Evaluation of the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model ... · 5 Project “Expansion of the...

Evaluation of the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria”

Evaluation Report

2012

2 Project “Expansion of the Foster Care Model in Bulgaria” Evaluation Report

Name of the evaluation object


Timeframe of the evaluation and date of the report

Period covered by the evaluation is July 2009 – March 2012

Locations of the evaluation object

Geographic coverage of the evaluation is 3 regions where the Project teams have been active - pilot regions (Stara Zagora, Shumen and Gabrovo) and 3 where other organisations or local authorities are developing foster care (Sliven, Plovdiv and Varna). The activities within the project held also in Sofia-city also was one of the pilot regions from the project, as headquarters UNICEF, part of implementing organisation and of evaluating organisation are situated in Sofia.

Organisation and names of evaluators

Expert Analyses Group is founded in June 2003 and is currently Consortium of Open Society Institute- Sofia as a leading partner and the Open Society Publishing House.

The Mission of the “Expert Analyses” Consortium is to provide competitive and high-quality services building upon the potential and experience of the Open Society Institute- Sofia (OSI-S) founded in 1990. The Open Society Publishing House - a member of the “Expert Analysis” Consortium is founded in March 1995 with the aim to develop publishing activity.

Official Representative Mr. Veliko Sherbanov

Address Bulgaria, 1000 Sofia, 56 Solunska St.

Tel. ++ 359 2 930 66 19

Fax ++ 359 2 951 63 48

Е-mail [email protected]

Web site www.osi.bg

Team of evaluators (in alphabetical order):

1. Alexey Pamporov (Team Leader and Lead author) 2. Anita Baykusheva (Qualitative methods expert) 3. Dessislava Kuznetzsova (Desk research policy analyst) 4. Dragomira Belcheva (Quantitative methods expert) 5. Elitsa Markova (Desk research policy analyst) 6. Ilko Yordanov (Desk research policy analyst) 7. Liliya Grigorova (Qualitative methods expert) 8. Maya Mircheva (Language proof editor) 9. Milena Shishkova (Qualitative methods expert) 10. Petya Braynova (Quantitative methods expert) 11. Svetlana Avramova (Qualitative methods expert) 12. Theodora Ivanova-Valeva (Coordinator and Desk research policy analyst )

Picture on the cover is official picture of the public campaign of the project and is used with the agreement of UNICEF who possess the intellectual rights for it.


Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 6 I.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION OBJECT .............................................................................................6 I.2 Evaluation objectives and intended audience ......................................................................................6 I.3 Evaluation methodology.......................................................................................................................7 I.4 Most important findings and conclusions ............................................................................................7 I.5 Main recommendations .......................................................................................................................8

I.5.1. Developmental recommendations ......................................................................................................8 I.5.2. Operational recommendations ...........................................................................................................9 I.5.3. General recommendations (beyond the UNICEF project) ...................................................................9

II. CONTEXT AND OBJECT OF EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 11 II.1 OBJECT OF EVALUATION: .................................................................................................................. 11 II.2 THE CONTEXT..................................................................................................................................... 12

II.2.1. Relevance to the Public Needs ........................................................................................................ 12 II.2.2. Policy Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 12 II.2.3. Organizational self-relevance .......................................................................................................... 12 II.2.4. Context influence on findings .......................................................................................................... 13

II.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................... 14 II.3.1. Regional coverage ........................................................................................................................... 14 II.3.2. Project Management ....................................................................................................................... 14 II.3.3. Project Funding ................................................................................................................................ 15

II.4 KEY STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE OBJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................. 16 II.5 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS ............................................................................................................... 16

III. EVALUATION PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE(S) AND SCOPE ....................................................................... 17 IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 19

IV.1 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 19 IV.2 THE EVALUATION COVERAGE AREA .................................................................................................. 19 IV.3 DATA GATHERING TOOLS .................................................................................................................. 20

IV.3.1. Desk Review of relevant documents .............................................................................................. 20 IV.3.2. In-depth interviews ........................................................................................................................ 20 IV.3.3. Focused group discussions ............................................................................................................. 21 IV.3.4. Sample quantitative surveys .......................................................................................................... 21

IV.4 RELATION BETWEEN EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DAC CRITERIA AND STAKEHOLDERS ..................... 22 IV.5 DATA VALIDATION PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 24 IV.6 DIFFICULTIES, GAPS AND LIMITATIONS IN DATA GATHERING .......................................................... 25 IV.7 ETHICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 26

V. FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 26 V.1 Relevance........................................................................................................................................... 26

V.1.1.The relevance of the developed Foster care services: ..................................................................... 26 V.1.2.Relevance of the Foster care project in relation foster care policies .............................................. 28 V.1.3. Relevance of the trainings and the training materials .................................................................... 28 V.1.4. Sensitivity ........................................................................................................................................ 30

V.2 Coherence .......................................................................................................................................... 31 V.2.1. Contribution to the Deinstitutionalization Reform ......................................................................... 31 V.2.2 Governmental and local experts support......................................................................................... 31

V.3 Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 32 V.3.1 Better opportunities for child development .................................................................................... 32 V.3.2. Diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families ................................................................... 32 V.3.3. Appropriation and consistency of the project activities ................................................................. 33

V.4 Coordination ...................................................................................................................................... 38 V.4.1 The value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs .......................... 38 V.4.2. Project mainstreaming .................................................................................................................... 39 V.4.3. Linkages and synergetic with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................. 39


V.4.4. Improvement of communication between the local stakeholders ................................................. 40 V.5 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................ 40

V.5.1. Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses within the UNICEF project............................................. 40 V.5.2. The project of UNICEF in the context of the financing of foster care nationally ............................ 43 V.5.3. Comparative analysis of project costs ............................................................................................. 44 V.5.4. The necessity of the expenditures the project implementation ..................................................... 45 V.5.5. Involvement of additional non-financial resources ........................................................................ 47

V.6 Connectedness .................................................................................................................................. 48 V.6.1. Promotion of inclusion of the Foster care into the child welfare system ....................................... 48 V.6.2. The political will by to mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system ........................................................................................................................................................ 48 V.6.3. The financial standard ..................................................................................................................... 49

V.7 Coverage ............................................................................................................................................ 49 V.7.1. Which are the organization’s own standards for coverage, and how far these have been met? .. 49

V.8 Impact ................................................................................................................................................ 50 V.8.1. Multiplication of the activities and good practices related with foster care .................................. 50 V.8.2. Impact of the project on the related to other foster care polices and activities ............................ 51 V.8.3. Impact dismantling of institutions .................................................................................................. 52 V.8.4. Impact on public awareness and attitudes ..................................................................................... 52 V.8.5. Organizational capacity building of the implementing partners .................................................... 53

VI. SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 55 VI.1 The public opinion by May 2012 ................................................................................................... 55 VI.2 Sustainability of the UNICEF FC practice ....................................................................................... 61

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................ 65 VII.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 65 VII.2 Lessons learned ................................................................................................................................. 71

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 71 IX. GENDER AND HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING CHILD RIGHTS .......................................................... 72

IX.1 Human rights based approach in the project design ........................................................................ 72 IX.2 Capacity of foster families in the area of human rights .................................................................... 73 IX.3 Human and child rights perspective within the project implementation ......................................... 74

IX.3.1.Right to live in family environment ................................................................................................. 74 IX.3.2. Non-discrimination ......................................................................................................................... 75 IX.3.3. Health ............................................................................................................................................. 75 IX.3.4. Education ........................................................................................................................................ 76

X. APPENDIXES List ............................................................................................................................. 76 XI. Appendix 1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................... 77 XII. Appendix 2 Quantitative data on district level- activities, beneficiaries, results .......................... 85 XIII. Appendix 3 Regional Data for FC - UNICEF .................................................................................... 89 XIV. Appendix 4 UNICEF Foster care preliminary project plan (Bulgaria) ........................................... 115 XV. Annex 5 UNICEF foster care plan 2011 (Bulgarian) ..................................................................... 125 XVI. Appendix 6 Case studies from UNICEF reports ............................................................................ 128 XVII. Appendix 7 Case study biological families (in Bulgarian) ............................................................ 136 XVIII. Appendix 8 Evaluation criteria and questions ..................................................................... 142 XIX. Appendix 9 The distribution of the different data gathering tools and the respective stakeholders by the selected regions ................................................................................................................................... 145 XX. Appendix 10 List of the documents reviewed during the desk research .................................... 146 XXI. Appendix 11 Stakeholders cross-check by data gathering tools ................................................. 148 XXII. Appendix 12 Detailed information about data limitations .......................................................... 150 XXIII. Appendix 13 Entry and Exit of institutions by June 2011 ................................................... 152 XXIV. Appendix 14 Issued licences and number of services ........................................................ 154


List of Tables

Table II.1. Long-term objectives, Short-term tasks, and Expected results _____________________________________ 11

Table IV.1. Planned and realized QNS interviews with foster families ________________________________________ 21

Table IV.2. Evaluation questions, DAC criteria and stakeholders ____________________________________________ 22

Table V.1. Budget structure of the provided funding _____________________________________________________ 41

Table V.2. Monthly expenses per approved foster families (in BGN) _________________________________________ 42

Table V.3. Number of publications and broadcasts by type of the media _____________________________________ 47

Table V.4. Impact of the informational channels on awareness _____________________________________________ 48

Table V.5. Quality changes as per UNICEF conclusions for project implementation _____________________________ 49

Table V.6. Number of children placed in foster care ______________________________________________________ 52

Table V.7. Comparison of awareness what the foster care is before and after the project ________________________ 53

Table V.8. Achievements and difficulties perceived by the partners __________________________________________ 53

Table VI.1. Sustainability checklist based on public opinion indicators _______________________________________ 61

Table VII.1. Overall evaluation checklist based on DAC criteria _____________________________________________ 66

Table VIII.1. Recommendations ______________________________________________________________________ 71

Table IX.1. Ethnic affiliation of the foster parents and foster children ________________________________________ 75

List of Graphs

Graph II.1. Regions of project implementation _______________________________________________ 14

Graph II.2. Project management __________________________________________________________ 15

Graph II.3. Project implementation history __________________________________________________ 17

Graph IV.1. Model of evaluation management _______________________________________________ 19

Graph IV.2. Data triangulation model______________________________________________________ 25

Graph V.1. Satisfaction of “before training” of the foster parents ________________________________ 29

Graph V.2. Satisfaction of “after training” clearness __________________________________________ 29

Graph V.3. Satisfaction of “after training” applicability ________________________________________ 30

Graph V.4. Proportion of regular monthly visits by the social workers ____________________________ 34

Graph V.5. Frequencies of child’s meetings with biological parents_______________________________ 36

Graph V.6. Satisfaction of social workers’ support regarding the relationship with the biological parents 36

Graph V.7. The children in the greatest need ________________________________________________ 38

Graph V.8. Monthly budget expenses of the partners _________________________________________ 41

Graph V.9. Self-assessment of knowledge what the foster care is ________________________________ 53

Graph VI.1. Structure of sustainability evaluation _____________________________________________ 55

Graph VI.2. Awareness what the foster care is _______________________________________________ 56

Graph VI.3. Information channels _________________________________________________________ 56

