekers experience life in Central Europe. Participatory Assessment 2010 Report. Regional Representation for Central Europe. 70. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR), Regional Office for Europe, (2012), Judicial Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in Europe. The case of migrant children including unaccompanied children
51 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
7. APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Table 2: Romanian Legislation for the Protection of the Rights of the Child and special provisions for different categories of the children on move
Children on the Legal Framework Move Category Children at Risk Constitution of Romania; Law 272/2004 amended and completed by Law 257/2013; Government Decision 49/2011 regarding the approved methodology on prevention and intervention in the multidisciplinary team in the cases of violence against children and domestic violence; Order 289/2006 approving the mandatory minimum standards for interventions and services provided through the counselling centers for parents and children along with the methodological guidelines for implementing these standards; Education Law; Health Law; Family Law; and Penal Code.
Child Trafficking Law 678/2001 on the prevention and combating of trafficking in human beings amended though the Law 230/2010 contains special provisions on child trafficking (e.g. Article 8 requires that the Ministry of Education implement in partnership with the NGOs educational programs for parents and children identified at risk for becoming victims of trafficking; Article 41 makes reference to the use of the provisions of the Law 123/2001 when minors accompany adults involved in trafficking or they are themselves victims of trafficking; Article 42 regulates the subvention of the association and foundations that design and implement social assistance programs for victims of trafficking); Government Decision 299/2003, concerning the rules and methodological guidelines to implement Law 678/2001, Government decision 1238/2007 regarding national standards for specialized services to provide assistance and protection to the victims of human trafficking.
According to the Law 678/2001, child trafficking consists of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation. The National Strategy Against Trafficking in Person (NSTP) stresses that special attention should be given to protecting and assisting children because of their special vulnerability. Specific objectives with regard to child trafficking aim at improving the coordination between bodies working in the field of prevention and combating the child trafficking, and reducing the vulnerability of children at risk.
In 2012, in a report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by Romania, GRETA mentioned some inconsistencies within the institutional and procedural framework for the repatriation and return of victims of trafficking and recommended that Romania should take further action to ensure that returns take due regard of the victims’ rights, safety and dignity, and the best interests of the child. In its response to the list of issues identified by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/ROM/Q/4/Add.1, 2009), the Government indicated the development and approval of the National Action Plan for preventing and fighting sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children for commercial purposes. Child Labour Government Decision no. 867/14 August 2009 concerning the prohibition of dangerous forms of child labor, which also includes a list of such forms of child labor. This document lays out operational definitions for the concepts introduced by the ILO Convention No. 182, including criteria for indicating dangerous forms of child labor, as useful instruments for employers, experts in the field of child protection, law enforcement structures and civil society. Moreover, the Decision introduces a series of methodological approaches regarding the identification and the referral of children victims or children in risk.
52 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Children on the Legal Framework Move Category Children left behind Order 219/2006 regarding the identification, intervention and monitoring children who are deprived of by their parents who parental care during the period in which they are working abroad; Law no. 257/2013 amended and migrate to work supplemented Law no. 272/2004 on the protection and promotion of child rights introduced in Chapter VI, abroad Section 31, titled Child protection with parents working abroad. Article 97 of the new law requires notification of the social services by parents of their intent to leave the country and work abroad at least 40 days before leaving the country. According to the same article, the notification shall contain the name of the designated person in charge of child support during the absence of parents or guardians. The temporary delegation of parental authority during the absence of parents should not be more than one year, and the designated person should express agreement before the court. This measure does not represent a waiver of parental rights and duties.
The mechanisms for monitoring the growth of children left behind phenomenon and type and quality of services they can benefit shall be determined in accordance with art.97 by Government decision based on the proposal from the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection for the Elderly, in collaboration with the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration. Refugees and Law 105 / 2001 regarding the regime of the state border of Romania; Law no. 122/2006 on asylum in Asylum Seekers Romania completed with the Methodological framework – Government Decision 1251/2006; Order no.44/2004 regarding the social integration of foreigners who have acquired a form of protection in Romania; Order no. 5925/2009 for establishing the rules and framework for organizing the Romanian language courses and for enrollment of the foreign children who are residing in Romania without a clear legal status or children who were granted the permission to reside in Romania; Law no. 157/2011 amending and completing immigration legislation with respect to foreigners’ status in Romania, issued for creating the necessary legal framework for the direct application of Regulation (EC) no. 810/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code).
The Romanian laws recognize the right of children age 14 and over to apply for refugee status independently; application on behalf f younger children can be made by the legal guardian. Children with refugee status have the same right to education as Romanian children. In 2007 through the Government Emergency Ordinance No.55/2007, the Romanian Immigration Office was established to deal with immigration issues, asylum and social integration of foreigners in Romania.
Repatriated Children Government Decision1143/2004 concerning the regulations and methodology for completing the repatriation of the Romanian unaccompanied children and measures of special protection; Order 107/14.03.2005 of the National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights approving the model of social assessment regarding the social and family situation of the unaccompanied Romanian child found on the territory of another state, in view of his return, and approving the framework plan preparing the social reinsertion of the unaccompanied child who is to be returned.
53 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Appendix 2 – Table 3: Distribution of asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied minors.
Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-12-008/EN/KS-QA-12-008-EN.PDF
Appendix 3 – Table 8: Distribution of Minors Identified by the Romanian authorities in 2013 on the Romanian territory
Country of Origin Age Total 0 - 13 14 - 17 Syria 71 10 81 Moldova 8 13 21 Turkey 4 9 13
Afghanistan 2 6 8 Serbia 5 2 7 Saudi Arabia 5 1 6 India 1 3 4 Iran 4 0 4 USA 4 0 4 China 3 0 3 Russian Federation 2 1 3
54 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Iraq 2 1 3 Israel 3 0 3 Albania 0 2 2 Australia 2 0 2 Canada 2 0 2 Egypt 1 1 2 Kenya 2 0 2 Libya 2 0 2 Pakistan 0 2 2 Senegal 2 0 2 Ukraine 1 1 2 Algeria 0 1 1 Costa Rica 1 0 1 Philippines 1 0 1 Jamaica 1 0 1 Kosovo Republic 0 1 1 Malaysia 1 0 1 Palestine 0 1 1 Grand Total 130 55 185 Source: The General Inspectorate of Immigration, Statistics provided in response to the request for data, Situation Analysis, Children on the Move, Mario Project, Terre des hommes, 2013
Appendix 4 – Table 9: Distribution of children on the move in Romania – Temporary residents with Legal Status 0-4 YEARS 5-9 YEARS 10-14 YEARS 15-19 YEARS Grand Total Nationality F M Total F M Total F M Total F M Total F M Total MOLDOVA 4 6 10 39 30 69 67 77 144 1316 994 2310 1426 1107 2533 CHINA 139 132 271 71 87 158 48 62 110 52 69 121 310 350 660 TURKEY 123 145 268 76 81 157 48 60 108 57 81 138 304 367 671 SYRIA 76 93 169 72 84 156 67 63 130 62 102 164 277 342 619 UNITED STATES 25 30 55 29 38 67 30 34 64 32 43 75 116 145 261 IRAQ 28 35 63 29 24 53 13 21 34 18 40 58 88 120 208 MAROC 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 78 129 207 79 130 209 ISRAEL 11 6 17 9 5 14 6 6 12 24 140 164 50 157 207 TUNISIA 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 54 129 76 55 131 UKRAINE 11 3 14 5 9 14 10 8 18 42 39 81 68 59 127 REPUBLIC OF COREEA 6 6 12 19 17 36 7 21 28 13 8 21 45 52 97 LIBAN 7 13 20 3 9 12 7 10 17 10 19 29 27 51 78 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 8 10 18 19 7 26 7 6 13 6 9 15 40 32 72 ALBANIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 33 29 62 34 29 63 SERBIA 6 8 14 6 6 12 1 2 3 17 17 34 30 33 63 JORDAN 8 13 21 2 7 9 2 3 5 5 22 27 17 45 62 TURKMENISTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 49 60 11 49 60 PAKISTAN 8 6 14 9 11 20 6 8 14 6 3 9 29 28 57 INDIA 9 4 13 7 6 13 3 6 9 6 12 18 25 28 53 KAZAKHSTAN 14 14 28 6 12 18 1 2 3 2 1 3 23 29 52 EGYPT 2 14 16 8 6 14 3 3 6 2 13 15 15 36 51 CANADA 8 9 17 6 5 11 5 1 6 6 6 12 25 21 46 VIETNAM 12 17 29 5 5 10 0 1 1 2 3 5 19 26 45 IRAN 4 11 15 3 2 5 7 2 9 5 8 13 19 23 42 AFGHANISTAN 2 1 3 2 2 4 4 1 5 0 28 28 8 32 40 NIGERIA 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 17 30 15 18 33 BRAZILIA 4 2 6 7 4 11 2 0 2 3 4 7 16 10 26 PALESTINE 0 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 0 17 17 3 22 25 MYANMAR 6 10 16 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 10 19 ALGERIA 3 1 4 3 4 7 1 0 1 2 4 6 9 9 18 SWITZERLAND 0 2 2 2 4 6 1 4 5 3 2 5 6 12 18 JAPAN 1 3 4 2 6 8 2 2 4 1 1 2 6 12 18 MEXIC 0 3 3 4 6 10 0 1 1 1 2 3 5 12 17 AZERBAIJAN 3 6 9 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 11 16 MACEDONIA 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 10 14 4 12 16 AUSTRALIA 0 2 2 4 2 6 1 1 2 2 3 5 7 8 15 ARMENIA 1 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 7 8 3 10 13 STATELESS 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 5 6 11
55 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
COLUMBIA 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 1 3 6 5 11 ARGENTINA 4 1 5 2 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 3 10 VENEZUELA 1 2 3 0 5 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 THAILAND 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 2 7 7 2 9 PHILLIPINE 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 2 3 0 3 6 2 8 YEMEN 0 4 4 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 5 7 SUDAN 2 1 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 BOSNIA HERTEGOVINA 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 2 6 CONGO RPD 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 4 2 6 MONGOLIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 4 4 2 6 MALAYSIA 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 6 SOUTH OF AFRICA 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 2 6 CAMERUN 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 1 6 ERITREEA 0 0 0 1 3 4 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 4 6 NEW ZEELAND 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 6 CROATIA 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 5 SOMALIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 3 5 SAUDI ARABIA 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 GEORGIA 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 SRI LANKA 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 0-4 YEARS 5-9 YEARS 10-14 YEARS 15-19 YEARS Grand Total Nationality F M Total F M Total F M Total F M Total F M Total ZIMBABWE 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 4 INDONEZIA 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 ANGOLA 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 TRINIDAD TOBAGO 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 BANGLADESH 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 CHILE 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 3 RWANDA 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 BELARUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 CUBA 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 PERU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 UZBEKISTAN 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 