GraphVI.4.Attitude shift towards foster care ________________________________________________ 57

Graph VI.5.Public opinion about usefulness of the foster care ___________________________________ 57

Graph VI.6. Public endorsement of the foster care ____________________________________________ 58

Graph VI.7. Attitude towards personal involvement in foster parenting ___________________________ 58

Graph VI.8. Personal requirements to accept a child as its foster parent __________________________ 59

Graph VI.9. Personal barriers to foster parenting _____________________________________________ 59

Graph VI.10. Personal stimuli to adoption ___________________________________________________ 60

Abbreviations & Acronyms

ASA Agency for Social Assistance CPC Child Protection Commissions CPD Child Protection Department FC Foster care service FF / FP Foster families / Foster parents


FGD Focus group discussion HCPC Homes for children without parental care HCYPIUI Homes for children and youths with physical impairments and undiminished

intellect HMRCY Homes for mentally retarded children and youths HPMSCC Homes for the provision of medical and social care to children IDI In-depth interview ISS International Social Service Bulgaria NRS National Representative Survey QNS Quantitative survey of foster parents RDSA Regional Directorates of Social Assistance RFCC Regional Foster Care Centres SACP State Agency for Child Protection SAPI Social Activities and Practices Institute SSC Social services complex

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION OBJECT

The object of the current evaluation report is the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria”. For the purpose of the evaluation were selected three target regions (where the UNICEF project was implemented), and three control regions (where foster care exists beyond the UNICEF project). The selection was based on the maximal variety principle, i.e. judgemental sampling of “successful” and “unsuccessful” cases on one hand and complete variety of implementing partners on the other. An evaluation triangulation is used based on the several data gathering methods: desk review of relevant documents and official data sets; in-depth interviews; focused group discussions; and quantitative surveys. The evaluation is grounded on the DAC criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, coordination, efficiency, connectedness, coverage, and impact. Due to the sensitivity of the topic and in order to protect personal rights of the respondents a set of ethical rules were set up: protection of the confidentiality, informed consent of participation, feedback to participants. The draft questionnaires for both families and children in foster care passed a preliminary thorough review from experts in psychology and pedagogy. The gaps and limitations in data gathering are taken into account about the overall evaluation.

I.2 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND INTENDED AUDIENCE

The main objective of the assignment is evaluation of the UNICEF project “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria” in order to measure the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the intervention. The project is evaluated in relation with its external environment, in particular in relation with government plans and with similar approaches or programme interventions tested by other partners.

The specific objectives include:

an evaluation of whether the planned objectives and results of the project have been achieved considering effectiveness;

an evaluation on whether child wellbeing has been in the centre of the project and whether it has brought positive impact on vulnerable children;

an assessment of the impact of the project on development of foster care nationally;

an identification of gaps in the planning and implementation of the project.

The main target groups in all administrative regions of project implementation are:

Social Service Providers – NGOs and municipal administrations;


Structures of the ASA – at national and local level;

Members of Child Protection Panels.

Broad public – foster parent recruitment campaigns;

Foster family applicants who have started the foster care process;

Approved foster families;

Children who need foster care;

Children placed with foster families.

I.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The methodology is developed in line with the evaluation approach chosen. The methodology includes specification and justification of the design of the evaluation and the techniques for data collection and analysis. The selected methodology answers the evaluation questions using credible evidence. A clear distinction is made between the different result levels (intervention logic containing an objective-means hierarchy stating input, output, outcome, impact). Indicators for measuring achievement of the objectives are validated according to generally accepted criteria, such as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely).

Evaluation management

Data gathering and analysis

Desk Review of the Expansion of Foster Care Model project

Desk review of the national legislation

In-depth interviews (N=76)

Focused group discussions (N=6)

National Representative survey (N=1149)

Quantitative survey of foster parents (N=118)

Official statistics

Data validation procedures

Outcome presentation

As per ToR regulations the evaluators have based their assessment on the DAC criteria

I.4 MOST IMPORTANT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

“UNICEF made a ‘miracle’ in Bulgaria. They proved Bulgarians are able to develop foster care - something most of the politicians didn't believe to be possible”

(an implementing partner)

The "Expanding the Foster Care Model in Bulgaria" project answered a definite public need of improvement of social services for the children and national policies about an alternative care. It urged forward the effort of the government towards expending the foster care services in Bulgaria. Although there is no complete succession of the UNICEF model, the project should be evaluated very positively due to the fact that it raised the understanding about the need of deinstitutionalization and helped a lot about the promotion of the


foster care in Bulgaria. The UNICEF FC practice that was introduced and implemented is consistent with the official methodology for delivery of FC services that is the main legislative rule for the Agency for Social Assistance (ASA) and providers for implementing the service.

The short-time goals were completely fulfilled:

1. UNICEF built up a foster care model based on regional centres but enforcing a common practice of the social service

2. An unified training programme for social workers (trainers) and applicants (potential foster parents) was created.

3. An informational campaign run on national and local level.

4. The project developed the capacity of the partners on the process of providing “foster care” service and they are going to continue their work after 2012 joining the governmental foster care project.

5. The UNICEF set up a financial standard for FC service, which is taken in consideration by the recently started governmental foster care project

The UNICEF project is implemented in variety of regional contexts and lessons learnt and good practices of its implementation create opportunities for scaling up the policy of deinstitutionalization through foster care nationally.

The policy relevance of the project is related with the realization of deinstitutionalisation policy objectives for a massive expansion of opportunities for provision of "foster care" (in one third of the regions in the country) combined with broader goals of national social policy for job creation in small and remote regions in time of crises.

In addition to the impact on child welfare policy in a local context, the big number of jobs created within the project, especially in underdeveloped regions and localities, contribute to mitigating the impact of the economic crisis.

The project is fully in line with the spirit, philosophy and principles the domestic and international policy documents and legislation in the area of children’s rights and de-institutionalization, incl. the UNICEF Priorities for Bulgaria.

I.5 MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

The launch of a large foster care project in times of both great economic difficulties and shortage of foster families nationwide is doubtless justified. Along with that, it should be noted that after providing a critical mass of foster families in the country there should be more targeted efforts to find new approach to strike the balance between supply and demand for foster care services regionally.

I.5.1. Developmental recommendations

A maintaining project

The project was completely implemented and the preliminary short-term goals are fulfilled successfully. There is no need for the UNICEF to extend the funding of the partners for those regions for the next couple of years as far as the Bulgarian government undertook to secure funding for the further extension of the foster care. However, due to the shift of the regional focus, there is a risk for particular foster families and children to not be able to secure continuity in financing. Therefore, UNICEF should run a new small-scale project in order to maintain the service for those families.

A parallel project


The state project targeted only 82 municipalities out of 256 in the country. Therefore, UNICEF could run a medium-size parallel project in some of the municipalities, which were not included into the state project. In order not to confront with the state policies, experts and funding, the new UNICEF project should rely on better two-way synergy, concerning training program, supervision, benefits and targeted expenditures.

A complementary project

The new state project does not foresee work with the biological families and with the children after the placement in foster family. This will remain only in the scope of responsibilities of the Child Protection Department. Therefore, UNICEF could run a complementary medium-size project in order to secure higher sensitivity and to encourage the work with the biological families.

Concerning this, there is a need of a new complex project based on the above three components: maintaining of existing cares, expending regional coverage and bettering the work with biological families and their relation with the children placed in foster care.

I.5.2. Operational recommendations

Regarding this and in order to secure the achievement of the long-term goals, there are some operative recommendations:

UNICEF should keep consulting the governmental institutions in order to secure better succession of the model.

UNICEF should secure the continuation of advocacy efforts to discuss the single costs standard to finance foster care services and taking into account in its design the outcomes from foster care projects and policies implementation

UNICEF should do an independent monitoring on the foster care activities for the next three years – allocated state budgets, children placed in foster care etc.

UNICEF should conduct or assign to some independent research organization a broad survey in order to ascertain the state of art in there years (2015) as well as to assess the possible need of additional funding, actions or legislative change

In the regions with higher proportion of ethnic minority groups, additional efforts should be made to

encourage and underpin training and employment of social workers from ethnic minorities.

Further development of legislation is necessary in order to provide additional opportunities to support the school/kindergarten for individual work for adaptation of children in foster families. In some cases, it may be necessary to provide legal advice for the foster parents to be able to assert children’s right to education

Efficiency of the UNICEF project could be higher if the expenses were distributed based on the needs and potential of each target region and not on the total number of foster families to be served by each organization.

Strengthening regional planning and prioritizing foster care programs and allocating more funding for foster care in areas where a lack of balance between supply and demand for foster care is identified

I.5.3. General recommendations (beyond the UNICEF project)

Establishment of centralized database on foster families and kids in foster care is needed.

In the regions with higher proportion ethnic minority groups, an additional effort should be made to

encourage and underpin training and employment of social workers from ethnic minorities.

Better gender balance could be achieved if more social workers males partake in the field work in

the most vulnerable social groups. Poor housing and health conditions in the poorest slums and


neighbourhoods prevent social workers females from effective grass roots level work due to the

perceptions of higher risks of possible misunderstanding, conflicts and even violence etc.

In general, it seems appropriate to strengthen direct social work with children in foster care, as in

many cases, despite their initial preparation and skills attained, foster parents are not able to

provide the most adequate support to children that can be received by professionals such as child

psychologists, professional educators and others.

The training program of foster parents should be broadened to provide a continuous and thorough

preparation of FP and children on child rights.

A national system for sharing risks and best practices in the field of protection of children in foster

care should be developed. It can serve as an important resource for future national portal system of

information exchange and early warning activities. Such a platform could be based in the site

http://www.priemime.bg/, or in the National Foster Care Association, whose members include more

than 140 foster parents across the country.

Further development of legislation is necessary in order to provide additional opportunities to

support the school/kindergarten for individual work for adaptation of children in foster families. In

some cases, it may be necessary to provide legal advice for the foster parents to be able to assert

children’s right to education.

It is necessary to consider the possibility of providing more financial resources to ensure the right of

access to quality healthcare and education – especially for children in foster care with health

problems, special education needs and living far from large urban centers.

In respect to capacity development of rights-holders – especially for younger children and children

with specific communication difficulties – it is necessary to adapt information materials and

pedagogical approaches to communication and cognitive skills. This will allow for effective

awareness-rising activities for basic child rights and will generate real support to enforce them,

including warning in case of violation.


II. CONTEXT AND OBJECT OF EVALUATION

II.1 OBJECT OF EVALUATION: The project "Expanding the Foster Care Model in Bulgaria" was designed as an answer to the expressed

needs in several surveys performed before 2009 showing slow trends of development of the foster care

service and insufficient number of children placed in foster care. A significant difference in the definition of

the project goals was found in the different project documents presented by the UNICEF team to the

evaluators. However, as a most comprehensive we found to be the project proposal by two of the

implementing partners1:

Table II.1. Long-term objectives, Short-term tasks, and Expected results

Long-term objectives (OUTCOMES)

To establish a nation-wide regional approach to foster care development based on pilot experience.