GUINEEA (CONAKRY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 HONDURAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 KOSOVO REPUBLICA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 COASTA DE FILDES 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 ECUADOR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 EL SALVADOR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 FRANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 GERMANY 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 HAITI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 GREAT BRITAIN 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 NEPAL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SENEGAL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 BAHREIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 CONGO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 COSTA RICA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 ETHIOPIA 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 GABON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 GAMBIA 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 KUWEIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 LIBIA 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
United States Minor Outlying Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Grand Total 568 632 1200 475 517 992 369 421 790 1937 2021 3958 3349 3591 6939 Source: The General Inspectorate of Immigration, Statistics provided in response to the request for data, Situation Analysis, Children on the Move, Mario Project, Terre des hommes, 2013
56 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Appendix 5 – The legislative framework of mandatory minimum standards
The mandatory minimum standards framework within which the child protection services relevant to children on the move are delivered include the following: 1. The Order no. 24/2004 for the approval of the mandatory minimum standards for the day care centers; 2. The Order 289/2006 approving the mandatory minimum standards for interventions and services provided through the counselling centers for parents and children along with the methodological guidelines for implementing these standards; 3. The Order no.288/2006 approving the mandatory minimum standards for case management in the children’s rights protection field; 4. The Government Decision 1238/2007 to approve the specific National Standards for Specialized Assistance Services provided to trafficking victims; 5. The Order no. 177/2003 for the approval of the minimum mandatory standards for the child helpline, and counselling centers for children victims of abuse, neglect, and exploited as well as the mandatory minimum standards for the community resource centers forthe prevention of child abuse, child exploitation and neglect; 6. The appendix issued in 2005 by the governmental body with responsibility in the child protection including the minimum mandatory standards for emergency residential centers for street children; 7. The appendix issued in 2005 by the governmental body with responsibility in the child protection including the minimum mandatory standards for sheltersfor street children; 8. The Order no.89/2004 for the approval of the minimum mandatory standards for the emergency centers to accomodate abused, negected and exploited children; 9. The methodological guidelines to support the intervention in a multi-disciplinary team in the cases of child abuse, neglect and child exploitation.
Appendix 6 – Promising practices
With regard to promising practices, several projects were identified in the area of child trafficking, child labour, children left behind and refugees and asylum seeking. First, the creation of creation of strong networks of diverse Romanian organizations, cooperation between different stakeholders on the national and local level created important fora for discussions and opportunities for the exchange between the different actors in the field. Further, information and knowledge sharing, information, experience, and examples of work were beneficial for a larger number of children than originally contemplated. However, it should be noted that different projects that have been carried out during the last years should not be seen as a panacea; these examples help to understand fragmented responses over the time and outline priorities of future policies and programs.
Child trafficking The Table 16 lists examples of projects with a focus in the area of child trafficking, including prevention and capacity building activities and creation of specialized services. It does not represent an exhaustive list of projects. No rigorous reviews of these projects have been conducted to determine the impact of the project, its outcomes and its sustainability over time (i.e. whether or not the services created are still in place in the targeted communities).
Table 16: Child Trafficking Projects Name of the project Brief description "Use the internet carefully! Under the framework of project JLS/2007/DAP-1/174 30, CE-0227796/00-22 “Raising Child trafficking has hidden awareness and empowerment against child trafficking”, the Inspectorate General of the faces!”, 2010-2011 Romanian Police and ANITP implemented a campaign for the prevention of child trafficking and exploitation under the slogan “Use the internet carefully! Child trafficking has hidden faces!” The project was coordinated by Save the Children ONG Italy with EU support, DAPHNE grant. It is a transnational project implemented in 4 countries: Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and Denmark. As project partner, ANITP is responsible for its implementation at national level. The campaign aimed to raise national awareness about the misuse of information technology related risks.
57 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Stop Sexual Exploitation of Campaign Stop Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth conducted in partnership between Children, 2010-2011 Save the Children, The Body Shop and ECPAT seeks to increase awareness of the long term in order to strengthen the protection of children in society and in order to ensure children's rights to be protected against all forms of exploitation, including sexual trafficking. The purpose of the campaign was to mobilize the public in all countries to actively engage in improving the protection of children against sexual exploitation and to unite in urgent appeal to governments to take measures necessary to achieve three specific objectives related to prevention and protection of children against sexual exploitation and child care victims. The objectives identified are considered essential for the protection of children from around the world. Let children live their Save the Children Romania and the National Agency against Trafficking in Persons childhood!, 2008 launched the campaign “Let children live their childhood!’ This project envisioned a campaign against child commercial exploitation. The campaign aimed to raise awareness of the public at large on the consequences of sexual abuse and exploitation upon the child evolution and information about legislation sanctioning child sexual abuses. The objectives of the campaign were: -to promote legislation in the field; -to inform and train specialists in prevention and intervention in cases of child victims of sexual exploitation. Regional Response Program Phase III of the program was implemented during 2009 - 2011 in Romania, in Iasi and Child Trafficking in SE Suceava, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia - Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Montenegro. This Europe - Phase III (in project laid down concrete models support services for child protection and adolescent partnership with Save the victims of trafficking / at risk of becoming victims of trafficking, in order to prevent situations Children Albania), funded by of violence, exploitation, and abuse and reduce illegal migration children and risk of the Norwegian Ministry of trafficking. The main purpose of these activities was the protection of children in poor Foreign Affairs and the Oak communities from Iasi and Suceava including Roma children , children with parents working Foundation, 2009 - 2011 abroad, street children, those who have low levels of education, those who have left school , abused children in the family . These children are at high risk of being trafficked, to suffer various forms of exploitation and in danger of being seriously violate the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Challenge Project This prevention project used various means to raise awareness in public contexts, such as (Coalition Against Trafficking media and civic forums, about the consequences of legalization for increasing sex trafficking in Women), 2007-2008 into these countries. The project encouraged and strengthened key state institutions, NGOs and the general population to remedy gaps in anti-trafficking programs and policies by addressing gender equality, protection for victims, the demand for sexual exploitation that promotes trafficking, and the links between corruption, prostitution and trafficking. The project was led by Caritas. Counselling for abused, The purpose of this project implemented in Suceava was to provide treatment and psycho - neglected and trafficked, social children who have suffered some form of abuse and their families, as well as outreach 1996 -2010 and training of professionals working with and for children (social workers, psychologists, teachers, police, judges, prosecutors, doctors, and nurses). Thus, over 850 children and their families have benefited from the support of specialists for diagnosis and therapy; over 300 professionals have received information and training courses. Partners in this project: General Directorate of Social Assistance and Protection of the Rights of the Children, County Police Inspectorate, School Inspectorate, the Court Suceava and Radauti Court and Probation Service Tribunal Suceava Regional program in The main lines of actions implemented in Suceava focused on: providing training aimed at response to child trafficking, developing local skills in the agencies with responsibilities in the area of child protection, in 2010 terms of prevention and intervention methods multidisciplinary child trafficking cases, providing social services to children at risk of trafficking and their families, raising awareness of the risks associated with child trafficking, illegal migration hazard, specialized training peer leaders and initiation of drafting a manual for their life skills development. Youth centers to combat child The project involved the establishment of 14 youth centers in Bucharest and Iasi, Botosani, trafficking, 2005-2006 Giurgiu (both urban and rural areas). The purpose of establishing their young children and reducing vulnerability to trafficking. The purpose of this program is to reduce this vulnerability, identify potential victims and withdraw traffic and social reintegration of child victims of trafficking. Youth centers were created in the existing facilities in schools. Of these, 10 are administered directly by the schools, and 4 by partner NGOs. Through a process of education to help young educators program highlights the important role that children and youth who receive appropriate support and guidance, you may have responsibility in pursuit of actions that relate to a complex social problem as is traffic. The essential role that children and young people they have is to identify other children who may benefit youth activities centers, to encourage them to come and participate in educational
activities or leisure activities that occur in the centers. The role of adults is to ensure proper sequencing identification, referral and monitoring for each child. The project was implemented by Alternative Sociale.
58 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Danish Programme against The overall objective relates to strengthening health service providers in Belarus, Moldova, Trafficking in Eastern and Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine by developing best practices and adapting working methods South-Eastern Europe changing realities of human trafficking. Project focus is on the clinical aspects of assisting "(novel group discussion), victims of trafficking in their reintegration through: promotion of a common language and 2007 -2008 principles of implementation of assistance programs, implementation methods, and uniform standards of care by developing best practices and strengthen existing expertise. A distinct component envisages the development of a training module on topics of crisis intervention and working with difficult clients, trauma issues, standards and procedures for organizing assistance programs and inter-institutional cooperation, the development of professional and supervisory skills training professionals care providers. Beware Occasions work Campaign to prevent human trafficking and raising awareness and educating the public perfect "with jobs 'perfect'" about the risks associated with the phenomenon and reduce vulnerability to victimization risk (ADPARE), 2007 - 2008 categories: unaccompanied children unattended or institutionalized, people with disabilities, women, elderly, and asylum seekers. A secondary objective of the campaign refers to sexually exploited demand reduction services and labour. Be yourself!, 2007 Campaign selective prevention of trafficking, made in all high schools in Buzau county which has the target group students aged 14 to 18 years. The purpose of the project is to reduce the risk of victimization of young people from trafficking in human beings, by including them in training and subsequently in the development of: debates, musical and dramatic and thematic literary works. The project was funded by MATRA-KAP program of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Bucharest. ADPARE team members participated in the implementation of the project as trainers. Young people from Giurgiu The active involvement of students in pilot schools from Romania and Bulgaria, in carrying and Ruse together against prevention of trafficking, through the production of events and campaign materials but also trafficking in persons, 2005 by forming "peer to peer". The activities were the representatives ADPARE training and coordination working groups. Creating a safe environment The purpose of this project was to prevent trafficking as part of a trans-national initiative. It for children: joint effort of was implemented in 11 schools in Romania in cooperation with local authorities, border school and family prevention police and proximity, other relevant actors in the field of preventing and combating trafficking of trafficking , 2005 -2009 in persons. The innovative aspect of the project was represented by the involvement and promotion of partnerships between parents associations and educational institutions.