Expected results: 1. Reduced placements of children in specialized institutions;

2. Increased relative share of children from institutions placed with foster families.

3. Changed balance between institutionalization and placement of children in family care.

4. Changed institutional relationships and procedures in favour of regional foster care development.

Short-term tasks (OUTPUTS)

1. Expanding a Regional Foster Care Centre model. Creating a common practice of “foster care” social service provision by the partners in 8 administrative regions of the country – social service providers (NGOs, Municipalities), Directorates for Social Assistance/Child Protection Departments (DSAs/CPDs), Child Protection Panels (CPPs).

2. Creating a uniform training programme for applicant foster parents and for trainers – social workers.

3. Implementing a national foster care information campaign at local level. 4. Developing the capacity of the partners in the process of providing the

“foster care” service. 5. Implementation of Financial standard for the Foster Care service as a state

delegated activity2

Expected results:

1) Adopted service development model at regional level.

2) Adopted standard for basic competences of voluntary and professional foster families.

3) Developed comprehensive training program for foster family applicants.

4) Improved model of interaction between the child protection system, local providers of social services for children and NGOs, and better quality of the foster care service.

5) 150-200 foster parents in the 8 regions

1 “Standard Format of Project Proposal Submitted for Consideration to UNICEF” by the Consortium of “International Social Services –

Bulgaria” Foundation (ISS – Bulgaria) as leading organization and “Social Activities and Practices Institute” Association (SAPI) as partner 2 Part of the goals indicated in the ”PCA/BULA/2010/02 between UNICEF Bulgaria and Samaritans Association on development of the

Regional Foster Care Centre and Hot Line in Stara Zagora - Annex 1 Programme Document”


II.2 THE CONTEXT

II.2.1. Relevance to the Public Needs

Although foster care in Bulgaria had been introduced almost ten years ago, at the time of the launch of the UNICEF project in 2009 foster care in the country still remained widely unknown in local communities and had very limited coverage. At the end of 2008 slightly below 200 children were placed in foster care.

In 2009, the deinstitutionalization of 284 kids through public foster care was at extremely low level in comparison with nearly 7,000 children placed in 137 institutions – meant for mentally retarded children and youths (HMRCY), for children and youths with physical impairments and undiminished intellect (HCYPIUI), for children without parental care (HCPC), and for the provision of medical and social care to children (HPMSCC).

Moreover, there was a shortage of available public resources to finance implementation of pilot initiatives in the field of foster care, especially in the context of the first emerging signs of the looming economic crisis. The introduction of foster care nationwide had been planned already at the begging of 2003 in the "Plan to reduce the number of children in specialized institutions in Bulgaria for the period 2003-2005"3, but it is noted in the document that the implementation of these activities does not need additional funding from the state budget.

The UNICEF project delivers resources for a pilot provision of foster care services on a large scale - one third of the districts of the country. Therefore, it ensures accumulation of significant experience in various contexts which can facilitate further policy goal setting and implementation of larger projects nationwide funded by the state budget and operational programs.

II.2.2. Policy Relevance

The objectives and implementation of activities under the project "Expanding the Foster Care Model in Bulgaria" were set in accordance with the "National Strategy for Children 2008 - 2018" adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament in January 2008. According to the Strategy, the accelerated development of "foster care" will remain a priority policy on child protection in order to protect the interests of children and the proven social and economic efficiency of this type of care.

The project also complies with the objectives and measures set out in sector policy documents focusing on deinstitutionalization. In particular, the project activities contribute to the implementation of the “National Action Plan for Reform in Institutional Care for Children in the Republic of Bulgaria 2008 -2011”, Operational objective 1: Development and provision of social services, ensuring different forms of care, based on the needs of local and regional level, Measure 5. Developing and improving foster care services: "5.1. Changing the ordinance on the procedures for approval of foster families and placing children in them and the Implementing Regulation on the Social Assistance Act with a view of facilitation and promotion of the "foster care" and its management of the NGO providers; 5.2. Regulation of foster care as a state-delegated activity and development of a financial standard for service providers and 5.3. Carrying out information campaigns at national and regional level".

The launch of the project „Expanding the Foster Care Model in Bulgaria“ coincided with the publication of the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children by the UN General Assembly4. The activities of the project were designed in a way to meet the requirements set in the chapter “Foster care” in the Guidelines:

Training of concerned staff (§117)

Local pool of accredited foster carers (§118)

Development of special preparation, support and counselling services for foster carers on regular basis before, during and after the placement (§119)

II.2.3. Organizational self-relevance

3 By developing a targeted program for selection and training of foster families for children with disabilities.

4 A/HRC/11/L.13, 15 June 2009, p. 26-27.

http://stopech.sacp.government.bg/?sid=professional_eng&pid=4-5-23


At the end of 2009 UNICEF adopted its priorities for Bulgaria for the period 2010-2012. According to the UNICEF 2010-2012 Country Program for Bulgaria Priority 1 “Social inclusion and reduction of child poverty” includes measures directly aimed at decreasing the number of children in institutions and provision of alternative services.

1.3 The municipalities provide social services in accordance with an agreed minimum package of social services.

In addition to this the UNICEF-Bulgaria program envisages support for amendments of the child protection law:

1.2 The government implements programs for vulnerable families in order to provide support for the implementation of practices for better child care and protection.

The project is relevant to achieving this goal since one of its long-term objectives is related to changed institutional relationships and procedures in favour of regional foster care development. Furthermore, the project envisages the adoption of a standard for basic competences of voluntary and professional foster families. All these standards are an inherent part of the national regulatory framework of provision of foster care5.

II.2.4. Context influence on findings

There is a growing dissatisfaction with institutional care in Bulgarian society but still no clear vision of what alternatives are effective and feasible and how they can be implemented. Thus, the risks of a wide-spread piloting of foster care appear to be significant, especially given the well-known phenomenon of the theory of change management, in which prior to significant improvements in the system there is always a hazard of occurring destabilization of the status quo that could lead to additional challenges.

Piloting of foster care is risky since this relatively new type of social services has been just about to prove its right of existence in the whole complex of measures for deinstitutionalization and to seek balance with other alternative forms of deinstitutionalization. Foster care has policy priority in the system of deinstitutionalization measures in comparison with prevention of abandonment, reintegration into the biological family, placement in relatives’ families, kinship care and adoptions.

Another key challenge for the promotion and expansion of foster care in Bulgaria is the institutional stereotype built in The Action Plan for implementing the National Strategy "Vision for deinstitutionalization of children in Bulgaria" (2010). It affirms that the majority of children in institutions for children with disabilities cannot be accommodated in families and must remain in institutional care. However, this document outlined detailed measures for deinstitutionalisation. The regional centres for foster care within the UNICEF project are mentioned three times as a basic model, laying down the fundaments of a national-wide system of similar centres. The plan mentions that new 19 such centres are planned to be established in the other districts, not included within the UNICEF project. During the visit of UNICEF deputy executive director (management) Martin Mogwanja held in May 2012 the Bulgarian minister of labour and social policy Totyu Mladenov underlines the long lasting partnership between UNICEF and the Bulgarian government and put an emphasis on the UNICEF input for implementation of the deinstitutionalisation strategy6.

Some of the proposals made by UNICEF prior to adoption of the Action plan were based on experience and lessons learnt during the project. Other, as the establishment of the Committee on Foster Care at the regional directorate for social assistance and maintaining a register of approved foster families at the regional level – are taken up in the recently proposed improvements to the Child Protection Act and Social Assistance Act (2012). Thus the evaluation of the context influence was the major challenge because UNICEF has a significant impact on the legislation concerning the foster services in Bulgaria, while respecting the existing regulatory framework.

5Ordinance on the conditions and order for application, selection and approval of foster families and placing children in

them (December 2006); Child Protection Act; and Social Assistance Act 6 http://today.actualno.com/news_385289.html, May 3, 2012

http://today.actualno.com/news_385289.html


II.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS

II.3.1. Regional coverage

In the period September – December 2008 UNICEF has commissioned an external assessment of the pilot

foster care in the region of Stara Zagora, which outlined its main features and provided recommendations

for scale up. This gave a basis to build on the work and to design a complex project to cover larger part of the

country and population. After situation analysis for the development and the respective needs of foster care

per regions been completed, the project was designed initially to support the piloting of the Regional Foster

Care model in additional 6 regions of the country – Montana (later replaced with Smolyan as per advice of

the project partners due to good relationship and expressed interest by the municipality), Gabrovo,

Targovishte, Sofia region, Shumen and Veliko Tarnovo plus 2 additional regions covered by British Airways

funding – Pernik region and Sofia City. To this a decision for continuation of the work in Stara Zagora region

was taken. Thus the geographical coverage of the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria”,

subject of our evaluation included 9 of the 28 administrative regions of Bulgaria.

Graph II.1. Regions of project implementation

In all of the regions there was certain experience with development of local community services and UNICEF

relied on local partners that had been working with children and families at risk to address the main

weaknesses of the provision of foster care. The support of the local authorities (the Child Protection

Departments) was ensured by signing partnership agreements and involving them in the process.

II.3.2. Project Management

UNICEF staff, involved in the project, comprised of a project manager (programme officer ‘Social services’), programme specialist ‘Social policy and planning’, programme officer ‘Communications’ and 2 program assistants. The ‘Monitoring and evaluation’ programme officer was also involved with the implementation of the project activities.

UNICEF office identified two partners, experienced in provision of community-based services to children and families (including foster care), who by the time of the project design were providers of social services in the determined pilot regions – the International Social Service (ISS) Bulgaria and Social Activities and Practices Institute (SAPI). The two NGOs formed a consortium for the implementation of the project and took over the responsibilities of setting up local offices, development of training programs, provision of foster care in the pilot regions, regional information campaigns. The cooperation agreement was signed in June 2009. Each partner was responsible for the work in 4 regions, as follows: ISS for the regions of Gabrovo, Smolyan,


Targovishte and Veliko Tarnovo and SAPI for the regions of Pernik, Shumen, Sofia City and Sofia region. ISS and SAPI signed partnership agreements with the Child Protection Departments in their respective regions. At the same time UNICEF has concluded an agreement with the Samaritans Association to continue their work within the current project. In brief, the organization of the management of the project for expansion of the FC service in Bulgaria was grounded on the fact that the project was funded by several donors; contracts with three different NGOs were signed for the implementation of the project tasks – one with the consortium of ISS-SAPI and one with Samaritans Association.

Graph II.2. Project management

As per grant contracts with the partner organizations, the structure of the project team comprised of project manager, accountant, technical assistant and expert team (consultants, trainers, supervisors). Each RFCC had a team of 3 to 8 people depending on the number of municipalities in the relevant region and location of the existing centres for social services for children and families in the same region. New people were hired in most of the regions in order to ensure enough human resources for the implementation of the project activities. In Stara Zagora UNICEF insisted on downsizing the foster care team, which at that time was bigger than the team planned by UNICEF for the RFCC.

A project advisory board has been established with representatives of government institutions, project partners, NGOs experienced in foster care. The advisory board had two meetings to communicate project development with key partners and discuss key implementation issues.

In order to ensure productive collaboration, within the project were organized various regional meetings with participation of the social providers, Regional Foster Care Centres, the Child Protection Departments, the Child Protection Commissions and Regional Directorates of Social Assistance. Cross-regional exchanges for experience sharing were also organized. Government partners, e.g. Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, State Agency for Child Protection and Agency for Social Assistance participated in project events and monitoring process, which made possible the inclusion of the experience of the lessons learnt and UNICEF propositions in further amendment of legislation related to children (e.g. draft Child Act and the amendments to the Social Assistance Act). The nature of the local partnerships between project partners and regional structures related to the provision of foster care service was dynamic and evolving along the project duration. At project beginning agreements had to be reached on the roles of the partners in the provision of foster care. Towards project completion topics narrowed down to discussing individual cases and details on the service elements.

II.3.3. Project Funding


The project disposed of financial means from UNICEF resources, a grant from MEDICOR Foundation

Liechtenstein and some funds of British Airways for the total amount of 1 228 655,45 USD. The period of the

contract with ISS and SAPI covered Jun 2009 – May 2012 but in addition UNICEF funded them for 7 more

months after the end of the project period till Dec 2012. The total amount of funding transferred to ISS was

1 649 419 BGN. Samaritans signed 2 contracts with UNICEF for the whole period of Apr 2009 – Dec 2011.

UNICEF provided them with additional funds till the end of 2012, thus making their grant for the amount of

276 242 BGN.

II.4 KEY STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE OBJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The key stakeholders involved in the object implementation are:

UNICEF team and consultants, responsible for project coordination, monitoring and supervision; The three organizations implementing the project in the 9 regions and managing the RFCC; Other NGOs providing foster care service that were involved in the discussion of the project

implementation; State authorities (Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Agency for Social Assistance, State Agency

for Child Protection), participating in the Advisory Board of the project, which discussed key implementation and methodological issues at national and inter-regional level;

Local authorities (Child Protection Departments, Municipalities, Regional Directorates for Social Assistance), providing support to the project at local level and taking part in the regional Steering Committees of UNICEF project for dealing with the project implementation in the respective region and its municipalities;

Foster parents, involved in the provision of foster care service; Children placed in foster care, main target group of the project; Biological parents, included in the reintegration work with the foster children when possible.

Specific tasks of the partners:

The following social services providers were operating under UNICEF project as local partners:

ISS – responsible for the region of Gabrovo, Smolyan, Targovishte and Veliko Tarnovo; SAPI – in charge of the regions of Pernik, Shumen, Sofia town and Sofia region; Samaritans – working in the region of Stara Zagora.

ISS, SAPI and Samaritans were responsible for running the RFCC, training and recruitment of foster families, collaboration for placement and matching procedure. The NGOs worked closely with the experts from CPDs and RDSA, which were important stakeholders in the project, involved at all its stages. The local partners signed partnership agreements with the Child Protection Departments in their respective regions. Social workers form the Child Protection Departments were also involved in the process, which further strengthened their skills, capacity and approaches in foster care development.

In addition to the project activities, Samaritans were managing the national hot line on foster care and project web site (www.priemime.bg), which served to provide information on the service and answer the queries of current and applicant foster parents.

Based on the the experience of Samaritans, ISS and SAPI elaborated a common training program for the project. During the project UNICEF provided financial and material equipment for the teams of the RFCC (transport means, computers, etc.), the special packages for new-borns and secured reimbursement of 50% of the fees for professional families paid by the implementing consortium.

UNICEF worked closely with the Agency for Social Assistance for the introduction of a comprehensive regional planning approach, which enabled the better planning and development of social services and the mobilization of resources at regional level in support of child related policies.

II.5 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS


Based on the experience from the pilot project of Samaritans (co-funded by ARK foundation) in 2007-2008, UNICEF team started the preparation activities for project implementation in October 2008. The contract with ISS and SAPI was for the period of June 2009 – June 2011. Samaritans were receiving agreements year per year until 2011. UNICEF continued monitoring results in the target regions until the end of 2011. The overall implementation of the project has been postponed with 3 months as the start date coincided with a process of legislative changes related to foster care initiated by the Government. UNICEF used this opportunity to introduce amendments aimed at addressing the main problems stumbling foster care development.

Currently, the project is in its post-implementation phase – i.e. the overall evaluation. The official closure of the project was in May 2012 with a national conference with the participation of all partners, relevant governmental institutions and some foster parents. However, the actual state of affairs shows that project is in its extension until December 2012. The three implementing partners received additional funding by UNICEF in order to assist the new public institutions and procedures introduced by the legislative changes in the beginning of 2012. The additional funding is aiming also the succession of the UNICEF model by governmental FC project “I have a family too”, which started in 2011 aiming at further expansion of foster care services with a focus for babies and children up to three years old.

The changes and the extension phase are taken into account in the evaluation.

Graph II.3. Project implementation history

III. EVALUATION PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE(S) AND SCOPE

The main objective of the assignment is to provide an overall evaluation on the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria”.

The specific objectives, stated in the ToR included:

an evaluation of whether the planned objectives and results of the project have been achieved considering effectiveness;

an evaluation on whether child wellbeing has been in the centre of the project and whether it has brought positive impact on vulnerable children;


identification of gaps in the planning and implementation of the project.

As per the requirements of the ToR of the assignment, the evaluation team took into consideration a set of criteria and questions, based on DAC criteria7. In addition to those criteria a human rights-based approach to

7 In 1991 the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD set out broad principles of the evaluation process for DAC

members. These principles were refined into five criteria that have been widely used in the evaluation of development initiatives –


programming was applied. The evaluation tried to show how the Foster care project contributed to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child recommendation on alternative care, which recommends are for review of State policies on alternative care for children deprived of a family with a view to develop more integrated and accountable system of care and support.

efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and relevance (OECD-DAC, 2000). Subsequently the criteria were adapted for evaluation of complex emergencies (OECD-DAC, 1999), becoming a set of seven criteria that will also be covered in this guide: relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.


IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

IV.1 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT

As regards the implantation of the Participation and negotiation principle, the team implemented participation in Inter-institutional working group (incl. both internal and external for the project experts representing key stakeholders). The goal is constant double-way flow of information between the major stakeholders and the evaluation team that guarantees better compatibility between the needs and results from the evaluation.

Graph IV.1. Model of evaluation management

IV.2 THE EVALUATION COVERAGE AREA

In correspondence to the ToR and the consultations conducted with UNICEF team were selected three target regions (where the UNICEF project was implemented), and three control regions (where foster care exists beyond the UNICEF project). The target regions – Stara Zagora, Shumen, Gabrovo - were selected among the nine regions covered by UNICEF according to “maximal variety sampling principle”8. The first variety criterion is geographical – Stara Zagora and Gabrovo are respectively in the South and North part of central Bulgaria and Shumen is in the North–East part of it. The second criterion is the variety of the project implementing NGO partners – Samaritans (Stara Zagora), SAPI (Shumen), ISS (Gabrovo). The third variety criterion was the level of success achieved by the project. The preliminary researchers’ hypothesis was that Gabrovo was not as successful example as Shumen and Stara Zagora were. Shumen was chosen also because the number of new foster families trained and approved and the number of children placed in foster care during the project were the greatest among the all nine regions. Stara Zagora was chosen also because the Samaritans had implemented some kind of foster care service before the beginning of the UNICEF project. The control regions – Varna, Sliven and Plovdiv – also were selected according to the “maximal variety sampling principle” among all the rest regions in the country where the UNICEF project didn’t take place. According to the geographical criterion, Plovdiv represents the South central part of Bulgaria; Sliven is in the South-East and Varna is in the North-East, at the seaside. Plovdiv was chosen as a good example for developing foster care, on the contrary, Sliven was expected to be a not such a successful example. Both, Varna and Plovdiv were selected as regions with the longest experience in the foster care services in Bulgaria. The other reason for choosing Varna is the fact that the municipality itself finances a part of the foster care process.

8 Miles, M. B. & A.M. Huberman (1994) Qualitative data analysis (2-nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage publications


IV.3 DATA GATHERING TOOLS

With the purpose of collected data to correspond to the DAC criteria and with respect to all of the stakeholders, several data gathering tools were used:

- Desk Review of relevant documents and official data sets;

- 76 In-depth interviews;

- 6 Focused group discussions;

- 2 Sample quantitative surveys.

Detailed information by region, data gathering tools and stakeholders is presented in Appendix 9.

IV.3.1. Desk Review of relevant documents

The goal of the desk research is to evaluate the project's conformity with the policy goals and priorities for deinstitutionalization of the national government, EU and UNICEF and the needs of vulnerable children. Furthermore, the desk research is aimed at analysing overall political context at national, regional and local level and its impact on the project. The research team considers also the legal basis for foster care, the paradigmatic foundations and philosophy of foster care as alternative and relative novelty in the national social policy, foster care relationship with other sector policies, the significance of foster care in the context and priorities of social policy and other areas related to deinstitutionalisation, organisation and coordination of deinstitutionalisation activities and the role of NGOs. The evaluation of the context of the project implementation includes stakeholder analysis and analysis of obstacles and contradictions in the deinstitutionalisation process, and analysis of public attitudes and expectations, as well as the allocation of public funds to the implementation of deinstitutionalisation and foster care policies.

Desk review of documents related to the Foster Care project – e.g. reports, budgets, minutes of meetings, etc.

Review of national documents, existing analyses, evaluations and documentation of similar projects implemented by other partners;

Official statistics

(The comprehensive list of the documents that have been reviewed and analysed is included into Appendix 10)

IV.3.2. In-depth interviews

The purpose of the interviews was to gather information about diverse personal life experiences with and attitudes towards foster care by different stakeholders as follows:

UNICEF officers

Implementing partners

Representatives of educational institutions

Social assistance experts

Child protection experts

Foster families (pairs)

Children in foster families

Biological families

General practitioners

The in-depth interviews were set as a face to face dialogue between a skilled interviewer and an interviewee (or pair in the case of family interviews). Specific question guides were prepared in order to secure systematic and comparable information. The sensitivity of the topic was taken under consideration during the interview arrangements and reflected by the guides. The guides for the informal interviews with children were consulted by two external child psychologists. There were 76 in-depth interviews conducted, with an average duration about hour and a half. The interviews were voice-recorded after informed agreement of the interviewees.


IV.3.3. Focused group discussions

In order to gather wholesale information and to check out whether there is or there is no consensus upon certain topic related to the foster care services, five focus group discussions were conducted as follows:

State authorities and NGO experts (Social Assistance, Child protection agency, NGO experts)

Representatives of educational institutions (school teachers and kindergarten educators, 2 target regions – Stara Zagora and Shumen)

Foster parents (3 target regions – Gabrovo, Stara Zagora and Shumen)

The discussions were voice-recorded after informed agreement of the interviewees.

IV.3.4. Sample quantitative surveys

Two quantitative surveys were implemented – one with foster families and one national representative survey. The quantitative survey with foster families is worth because this is a relatively homogeneous group of individuals that is easy to be defined and is appropriate to be explored with statistical methods. Quantitative indicators are computed from the data collected from foster parents and used for the evaluation of the impact of the project on these families. To explore the public attitudes towards foster care and the level of awareness about foster care problems a quantitative survey was developed. To evaluate public opinion with statistical methods is the most relevant way to do such a thing.