SENS - "Promoting best Beginning in 2002, the initiative AIDROM, SENS program until 2007 contributed to providing practice, identifying and individual counselling services and group for victims of trafficking in persons, reintegration reintegration of victims', programs benefiting ADPARE. Among the activities SENS component of assistance include: 2002-2007 counselling and therapy for victims of trafficking at individual and group level, vocational counselling and career counselling for women victims of trafficking, mediating relationships between victims and institutions that organizes vocational training, psychological support for victims, during the development of vocational courses. Together with us for them - Program focused on prevention of trafficking targeting both students and people who have Prevention Project in Schools been identified as victims of trafficking and could get back into situations of exploitation. 2005-2006 Youth engagement project provided 11 educational units in Sector 2 of Bucharest, in training on human trafficking, creating prevention materials and designing interactive theatre. Assistance component of the project included as beneficiaries 25 victims and their families, activities implemented are: psychological, medical, social, legal and educational. Building the capacity of The project purpose was to build the capacity of professionals (e.g. social workers, professionals providing psychologists, school counsellors, career counsellors, teachers, youth centres coordinators, career education and job peer educators, trade unionists and NGO-s staff) to provide services aimed at reducing counselling to reduce vulnerability of children and youth from marginalized communities to trafficking. A curriculum vulnerability of children and for professionals working with children at risk of labour exploitation was designed. youth from marginalized communities to trafficking, 2005-2006 Improvement in care of The project was implemented by the Save the Children Romania in Bucharest, Iasi, Botosani child/youth victims of and Giurgiu and aimed at (1) building the capacity of professional to tackle trafficking in trafficking and their long-term children; (2) creating individualized services like psycho-social counselling, legal counselling, reintegration in Bucharest non-formal education, health care, nutrition, material support for clothes/uniforms, hygiene and three selected areas, products and vocational educational training (VET); (3) advising key stakeholder (UNICEF, 2005 -2006 USAID) in drafting important policy documents; and (4) providing expert advice in the development of the /Minimum Mandatory Standards for Transit Centre for children victims of trafficking. Employment promotion for The project was implemented by the Confederation of Romanian Democratic Trade Unions children/youth vulnerable to in Bucharest to build capacity of the teachers/trade unionists on career guidance and to trafficking and their adult create new services including individual job counselling, summer school, VET courses and family members, 2005-2007 mediation with employers. Risk prevention of human Pilot project to reduce the vulnerability of young people (students) to trafficking, implemented trafficking among young in five high schools in Romania in Bacau , Prahova, Bucharest, Arges and Dambovita people in Romania, 2005
59 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
Child Labour The Table 17 lists examples of projects with a focus in the area of child labour, including prevention and capacity building activities and creation of specialized services. It does not represent an exhaustive list of projects. No rigorous reviews of these projects have been conducted to determine the impact of the project, its outcomes and its sustainability over time (i.e. whether or not the services created are still in place in the targeted communities).
Table 17: Child Labour Projects Name of the project Brief description Educational Center for Children in The purpose of this project was to support the elimination of any form of child labour by child labour, 2011 creating services for children at risk or exploited through forced labour, who had never been enrolled at school, have dropped the school or are at risk of school abandonment. The services created included counselling and assistance offered to children to ensure that the basic needs are met and they have access health and education services. At the same time, services such as counselling, social assistance and training were provided to their parents.
Beware Occasions work perfect This project consists of campaign to prevent human trafficking, raise awareness and "with jobs 'perfect'" educate the public about the risks associated with the child labour in order to reduce vulnerability of the following categories of children: unaccompanied children out of the protection system or institutionalized, people with disabilities, women, elderly, asylum seekers. A secondary objective of the campaign was to raise awareness concerning the sexual exploitation of children as a form of child labour.
Strengthening the Child Labour The project was implemented by the International Foundation for Child and Family in Monitoring System in Romania , Bucharest, Iasi, Botosani, and Giurgiu to enhance the capacity of local level 2005-2007 professional for the provision of services to address child labour issues. Further, the project provided with an opportunity for creating services at local level as well as to increase awareness with respect to the issues associated with child labour and child trafficking. Combating the forced child labour This project was implemented by Alternative Sociale Association to fight against forced in rural areas including HCL in labour situations involving children and to provide assistance and support to children Agriculture in Iasi County, 2008 - from Iasi county in order to prevent their exploitation through forced labour in 2009 agriculture.