Quantitative survey with foster families

A random sample of 120 foster families was planned. The used sampling model is a two-stage cluster sample where the clusters at the first stage are the two groups (target and control) and at the second stage – the chosen geographical regions. The total number of sample units from the target regions was 80 and for the control regions – was 40. At the second stage the units were selected with probability proportional to the number of foster families in each region. For sampling purpose the samplers have used complete lists with all foster families in each region. This sample is representative for the foster families in both target and control group. According to doing general conclusions for the country, a weighting procedure is needed. The sampling plan is developed to be appropriate for doing analyses at national level as well as for doing comparisons between the target and the control groups. The interviews were made by interviewers through standardized questionnaires in face-to-face interviews.

From the planned 120 interviews 118 were realized. During the field work occurred a problem in Sliven. There were no enough foster families for both in-depth interviews and quantitative survey, hence the evaluation team preferred to do only two structured questionnaires9, which both failed because the selected families got sick. The remaining four planned interviews were redistributed among Plovdiv (2) and Varna (2).

Table IV.1. Planned and realized QNS interviews with foster families

Planned Realized

Target regions

Stara Zagora 14 14

Shumen 58 58

Gabrovo 8 8

Control regions

Plovdiv 11 13

Varna 23 25

Sliven 2 0

The maximal stochastic error for the target group is ± 8.6% and for the control group is ±11%, for proportion 50% and 95% confidence interval (inner-cluster correlation is not taken into account). It’s not recommendable conclusions on regional level to be made because of the small sample sizes. The region of Shumen makes an exception with 58 (>50) interviews, which is enough for hypothesis testing.

National representative survey (Open Bus, May 2012)

9 The qualitative guides and the quantitative questionnaires cover similar topics, so the evaluation team decided that one foster family could participate only once. The in-depth interview provides more detailed information, so it is preferred than the quantitative method in the case of small number of research units.


To explore social attitudes towards foster care, a national representative survey of 1200 individuals at age 18 and over and living in Bulgaria was conducted. It was implemented through a two stage cluster sample stratified by regions and settlement type. This sampling model is representative for the adult population in Bulgaria and is appropriate for doing analyses not only at national level but also at regional level and according to the type of settlement. Thus comparisons could be made between the attitudes of the population living in the regions where the Foster Care Project Team has been working and ones where other institutions are developing foster care. The interviews were made through standardized questionnaires in face-to-face interviews. The maximal stochastic error for the target group is ± 2.8% for proportion 50% and 95% confidence interval (inner-cluster correlation is not taken into account).

IV.4 RELATION BETWEEN EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DAC CRITERIA AND STAKEHOLDERS

The used data gathering tools were constructed in correspondence to the evaluation questions. The following table represents the relation between the evaluation questions and the relevant stakeholders in the DAC criteria frame.

Table IV.2. Evaluation questions, DAC criteria and stakeholders

DAC Criteria

Evaluation questions Relevant stakeholders

Relevance/Appropriateness

1. What is the relevance of the developed Foster care services with regards to four criteria, i.e. availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability?

2. For policy actors, what is the relevance of the Foster care project in relation to their involvement in planning and design of policies related to foster care?

3. How relevant were the trainings and the training materials? 4. To what extent is the Foster care project sensitive to cultural,

ethnic diversity and gender? 5. How clearly defined and strategically chosen are regions,

partners and target groups?

1. All stakeholders 2. Relevant institutions

and NGOs providing services related to the foster care

3. Foster families, children and involved social workers

4. All stakeholders 5. UNICEF team and

relevant institutions

Coherence 1. What is the relevance of the Foster care project and its contribution to the Deinstitutionalization Reform in the Bulgaria? 2. Have respective governmental and local experts supported the implementation of the Foster care project?

1. UNICEF team, relevant institutions and NGOs 2. UNICEF team, relevant institutions and NGOs

Effectiveness

1. To what extent did the Foster care project result in better opportunities for child development, access to primary health care, access to education, connection with biological family, etc?

2. How much did the Foster care project managed to address and respond to the diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families?

3. To what extent the activities are appropriate, practical and consistent with the objectives and expected results?

1, 2, and 3. Foster families, children, school representatives, social workers, biological parents (if possible), UNICEF team and the 3 NGOs

Coordination – main part of Effectiveness

1. What is the value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs, national priorities, national and international partners’ policies and global references such as human rights and in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Concluding Recommendations of the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child made to the Bulgaria? 2. Has the Foster care project been in any way mainstreamed by MLSP/ASA in the policy documents, standards, trainings?

1. All stakeholders 2. MLSP/ASA, UNICEF team 3. UNICEF team, relevant institutions and NGOs providing services related to the foster care


3. To what extent has the Foster care project complemented and created linkages as well as synergetic or multiplier effect with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders? 4. To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in improved communication between stakeholders at a local level?

4. Local authorities, foster parents and NGOs providing services related to the foster care including the 3 NGOs

Efficiency 1. How do the actual costs of the Foster care project compare to benchmarks for similar initiatives (Agency of Social Assistance, municipalities, and social service providers)? (cost-benefit analyses) 2. What is the added value of project’s quantitative and qualitative outcomes that can be measured at national level? 3. What is the value of the efficiency ratio between the estimated costs and expected results? 4. To what extent the expenditures are necessary for the project implementation and achievement of targets? 5. To what extent the project team managed to involve additional non-financial resources – in-kind, volunteer work, etc.

1. Relevant institutions (ASA, social service providers) and NGOs involved in similar initiatives

2. Social behaviour survey (at national level), foster families survey

3. UNICEF team 4. UNICEF team 5. UNICEF team


Connectedness

1. How much did the Foster care project managed to promote inclusion into the Foster care system? 2. Is there a political will by MLSP/ASA/local authorities to bring to scale and mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system? 3. How do the actual costs of the Foster care project fit within the government budget plans over the next 3 years?

1. Relevant institutions and NGOs involved in similar initiatives, social behaviour survey (at national level), foster families, school representatives 2. MLSP/ASA/ local authorities, UNICEF team 3. MLSP/ASA/ local authorities, UNICEF team

Coverage 1. Which are the organization’s own standards for coverage, and how far these have been met? 2. What is the extent of exclusion bias (that is exclusion of groups who should have been covered but were not)? 3. What were the main reasons that the intervention provided or failed to provide foster families with assistance and support, proportionate to their need (including international, national/regional and local levels)?

1. UNICEF team 2. UNICEF team,

relevant institutions and social workers

3. UNICEF team and foster families

Impact Due to the fact that the evaluation will be carried out immediately after the end of the project, the evaluation team is going to measure the potential impact of the project. 1. To what extent the project offers opportunities for multiplication of the activities and good practices related with foster care? 2. What is the (potential) impact of the project (after the completion) on the related to other foster care polices and activities? 3. What is the impact on the process of dismantling of institutions? 4. What is the impact on factors of abandonment of children in institutions? 5. What is the impact on public awareness and attitudes? 6. What is the impact for the organizational development of participating organizations and their capacity to influence social policy?

All stakeholders

IV.5 DATA VALIDATION PROCEDURES

The evaluation uses a broad range of data gathering methods in order to secure cross-check and validation of data where it is available. Most of the stakeholders were approached with more than one method (see appendix 11). There are few exceptions based on the understanding about the higher sensitivity of the topic.

The exact model of triangulation (graph 3), illustrates how the validation procedures are planned to take place. The evaluation of the project objectives is based on desk reviews of project documents and national documents and legislation together with in-depth interviews conducted with UNICEF team and project implementing NGO partners. The influence of the country context is evaluated through desk review of the country legislation, official statistics, in-depth interviews and focused group discussions. The information about evaluation of the knowledge, attitudes and practices is based on all types of qualitative and quantitative data gathering methods. The project outputs are evaluated mainly by quantitative indicators but having in mind the meanings of the Knowledge, Attitude, Practices (KAP), the country context and the objectives.


Graph IV.2. Data triangulation model

IV.6 DIFFICULTIES, GAPS AND LIMITATIONS IN DATA GATHERING

Some limitations in the process of the desk reviews

At the time of the desk research appeared some limitations related to the availability of the documents of interest:

Some of the documents were not available for public access. This problem was partly managed with the help of UNICEF team and with the goodwill of the personnel of the state institutions.

Lack of available data for completed similar projects (topic and size) addressed through comparison with the planned budget and indicators set in the "Priemi me10" project.

Lack of detailed information on the expenses of partner organizations (Samaritans, SAPI, ISS) – to manage with this problem an additional data was required from the UNICEF team.

In the National statistical institute there is no complete information or data base for foster care, for example, the number of foster families by regions and years, the number of the children placed in foster families by age and gender etc. This problem was partly managed with gathering some statistics from the regional offices of ASA and Child protection departments.

At the time of the evaluation process it turned out that there were very limited official data about foster care available. The evaluation team in co-operation with the UNICEF team made an attempt to obtain this data from SACP with official letter sent to the director of SCAP but didn’t receive any answer. Hence, the evaluation team used only the data received from UNICEF team and its partners related only to the 9 regions of the project.

Some limitations in the process of the in-depth interviews and focused discussions

Some different limitations have appeared according to the different stakeholders: The participants in both the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were proposed and

contacted by the implementing organizations (Samaritans, SAPI, ISS) for the target regions and by the Child protection departments for the control ones. They were selected with the idea of diversity by age, gender, position etc., if it was possible, but weren’t sampled randomly.

It is very difficult to gather information about the general practitioners (doctors) responsible for the foster children such as address of the practice, name, telephone number etc. Hence the selection of GPs for the in-depth interviews was made with the co-operation of the foster families and partner organizations.

It is very difficult to organize an interview with biological families – there is no available data for them, in the general case they are sad and shy people with a lot of problems. The biological families were selected with the co-operation of the regional CPD, responsible social workers and the partner organization representatives for the target regions.

Some limitations in the process of QNS with foster families 10

“Priemi me”- Bulgarian translation for Take me (in family or as family)

Country context

Desk review: EFCM

project documents

Desk review: BG

national documents

In-depth interviews

Focused group discussions Questionnaire surveys

Official statistics

KAPProject objectives Project outputs


The main limitations related with the quantitative survey with foster families were related with the lack of a complete list of the foster families in the selected regions. To make a representative sample a complete address register is needed, but for the foster families there is no such a register nor at a national, neither at a regional level. These were requested from the regional institutions (ASA, CPD). As it turned out the foster parents’ register doesn’t exist or if such exists it is a confidential dataset. Hence the regional managers of the Child protection departments (or other responsible official) made a systematic sample of the requested number of foster families themselves. This procedure took more time than was calculated at the beginning of the evaluation process.

(more detailed information about the fieldwork limitations is presented at appendix 12)

IV.7 ETHICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

In order to keep the rights of respondents and to ensure the openness and quality and trustworthiness of information the evaluation team guaranteed that the following ethical safeguards are strictly abiding for each individual evaluator:

Protection of confidentiality – ensured through declaration that the respondents will remain anonymous and only summarized results will be processed and published. The data collected from the quantitative methods was used only in aggregated form. The information gathered from the in-depth interviews and focus discussions was turned into anonymous form in order to be confidential.

Informed consent - all evaluators and interviewers received instructions and written announce stating reasons of evaluation and goals of the surveys as part of the evaluation process.

Feedback to participants - based on preliminary agreement with UNICEF the team enhanced the respondents’ motivation to partake in the evaluation by grounding the significance of evaluation outcomes and findings for further improvements in shaping and implementing policy in the field of foster care and deinstitutionalization.

The ethical safeguards were kept through development and implementation of the following procedures/mechanisms for shaping the behaviour of evaluators and data collectors: at the stage of selection of interviewers only well-prepared and experienced communicators were selected. All interviewers passed one day training for implementation of instruments, incl. discussion of the ethical issues and considerations. Personal consultations during the field work were also provided whenever needed.

The evaluation design and style of all research instruments were developed in compliance with human rights-based approach. The quantitative and qualitative questionnaires and guidance are designed to collect disaggregated data by the following indicators that allow for comparative analyses of information for the respondents belonging to the mainstream and vulnerable groups: by gender, age and socially excluded groups (ethnic minorities).

Based on the understanding about the higher sensitivity of the topic for both children accommodated in foster care, foster families and biologic families the draft questionnaires for both families and children in foster care passed a preliminary thorough review from experts in psychology and pedagogy. The reviewers’ feed-back also contributed to using human-rights and child-friendly language. Furthermore, the Children placed in foster care were approached only in highly delicate manner of a talk during the in-depth interviews with their foster parents. The evaluation design was suitable with ethical standards, including protection of confidentiality, dignity, rights and welfare of human subjects particularly children.

V. FINDINGS

V.1 RELEVANCE

V.1.1.The relevance of the developed Foster care services:

The project “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria” was designed and started as a reaction of the existing problems with the implementation of the FC service on national level in Bulgaria. UNICEF influenced


FC implementation by addressing two main aspects of the FC service – the system arrangement of the service and the quality of service provision. By addressing the formal organization, system and management issues UNICEF supported several institutional developments and changes that influence and create guarantee for the effective delivery of the FC and the de-institutionalization developments in broader context:

- establishment of the FC expert team in the core of the FC delivery;

- planning and coordination of the FC service on a regional level;

- the FC families approval commission act on a on a regional level, which is considered very important for the management of the service and also reflects the quality issues;

- development of stable and active relations and collaboration between all parties for the implementation of FC, especially Child Protection Department (social system) and the service providers;

- clear responsibilities for the different players in the FC service implementation;

- the FC as a service is prepared to be established as a standard state delegated activity;

- support for development of the data base for FC families on regional level. The foster parents, who took part in the focus group discussion and the interviews of the assessment team, recognize UNICEF as the herald of the tradition of the foster care service and consider it is crucial that UNICEF keeps up the activities in this regard. The main contribution of UNICEF to the foster care development is considered to be the regional approach, the training methodology and the information campaign, carried out at national level.


V.1.2.Relevance of the Foster care project in relation foster care policies

Introducing a common model/practice for FC service that can be applied by the social services and lead to a significant improvement of the FC practice nationally was one of the main tasks11 and approach of the UNICEF intervention. The UNICEF FC practice that was introduced and implemented is consistent with the official methodology for delivery of FC services that is the main legislative rule for the Agency for Social Assistance (ASA) and providers for implementing the service. This methodology was adopted in 2008 with the main goal to improve the prevention work, deinstitutionalization and reintegration of the child. It is also a response to the practices that were developed by NGO in Bulgaria to that moment.

V.1.3. Relevance of the trainings and the training materials

Prior to the UNICEF project commencement, the three implementing partners had different experience with training programmes adjustment. Those programs differed and were a kind of “self-education” of the NGOs based on the experience of foreign organizations. SAPI used French and Italian practices in their curriculum but they were not organized in a consistent study programme. Samaritans had the ARK methodology of training which is highly appreciated by both social workers (NGO and institutions) and foster families. This is a program based on interactive modules and it demonstrated to be very successful over the year. By year 2007 this was one of the few training programs in place in Bulgaria. When ISS started their FC work in Targovishte, they benefitted from Samaritans experience to organize their training as they had only theoretical knowledge before that.

With the start of UNICF project the three partners had to agree on a common training programme. As the issue turned to be controversial, Samaritans were allowed to keep up their training modules and to enrich them with elements from UNICEF training program. This is obvious from the focus group discussions of foster families as well. Due to common meetings between FF in different regions, there is a network of foster parents that has been developed and even it was institutionalized as association. That allows for FP to compare approaches of different provider. A parent in Shumen has shared his satisfaction with the training in Stara Zagora where the social worker is always accompanied by an experienced foster parent.

The outcome of the quantitative survey of foster parents gives an extremely positive feedback about the UNICEF training programme in comparison with the training programmes used in the other regions by other providers12. The proportion of fully satisfied with the training before the approval measures up to 90% among the main group and 50% among the control group.

11

See Project goals and expected results 12

For the sake of the evaluation, here and further down, there are two aggregates compared. The main group consists of the respondents, who live in regions where the UNICEF project has been active. More precisely, these are the districts of Shumen, Stara Zagora and Gabrovo. The control group consists of the respondents, living in Varna and Plovdiv, where the foster care is run without the aid of the UNICEF


Graph V.1. Satisfaction of “before training” of the foster parents

Source: Foster parents survey, May 2012

Moreover, the UNICEF training after the placement of the child is also very positively assessed by the foster parents in both aspects accessibility and applicability.

Graph V.2. Satisfaction of “after training” clearness



Graph V.3. Satisfaction of “after training” applicability


The UNICEF training approach was recognized as a good practice and influenced the national FC programme, supported by the Agency for Social Assistance. The UNICEF project experts delivered training for the Agency for Social Assistance and the Regional Directorates for Social Assistance involved in the national project "I have a family too" (started in 2011). However, despite the recognition of the UNICEF training programme, it was not acknowledged fully by the ASA in its project and many FC stakeholders report their concerns because of the significant reduction of the training time and topics.

V.1.4. Sensitivity

The project provided the regional partners with common understanding what the foster care is but the door was left open for flexible implementation and regional adjustments. Depending on the level of collaboration with the Regional Directorates of Social Assistance, the Child Protection Departments and the existing network of social services of the partners, UNICEF developed additional dimensions in some of the target regions.

SAPI have been developing FC since 2006, when the first FC Agency was created with the support of Social Assistance Fund. Later on they started to train foster families (FF) in their Complex for social services. UNICEF project gave an impetus, and in addition to recruitment and training for FF, SAPI began to work at all phases of FC service provision since 2009. Due to a regional administrative interest, SAPI further focused on the prevention new-borns’ abandonment.

Because the current project was built on a previous model of ARK Foundation in Stara Zagora, UNICEF ensured continuity of the activities of the implementing organization. The UNICEF found the collaboration between Samaritans, the municipality, Child protection departments and Regional Directorate of Social Assistance to be very productive at regional level. Thus this approach was suggested to the other implementing partners and adopted as a guiding principle in all target regions. The foster families recruited and trained in 2007 by ARK foundation served as an example of good practice.

ISS initiated their foster care practice in 2007 in the city of Targovishte. This was the natural follow-up of the successful work they did in the Center for Community Support they were running. As they lacked any practical experience at that time, they first consulted ARK Foundation and Samaritans in Stara Zagora in order to get an insight on the foster care provision. Subsequently ISS got in contact with the Child Protection Department to do some planning of the service. They started with an awareness campaign and till the end of


2009 14 foster families were recruited. UNICEF based the new project on ISS work in the municipality and started implementing their approach to foster care. According to ISS one of the biggest contributions of UNICEF project was the standardization of the foster care practice in the municipalities they were acting: application of the same training program, supervision and support of foster families and participation of the service provider at all phases of the foster care.

NB: Concerning the gender sensitivity, under the UNICEF project approximately equal numbers of boys and

girls were settled in foster families. Usually the girls are considered as more “desirable” and “easy for

breading”, although there are more male childbirths in Bulgaria and respectively more abandoned male

infants. Thus, the project should be positively evaluated for the gender balance.

V.2 COHERENCE

V.2.1. Contribution to the Deinstitutionalization Reform

A distinguishing feature of the approach of UNICEF is that the social services provider considers the foster families as their partners, not clients. The regional partner disapproves that RDSA treat FP as their employees and as if they are obliged to fulfil with any requirements the civil servants impose them.

“It's very important for the proper care for the child to treat foster families with respect and trust.” Participant in the focus group discussions

V.2.2 Governmental and local experts support

SAPI gave an ‘extremely good’ assessment of the UNICEF work for the foster care in Bulgaria. 'Even at the beginning of the project, it was highly appreciated by the state administration because it is

innovative and it turned the FC from a scarce and chaotic service carried out only in a number of CPDs into a

systematic service with its own philosophy and tools like the training program, something the other

organization in Bulgaria are missing'.

In the regions where UNICEF was active the ASA staff accepted the UNICEF approach as a good tool for managing FC and the newly established mechanisms are still in the practice even after the project.

The representatives of the municipalities and the regional Directorates of Social Assistance give an outstanding note to UNICEF work in their region: ‘UNICEF are very engaged and professional‘, The good collaboration of the state experts with UNICEF project partners was crucial to the foster care. The training was much appreciated and the support and availability of the regional foster care team was of a great importance to the successful work of the Child Protection Departments. CPD in Shumen declared: ‘The support of the experts of SAPI was priceless’.

UNICEF worked directly with the state and regional authorities. In some places they were included in the trainings of the social workers and were always consulted for the implementation and improvement of the foster care service. This contributed to the better collaboration between the RDCC and the CPDs, RDSAs and Municipality. In the beginning the relationships weren’t that close and representatives of the local authorities were not always willing to take active participation in the foster care work of the service provider. Towards the end of the project most of the stakeholders affirm to have improved communication and collaboration at local level. In comparison, field research in the control regions of the evaluation showed that the communication

between public authorities that are stakeholders in foster care is not that developed. For instance in Sliven

the intra-institutional communication turned to be very weak at the level region-municipality. Respondents

do not announce collaboration problems. Nevertheless, decisions are made incidentally and information is

exchanged in informal conversations. The lack of rules for communication between the institutions, and

especially RDSA, impedes further collaboration and assistance. In Plovdiv, another control region, foster


families report some difficulties to connect with the biological mother of the child as she lived in different

city and the communication between the social workers from different towns is not good enough or is

entirely missing.

V.3 EFFECTIVENESS

V.3.1 Better opportunities for child development

The provision of support services after a child placement was significant part of the foster care methodology. The project provided different options: accompaniment, consultation, support groups, supervision, etc. Particular focus was given to the relations with the biological family: non judging behaviour, preparation of the child for the meetings with the biological parents, dealing with illiteracy and extreme poverty of the biological family. This was part of the follow up services and supervision for foster parents. In many cases, the meetings with the biological family were carried out at an office of some of the regional partners.

The services as a support for kindergarten/school enrolment, medical help, etc. are considered by foster parents as part of the ordinary job of the social worker. In fact, specialized services provided to the children placed in foster families, are additional services to the foster family (dealing with aggression, therapy for foster children or native children to foster parents, etc.).

The in-depth interviews in all the evaluation regions show that the most frequent additional services are related to help in the school (resource teacher) and psychological consultations and therapy for the child if needed, including speech therapy. On rare occasions a help for hospitalization or other medical assistance was reported (mostly in the control regions). As a whole the quantitative survey show that the cases when foster parents needed an additional service of psychologist of GP and didn’t get are more frequent in the control regions.