Our review also identified the following materials referenced by the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (ILO-IPEC) as either promising practices or with relevance for work in the area of child labour: • Gender Mainstreaming in Actions Against Child Labour, IPEC Romania, 2003; • Child Labour in Romania, Discussion Paper, National Labour Research Institute, 2004; • Preventing and Combating Child Labour in Romania, ILO IPEC, 2004; • Specialized Training Manual on Psychosocial Counselling for Trafficked Youth, TICSA project, ILO IPEC, 2005; • SCREAM Project -Supporting Children’s Rights Through Education, The Arts And The Media, ILO, 2005; • Training Resource Pack on Hazardous Child Labour In Agriculture, ILO, translated in Romanian, 2006; • Guidelines for Parliamentarians for Implementing the ILO Convention 182, ILO, 2006; • Self Guide for Youth Entering the World of Work, Alternative Sociale Association, 2006; • Practical Guide To Child Labour Reporting, ILO, 2006 ILO Tool Kit for Labour Inspectors: a Model Enforcement Policy, a Training and Operational Manual, a Code of Ethical Behaviour published by ILO Moldova and adapted to Romanian Context, 2007; and • Psycho-Social Rehabilitation of Children Withdrawn from Trafficking and Other Worst Forms of Child Labour, ILO IPEC PROTECT CEE, 2007.
Children left behind by their migrant parents The Table 18 lists examples of projects designed in response to issues emergent from the growing workforce migration of Romanian parents to Western Europe searching for job opportunities abroad. It does not represent an exhaustive list of projects. No rigorous reviews of these projects have been conducted to determine the impact of the project, its outcomes and its sustainability over time (i.e. whether or not the services created are still in place in the targeted communities).
60 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Table 18: Children Left Behind Projects Name of the project Brief description "We Grow Up Together" The project row supports a new category of children at risk: children left home alone launched in 2010, still running due to the growing workforce migration to Western Europe. Save the Children Romania has been implementing this program since 2010, with the support of Enel Cuore Onlus. Porsche Romania and MoneyGram International joined the list of sponsors in 2012.The program was first launched in 8 cities, and was subsequently extended to reach an overall 16 locations: Pitesti/Arges, Bucharest, Resita/Caras- Severin, Mangalia/Constanta, Targoviste/Dambovisa (2 centres), Craiova/Dolj, Petrila/Hunedoara, Brasov, Piatra-Neamt/Neamt, Suceava/Suceava, Iasi/Iasi, Negresti/Vaslui, Lupeni/Hunedoara, Sighisoara/Mures, Timisoara/Timis. Save the Children has felt the need to research the situation in which these children without parental care. This project was an opportunity to highlight all the needs of these children so that they will receive appropriate support to grow up in an environment conducive to a healthy development. The project offers children at risk a wide range of services in 16 centers established in 15 cities in Romania. Reducing the negative impact of This project was a collaboration between two schools from Timisoara (e.g. Schools Nr. economic migration on children of 19 and 11), Enel Cuore and financed by Intesa Sanpaolo Bank. The purpose of the parents in Italy left behind in project was to provide after-school support to the children in need identified by Romania, 2010-2012 leadership and teachers of the two schools. The services provided moral support to children left behind by their migrant parent and contributed to the development of social and learning skills that will support the improvement of the educational outcomes and positive personal relations.
Refugees and Asylum-seeking children The Table 19 lists examples of projects designed in response to issues of the asylum seeking and refugees unaccompanied minors. It does not represent an exhaustive list of projects. No rigorous reviews of these projects have been conducted to determine the impact of the project, its outcomes and its sustainability over time (i.e. whether or not the services created are still in place in the targeted communities).
Table 19: Projects relevant for Refugees and Asylum-seeking unaccompanied minors Name of the project Brief description Emergency Transit In 2008 Romania joined the global map of countries offering resettlement of refugees by creating Centre (ETC) in an Emergency Transit Centre (ETC) in Timisoara. This center provides temporary shelter to Timisoara established in refugees who are in need of immediate evacuation from their home country. The ETC enables 2008, currently UNHCR to bring refugees to a safe place. In addition, resettlement countries can visit the facility operational to conduct interviews with candidates for resettlement under the best possible conditions. Medical examinations and treatment can be carried out and refugees can attend orientation workshops and language courses in order to prepare them for their future resettlement countries. In addition to the Romanian government, IOM and UNHCR, the ETC operates with support from the Young Generation, a Romanian non-governmental organization, as well as with the cooperation of resettlement countries, international donors and Romanian citizens living nearby. Save the Children provides a daily educational and recreational program, English learning courses, cultural orientation and social counselling. Regional Centre for The receipt, registration and solving of applications for asylum, the provision of assistance to Accommodation and asylum seekers during the procedure and assistance for integration are activities carried out at Procedures for Asylum the level of Regional Centres for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum Seekers, which are Seekers since 2006, territorial structures specialised in asylum issues. The co-ordination of the local authorities ongoing involved in the migrant integration process is achieved by the Regional Centres for Accommodation and Procedures for Asylum Seekers of the Romanian Immigration Office. The total accommodation capacity of the RIO in its 6 regional centres is 920 places, divided as follows: Bucharest (320), Galati (250), Timisoara (50), Radauti (100), Somcuta Mare (100) and Giurgiu (100). Asylum applications are processed in each regional centre, with a total of 17 RIO staff working in the RSD procedure (including 9 decision-makers and 8 legal counsellors).This is the first operation of relocation conducted in accordance with provisions of the Government nr.1596/2008 resettlement of refugees in Romania. Save the Children as implementing partner of UNHCR programs, provided support to their integration of resettled refugees. The work involved assisting the nursery, kindergarten and preparatory school integration of refugee children, counselling parents regarding the education of children and educating, informing and empowering pregnant women. Network of Migrant Following cooperation agreements with local organisations, the International Organisation for Information Centres in Migration (OIM) established Migrant Information Centres to facilitate the integration of non-EU Romania, 2010-2011, nationals legally residing in Romania. This project equipped the centres, trained the centres’ additional funding staff, promoted them and established relationships with relevant local organisations and secured and the centers programmes. The centres provided the migrants with information and counselling services in are still active
61 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
various areas, such as employment, access to the health care and education systems, social assistance, social insurance and housing. Collaborating with other organisations working with migrants in Romania, the OIM organised events, including debates, round tables and conferences, to improve the community’s understanding of the needs and difficulties that migrants face during the integration process in Romania. These events facilitated dialogue between migrants and the representatives of the authorities working in the field of integration. A total of 15 Migrant Information Centres were established, equipped and staffed in Bucharest, Bacău, Braşov, Buzău, Cluj, Constanţa, Craiova, Galaţi, Iaşi, Piteşti, Ploieşti, Sibiu, Suceava, Târgu Mureş and Timişoara. The OIM recruited and trained 17 employees from local organisations to staff the centres. During the 1-year project, over 7 000 migrants received information, counselling and assistance from the centres. Improving the quality of Save the Children is an implementing partner of the International Organisations for Migration in legal representation and the project aimed at improving the quality of legal representation and assistance to separated assistance to separated children asylum seekers in countries of Central Europe according to the EU action plan on children asylum seekers unaccompanied minors , and the Convention on the Rights of the Child .The project is in countries of Central, implemented in Bulgaria, Czech Republic , Hungary , Poland, Romania , Slovakia and Slovenia. since 2011 It also seeks to monitor legal representation to ensure that the best interests of the child are considered and the rights of the children respected. The project is funded by the European Union (European Refugee Fund Community Actions 2010 Programme) and co -financed by the Foreign Office in Poland and support organization for refugees in the Czech Republic. Specific social and The general objective of the project was to contribute to the improvement of the quality of life for psychological assistance asylum seekers in Bucharest, Galati, Radauti, Somcuta Mare and Timisoara through: the for asylum seekers in provision of social, educational and recreational services for asylum seekers living in the regional Romania”, reference no. centers from Bucharest, Galati, Radauti, Somcuta Mare and Timisoara of the Romanian ERF/09.01.02.01, 2010- Immigration Office; and provision of the specialized psychological and social assistance for 2011 victims of torture and ill-treatment, and other vulnerable categories of asylum seekers. More specifically, this project targeted asylum seekers (defined according to Art. 2 b from Law 122/2006 and Art. 6 c from Council Decision 573/2007/EC) in Bucharest, Galati, Radauti, Somcuta Mare and Timisoara; and vulnerable persons among asylum seekers, meaning, according to Art. 17 (1) from Directive 2003/9/EC, “minors, unaccompanied minors, people with disabilities, elderly, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who were subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence”. The main activities included social counselling, organizing educational and cultural activities (Romanian language classes, cultural orientation sessions, intercultural exchanges), organizing recreational and festive activities for asylum seekers, as well as specific psychological and social assistance for vulnerable groups of asylum seekers (unaccompanied minors, single parent families, elderly, persons with chronic illnesses, victims of torture or other forms of severe physical and psychological violence). Identification and evaluation of vulnerable people through screening and needs assessment is an activity of main concern due to the specialized assistance this group needs to receive. In the outreach offices the staff includes psychologists, social workers, interpreters, interns and volunteers. Asylum Matters - It is expected that Romania’s Schengen accession will have a major impact in the area of Capacity Building of asylum. By eliminating the border control between Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, a Romanian Immigration significantly