V.3.2. Diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families

UNICEF model of foster care is the shared responsibility for the child involving all the stakeholders (FF, biological family, social workers, doctors, teachers, general population. The foster family is a partner in this process in which the child should find a steady family environment, without a frequent shiftings.

“The ideal FC service is to be prepared and have the resources to respond to the specific needs of every child”

“Young families should be attracted to deliver the FC” (implementing partner)

The non-governmental organizations put emphasis on the need of support for the preparation of specialized families that are ready to respond to the specific needs of different groups of children with special focus on babies. The provision of enough supportive services for families (both biological and FC) and children is also part of the ideal model for the NGO representatives.

The children’s development rewards the FP efforts and motivates them even if their initial principal motive would be financial. The foster parents themselves demonstrate in front of acquaintances and media their children development with pride. This act also contributes to the attitudes of their milieu.

Another extremely important effect is related to the attitudes towards the ethnic differences.

We have written down: if there is a black child we want him!

They are convinced that under similar conditions and cares children of different ethnicities develop in an identical way. In this respect they are more optimistic than the social workers. Even if this attitude is declarative (suggested as a norm by the training), it still has an important persuasive potential vis-à-vis the community.


For the FP the fact that the child is Rom (and they prevail) is not a problem – the parents love the children … and this influences the public attitudes – it is a process (FP)

In areas where the service is provided more intensely the FP become afraid that healthy children (or children with light disabilities) would become scarce. They know that according to the policy for reintegration children should be placed not far away from their biological parents. But, nevertheless, they propose that at least the children who are already registered for adoption and do not have chances to be reintegrated to be eligible for FC in other administrative regions as well.

There is a progress in the attitudes of the FP towards the biological parents too. Compared again to other categories (including pedagogues) they are more reserved and more infrequently permit themselves to adopt an accusing stance. In some cases this is also a respect of the contract’s terms but, anyway, they observe the norm. Not all of them. Certain FP blame the biological parents in presence of the child, who regularly meet them thanks to the efforts of the social worker to arrange those meetings. Of course, the behaviour depends to a great extent from the personal qualities of the FP, from the particular situation and from the biological parent. There are instances when both the specialists and the parents are convinced that the adoption is a better solution for the future of the child than his reintegration in his family.

V.3.3. Appropriation and consistency of the project activities

Foster parents The main group foster parents feel satisfied from their service provider at all. There are 95% of them who confirmed that the provider has explained their rights and obligations in the contract for evaluation and training VERY CLEARLY. The corresponding proportion from the control group is 84%. A similar trend is seen about the problems with the documentation when applying for foster care – 80% from the main groups had NO such problems and 68% from the control group said so. Therefore, the foster care providers, guided by UNICEF team show better results in building their partnership with foster families than those, working in other projects.

The next important step in the foster care process is the moment of introducing the family to the child. 90% of the foster families (without any difference in the proportion for the both groups) have agreed that their social worker had supported them COMPLETELY during the child's first visit to their home. Definitely, this is аn important evidence for high quality of the social work in Bulgaria. Right after the first meeting with the child, it comes the first month of foster care – the hardest month of all. Almost 90% of the main foster parents have COMPLETELY AGREED that during the FIRST month they were provided with 24-hour consulting and support services by their social worker. The same answer is given by 71% of the control group, which is significantly less. Nearly the same proportions (89% from the main sample and 71% from the control one) have said they were COMPLETELY CONFIDENT that cooperating with their social worker they could overcome eventual problems and finally everything would be alright, so the following cooperation between them is as highly estimated as the beginning of the process.

The frequency of visits after the placement of the child in foster care differentiates the both groups.


Graph V.4. Proportion of regular monthly visits by the social workers

Every three of four parents from the main group have been visited by their personal social worker at least TWICE A MONTH, in contrast to only 39% of those from the control group. The social workers, leading the case, have visited 64% of the families from the main sample TWICE A MONTH and the proportion for the control groups is 42%. So, the UNICEF team and its partner NGOs are in more frequent touch with their foster parents than the other social worker in the control districts that presumes higher quality of the support and timeliness of the provided service. This is confirmed with the answers to the question “Did you need to be visited more often by:” to which only 11% from the main group have said “YES” according to the social worker who leads the case and only 12.5% - according to their personal social worker. The foster families from the control sample have been in greater need of more frequent contact with their social workers – about a quarter of them have reported there were NOT ENOUGH visits during the foster care. In addition to more frequent visiting, the UNICEF team has created Foster Care Centers in each district where their project is active. Every two of three parents (66%) are SATISFIED by the specialists from these centers, 27.5% had NEVER USED such service and only 2.5% are NOT AWARE of its existence. Among the control group the satisfaction is reported of 40% of them, 26% had NEVER USED such service and other 26% are NOT AWARE of it. It is obvious that unaware parents from the control sample are ten times more than in the main one. In realizing its project the UNICEF team and its partners have considerably extended the influence of the Foster Care Centers by districts and in this way gave additional support to the families there.

Foster children

Interviews with children in foster families revealed very good state of the kids and adaptation the family environment. The children are aware of their history and are well informed about their biological families where possible. They are taken good care of in terms of hygiene, clothes, nutrition and medical assistance. The problems with their behaviour (aggression, thievery, study difficulties) are addressed by the parents with the assistance of the social workers. The quantitative data shows that such reactions in the child’s adaptation period (insomnia, shaking, aggression, apathy) were seen in 37% of the cases form the main foster parents group and in 47% in the control group. Evidence for the progress made by those kids is the testimony of their teachers, social workers and biological parents. A parent shared with us that the institution ‘has been killing morally her daughter’, while the placement under foster family ‘brought the light in her eyes: she started talking, walking and laughing’.

63.8%

75.0%

42.1%

39.5%

1.The leading socialworker

2.Your personal socialworker

After the child was placed with you, how often were you visited by: AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH

QNS 2012, Main group

QNS 2012, Control group


UNICEF summary figures for the children put in FC13:

332 children passed through foster care, at the moment in foster care are – 270;

200 of the above come from specialised institution and the rest – from family, maternity ward or other foster family;

The age of children at the moment of placement in foster care is – 51 children are up to 1 year, 87 – 1-3 years, 101 – 4-6 years, rest – above 7 years;

60% girls, 40% boys;

All ethnic groups;

87 children left foster care (incl. children placed before start of the project) – 35 adopted, 22 re-integrated in biological or extended family, 7 – in institution, 3 – got age of 18 years, 14 – in other foster care families and 6 – others;

68 children stay in contacts with their biological parents.

Biological family

Reintegration of the child in the biological family is a main direction and value for FC that goes along with the understanding that the child knows and accepts its personal story and maintains contacts with the family if this is its best interest. To have this main goal of the FC accomplished, a specialised work and support to the foster family should be provided by the social assistance system and providers in parallel to the care that is granted to the child in FC. UNICEF considers the work with the biological families as one of the main weakness of the practice of the Child protection department and the system for Social assistance.

The efforts to address biological families within the FC activities should be a very important message to the public about the philosophy and the main principle of FC: FC should be developed and used in the context of closing institutions as a temporary service that leads to a sustainable resolution for the child.

What did the UNICEF project reach as activities and results to the biological families?

The regional approach and more specifically the planning and managing of FC on regional level is crucial for the reintegration priority because it follows the rule to place a child in a FC family that is physically close to the biological family and not out of the borders of the region. The regional approach ensures:

- the basic minimum to create all opportunities that will help to maintain the connection with the biological family;

- planning the resource of FC families that responds to the specific needs of the region and families that serve children from the region; placement of children within the region;

- According to the quantitative survey, the most foster parents (58% from the main group and 76% from the control group) have admitted that the child that they have taken care for DOESN’T KEEP IN TOUCH with its biological parents.

13

Presented at the closure project event on 7-8th

May 2012


Graph V.5. Frequencies of child’s meetings with biological parents

The most frequent reason for the lack of “child-biological parents” meeting is the fact that later are not interested in seeing their own children or worse – they officially disclaim the relation with the child. Only 40% of the children in foster care are legitimately recognized by the father that is shown by the data for both samples – the main and the control one. In some cases the parents are abroad or unidentified, in the others – they are in prison or in very poor healthy and financial condition.

UNICEF training program includes preparation of foster parents for dealing with biological family of the foster child and smooth the way for their reintegration. When the social workers explain the foster care philosophy to the biological parents, the meeting with the child are quite productive. A biological parent told us ‘FC is the best thing that can happen to a child in an institution and is invaluable support to parents who cannot look after their child’. Of course, relations with biological parents could be very problematic (aggression towards foster parents, absence and complete lack of interest in the child, etc.) and this is the point of interaction with the social worker of the CPD. Work for reintegration with biological family should be set as a clear priority, according to the UNICEF team. Here is the place to share the quantitative data according to the relationship between foster and biological parents and the quality of support, provided by the social workers in sake of building connection between them.

Graph V.6. Satisfaction of social workers’ support regarding the relationship with the biological parents

2.5%

5.0%

15.0%

7.5%

11.3%

57.5%

2.6%

.0%

10.5%

2.6%

7.9%

76.3%

Yes, every week

Yes, once every 2-3weeks

Yes, once a month

Yes, once every 2-3months

Yes, more rarely

No

Does the child keep in touch with his/hers biological parents?



56.3%

1.3%

23.8%

16.3%

44.7%

.0%

18.4%

31.6%

Satisfied

Not satisfied

I have never used suchservices

There was no suchservice

After the child was placed with you, please share how satisfied you are from:




The UNICEF team and its partner NGOs (SAPI in Shumen, ISS in Gabrovo and Samaritans in Stara Zagora) have achieved better than the social worker, acting in the control districts. The SATISFIED foster parents in the main districts are about 56% and those from the control group – about 45%. More important is the fact that in the main sample, the foster parents who said there was NO SUCH SERVICE are two times less than these from the control one (32%). In the both samples about 20% have admitted they HAVE NEVER USED such service – a serious weakness of the foster care service in the country to which a special attention has to be paid in the future.

Project’s experts admit that work with biological families became a priority later during the project implementation and there are needed much more efforts and services to be developed in this direction to change the attitudes and practices. The range of services to be provided to biological families and to foster families still do not cover all aspects of the relations among these key players in the child’s life. Even though biological parents admit the positive impact and prefer their children to be in foster care they consider the services which are to support them to step back in their feet and to be able to provide proper care for their children insufficient. It regards not only to services for child protection but to bigger scope of support to citizens in need (as of poverty, illness, etc.). Another important of relationship between foster and biological parents is the lawful guardian rights, as the biological parents often have the rights on the child. There are specific cases when medical intervention is necessary or even medical documents for kindergarten require permission of the lawful guardian and when there is neglect or lack of interest by the biological parent the FF have considerate difficulties. In the opposite cases some biological parents report that they speak regularly with the FP and even the foster parents advise with them about the children clothes and food.


V.4 COORDINATION

V.4.1 The value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs

The development of strategic assistance for provision of foster care for new-born babies, since 2011 as a main focus for all regional foster care centres. The additional support aimed to cover the first expenses for placement of a baby as the Government support was found out to be insufficient in terms of size and coming too late (usually in the second month after the placement of the child). The efforts led to placement of babies (new-born and up to 6 months old) in the regions of Shumen, Targovishte, Smolyan, and Sofia.