increased number of asylum seekers will most probably arrive in Romania via Office (RIO), since 2013, Greece and Bulgaria. Furthermore, by becoming the second largest terrestrial external border of ongoing the EU, Romania will face an increased number of asylum seekers. Therefore, it is estimated that the number of asylum seekers will increase by 50-80%, or even higher in the first year of accession to the Schengen area. The project seeks to increase the efficiency and quality of the asylum process in Romania, taking into account Schengen accession, by training the staff of the Romanian Immigration Office and equipping one regional reception centre and rehabilitating another one. The project is part of the thematic fund security in Romania. The specific objectives of the project are (i): to dispose of a needs assessment on asylum procedures at the institutional level; (ii): to have new procedures and existing standards in the field of registration of asylum seekers in place and; (iii): to dispose of the necessary staff capacity who apply good practices in registration, data collection and early identification of Dublin cases. Through an evaluation assessment and review of procedures, RIO staff will gain improved policies and capacities in asylum procedures through two trainings (see log frame for details). The project will increase knowledge and implementation of skills, techniques and best practice used by RIO to address the asylum seeker process in Romania. To ensure reaching EU standards and obligations towards asylum seekers as Romania gains Schengen accession, the project will also
improve the accommodation capacity and facilities of two Regional Reception Centres. The expected results include: needs assessment and procedures revised; number of asylum seekers processed per day increased from 3-4 to 6-7; Detection of Dublin cases substantially increased; Regional Reception Centres Radauti and Giurgiu modernised and equipped. The executing agency is the Romanian Immigration Office (RIO)
62 2.1. O realitate cu provocări
Name of the project Brief description Network of Migrant Following cooperation agreements with local organisations, the International Organisation for Information Centres in Migration (OIM) established Migrant Information Centres to facilitate the integration of non-EU Romania, 2010-2011, nationals legally residing in Romania. This project equipped the centres, trained the centres’ additional funding staff, promoted them and established relationships with relevant local organisations and secured and the centres programmes. The centres provided the migrants with information and counselling services in are still active various areas, such as employment, access to the health care and education systems, social assistance, social insurance and housing. Collaborating with other organisations working with migrants in Romania, the OIM organised events, including debates, round tables and conferences, to improve the community’s understanding of the needs and difficulties that migrants face during the integration process in Romania. These events facilitated dialogue between migrants and the representatives of the authorities working in the field of integration. A total of 15 Migrant Information Centres were established, equipped and staffed in Bucharest, Bacău, Braşov, Buzău, Cluj, Constanţa, Craiova, Galaţi, Iaşi, Piteşti, Ploieşti, Sibiu, Suceava, Târgu Mureş and Timişoara. The OIM recruited and trained 17 employees from local organisations to staff the centres. During the 1-year project, over 7 000 migrants received information, counselling and assistance from the centres. Migrant in Intercultural The project is funded by the European Fund for Integration and in implemented in partnership by Romania, ongoing since the Intercultural Institute of Timisoara, Human Rights Defense League in Cluj, and Center for 2009 and currently Civic Resources Constanta and ADIS Association Bucharest. The main goal is to enhance funded secured until consultation and civic participation of migrants and its main activities focus on the maintenance 2015. of the www.migrant.ro portal, the publication of the quarterly magazine Migrant in Romania, the organisation of local joint working groups (consisting of representatives of migrants, local NGOs and local authorities) in Bucharest, Constanta, Cluj, Iasi and Timisoara, as well as of three national level thematic working groups on the integration of immigrants. The main activities include: development of a website Migrant in Romania (www.migrant.ro), used as a platform for communication, information and consultation, by posting all activities carried out within the project regularly, as well as news and events of interest for and about migrants; Migrant in Romania quarterly magazine, a tool of information for migrants, but also for the general public about migration issues and migrant integration; local and national seminars aiming to gather representatives of migrants, media, local and national authorities, NGOs and other stakeholders in order to debate and identify better solutions to integration: 1 national seminar in Bucharest and 25 local seminars in Bucharest, Timisoara, Iasi, Constanta and Cluj Napoca per year; thematic working groups make suggestions for legislation amendments and changes in administrative procedures in order to improve integration of migrants. The groups are categorized as follows: administrative-legal working group, education-culture-youth working group, social-health-labor working group; a network of intercultural mediators made of 20 persons was set up to collaborate with the local TCN community with public authorities. The mediators receive professional training every year; trainings for journalists are organized yearly in order to develop their intercultural sensitivity.
The Second Chance for Education was referenced throughout this situation analysis report as many of the children who participated in the focus groups and interview discussions in Constanta, Iasi, Bucharest and Dolj were beneficiaries of this program. “The Second Chance for Education” program has been implemented since 2008 by Save the Children Romania in 43 educational center across country to ensure the access to education, social and school reintegration for a wide range of vulnerable children who have aged without receiving education or who find it difficult to integrate in school by attending regular classes. By adding a social component to the educational services, Save the Children Romania offered a new approach to the problem of illiteracy. Save the Children adopted an integrative approach where these children and their families work with specialists and get the necessary help to be able to exercise their rights and access the health care, social and educational services in support of a healthy development and a chance for a better life. Through the Law on National Education, Ministry of National Education developed and adopted the implementation methodologies for the Second Chance programme (for the primary and lower secondary education levels) and School after school programme (implemented based on the decision of each school board) and funded through the European Structural Funds, Sectoral Operational Programme - Human Resources Development.27
27 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, (2013), Short Progress Report on the Implementation of the National Reform Programme 2011- 2013.Retrieved at http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/prgrep2013_romania_en.pdf
63 2. ÎNŢELEGEREA CONTEXTULUI NAŢIONAL
64