There is a gap between public opinion and the project policy in that respect. The babies – as a main target group in need – range at the third place after “all children who cannot be with their families” and “little children”. There are several layers behind these results regarding the foster care`s focus. On the one hand, the Bulgarian population considers all children as equally important for deinstitutionalisation procedure. On the second hand, there is an institutional stereotype (gathered during the in-depth interviewing) that babies are not suitable for breeding by foster parents. This reflects in data as the little children are regarded like kids in greater need then the babies. Thus, the UNICEF policy about babies receives an extra evaluation points as far as it fights with public stereotypes. However, a recommendation can be made towards the increase of the public awareness on the importance of the need of non-enrolment in homes for children without parental care and other specialized institutions (HCYPIUI, HMRCY, HPMSCC).

Graph V.7. The children in the greatest need

Source: Open bus, May 2012 (OSI Sofia)


V.4.2. Project mainstreaming

In 2011 started the implementation on a national FC project “I have a family too” aiming to priority to provide foster care services for babies and children up to three years that are in specialized institutions, and children with disabilities. So far the project was implemented by the Agency for Social Assistance in 82 Bulgarian municipalities. It is a part of the implementation of the national strategy “Vision for deinstitutionalization of children in Bulgaria”. The project is co-funded by the EU Structural Funds and is seen as the main instrument to empower FC delivery nationally to support deinstitutionalization and quality of the service.

About the moment of the current evaluation, there is not enough information with regard to the dynamics of the nationwide project for FC provision that is going to be implemented by the ASP from the perspective of the model. The project specifics were not presented to the public and there is a significant lack of transparency of the project implementation and funding. Despite UNICEF had an important role in consulting the project concept and preparation, it is still not clear what the strategic choice is for the FC and what part of the UNICEF practice will find sustainability in this project.

There are signs that can be recognized as an approval how UNICEF practice will influence the nationwide FC delivery that will be supported by the Agency for Social Assistance:

1. UNICEF delivered training for the Agency for Social Assistance and the Regional Directorates for Social Assistance that will be involved in the national project. This collaboration resulted with the general conclusion that the FC commission for approval of FC families should be on regional level and that the Regional Offices for Social Protection should take part in the planning process.

2. In the regions where UNICEF was active the ASA staff accept the UNICEF approach as a good tool for managing FC and the newly established mechanisms are still in the practice even after the project.

3. Positioning of the FC commissions at regional level and the provision that FC family can be contracted by the provider are part of the final draft of the Child Protection Law. Although this is a positive sign for the sustainability of the practices that UNICEF supported, the postponement of the draft will create risk environment about the quality and general delivery of FC service.

4. The new regional foster care commissions will comprise of a professional foster parent as well. This was initially promoted by ISS in the Child Protection Commission on municipal level and later on it was implemented by SAPI within the UNICEF project.

5. Some of the staff of the Regional FC centres will take part in the current municipalities’ teams for FC. The rest of the staff will be employed within existing municipal services and will continue to support the foster families and children they worked with.

6. The social service provider will be involved at all phases of the foster care cycle: starting with the training and finishing with the reintegration of the child to the biological or adoptive family or coming of age. This is accepted by ASA and will lay as principle in the national FC project.

7. A significant part of UNICEF training programme is used by ASA for training the social workers under the national project ‘I have a family too’.

V.4.3. Linkages and synergetic with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders

According the representatives of UNICEF partner organizations the model has a particular impact on capacity building and developing the FC as a service that provides joint support. This means that the service is supported and delivered by joining the efforts of informal local network of FC delivery and


support that includes the authorities, the provider, the FC families, biological family, and local sector representatives as education, health. At the same time the representatives of the ASA and other NGO involved in the FC delivery that were not participating in the UNICEF project hardly identify the specifics of the UNICEF FC practice. The interviews with representatives of ASA in the districts that were not included in the project shows that the agency did not communicate the achievements and developments of the FC practice within the system. One of the experts was surprised to hear about the project and the results. According to the representatives of Bulgarian NGO that also work and for the FC provision and that were not participating in the UNICEF initiative the most important result from the FC project is the raise of the number of FC families and placements. The other aspects of the model and UNICEF strategic approach for the FC delivery are not familiar to the providers.

V.4.4. Improvement of communication between the local stakeholders

The representatives of the Directorates for Social Assistance and Child protection departments assess the work and in general the participation of UNICEF very positive:

“Thanks to UNICEF information campaigns, the public became much more aware of the problem and the number of volunteers wishing to become foster parents increased significantly. UNICEF team is very engaged and professional. Very positive impression.“

V.5 EFFICIENCY

V.5.1. Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses within the UNICEF project

Analysis of the dynamics of the expenditure of ISS and SAPI in 2010 and 2011 shows that they are relatively constant throughout the project. Exceptions are the months between late 2010 and the begging of 2011 and mid-2011, but the reasons for deviations from the usual costs are technical, not associated with increased costs. This means that wages are paid on a regular basis and everyday project activities are provided with the necessary tools and materials.


Graph V.8. Monthly budget expenses of the partners

A comparative table of the costs of the organizations shows that the Samaritans budget seems quite unbalanced comparing to the budget of ISS & SAPI. Budget allocation of ISS & SAPI is oriented much more towards financing Programme Costs, while within the Samaritans budget almost 80% are spent for Direct Programme Support Costs. There are also some expenses in Stara Zagora that seem unjustifiably higher than similar expenses in the other 8 regions – e.g heating and electricity per month in Stara Zagora is 1200 BGN while in the rest of the regions it varies between 170 BGN in Targovishte and 390 in Veliko Tarnovo, Gabrovo and Smolyan. Moreover, the expenses in Stara Zagora for heating and electricity do not change in the summer time (while the rest of regions plan heating only for the winter).

Table V.1. Budget structure of the provided funding

Organisations and periods Samaritans - for the period

April 2010 – March 2011 ISS&SAPI - for the period - 7

April 2010 - 22 June 2011

Costs Total in BGN Percentage Total in BGN Percentage

Programme Costs 18 820,00 14,93% 780 473,20 89,95%

Direct Programme Support Costs 99 015,16 78,53% 67 410,00 7,77%

SUB-TOTAL 117 835,16 93,46% 847 883,20 97,72% Indirect Programme Costs (7% of the Cash Transfer component of the Sub-Total, added to Sub Total)

8 248,46 6,54% 19 745,80 2,28% TOTAL BUDGET 126 083,62 100,00% 867 629,00 100,00%

Another example of groundless difference between Samaritans budget and ISS&SAPI are the salaries of accountants – the accountant services in Stara Zagora overpass approximately double time the accountants’ monthly wages in ISS&SAPI budgets. It should be taken in consideration that in the same time Samaritans Association provided services to much less foster families comparing to ISS&SAPI.

Samaritans Association project activities include also maintaining of a phone line. Even at the planning stage there are confusing and unjustifiable budget lines like hotline expenses of 1 700 BGN per month (separately from salaries and many other expenses). The monitoring report carried out in September 2010 showed that the total number of calls on the phone line is less than expected – 238 since the line has been launched in April 2010. From different sources (incl. Samaritans analyses and UNICEF monitoring reports) can be identified the following data for phone calls received to the hotline.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

4.2

01

0

5.2

01

0

6.2

01

0

7.2

01

0

8.2

01

0

9.2

01

0

10

.20

10

11

.20

10

12

.20

10

1.2

01

1

2.2

01

1

3.2

01

1

4.2

01

1

5.2

01

1

6.2

01

1

7.2

01

1

8.2

01

1

9.2

01

1

10

.20

11

11

.20

11

12

.20

11

Monthly budget expenses (in BGN)

ISS

SAPI


First 6 months – 238

January - June 2011 – missing data

July – September 2011 – 32

October – December 2011 – 25

Although the hotline was expected to be analysed regularly and enough payment was spent in the budget, it seems that there are lots of missing information and poor quality of analyses. The number of served phone calls during the first six months is much higher in comparison with the other terms but, in fact, it was very low – a bit more than a call per day on average. In the same time the annual expenses for the hotline were 18 272 BGN or the mean cost of a single call was approximately 50 BGN. Indeed, the real expenses were about 50% lower than initially planned in the budget but still – excessively high. In terms of enhancing efficiency the overload of social workers serving the line allows combination of hotline consultations with other office activities. Bearing in mind that Samaritans’ activities led to approval of 23 foster families – they are app. 6 times less than the approved foster families of ISS and app. 5 times less than the approved foster families of SAPI. Therefore, the Samaritans project in the analysed period seems to be about 4 times less efficient in comparison with ISS and SAPI.

Table V.2. Monthly expenses per approved foster families (in BGN)

ISS SAPI Samaritans Average for the UNICEF project

4 927,9 5 954,4 19 768 6 540,1

It should be underlined that for the budgetary period following the first year Samaritans budget (April 2011- December 2011) was considerably improved and the share of Direct Programme Support Costs was reduced to 22% while remaining 3 times higher than ISS and SAPI budgets. The effectiveness of the project can be measured with even greater degree of accuracy by comparing the number of foster families, with the number of those which have placed children. The number of foster families is not always an indicator of successful results. It is important whether the foster families, especially professional, have a realistically loaded to performance their duties. For example, in two of the districts where the project has been implemented - Shumen and Targovishte – there are established the largest number of foster families – respectively 76 and 69. In practice, however, in Targovishte District at the end of February 2012 there are 12 more foster families established beyond the activities of the UNICEF project. Thus, the total number of foster families in the territory of Targovishte district in March was almost 80 - which is certainly one of the largest in the country. According to the ASA at the end of the first quarter of 2012 in Targovishte district has been identified 18 foster families in which no children were accommodated, unlike Shumen district where these families are only 4. ASA data shows that nationwide at the end of the first quarter of 2012 Targovishte district has registered the highest number of foster families without children.


V.5.2. The project of UNICEF in the context of the financing of foster care nationally

Funding for foster care from the state budget is limited and incomplete. Comparison of budget lines of the UNICEF project to minimalist public policy for financing of foster care outlines the benefits of the overall approach of UNICEF to the partial financial costs of the state in foster care.

The UNICEF project funds contribute to allocating the key expenses for the effective provision of foster care:

- Costs for developing and testing a pilot model (including expenses for any errors in modelling and implementations and improvements).

- Costs for monitoring and evaluation of the model.

- Costs for advocacy activities for the implementation of the model.

- Costs of developing of training programs and training guides and other materials.

- Cost for organisation of trainings to create conditions for the provision of professional services by NGO providers of support for foster families.

- Analysis of the financing needs of foster care and laying the foundations for creation of standard cost, and further advocacy for its integration into the legal framework.

- According to the experts of the SAPI the financial support of UNICEF for the creation of the mobile team and the transport means they provided was very helpful. This is very important for the work with the foster families – some of them are not able to move easily and the mobile teams are very useful. In contrast to the UNICEF project the new project of the Social Protection Agency doesn't foresee transportation, which is considered as something negative for the development of the service. It doesn't foresee material support for 0-3 children either, nor is financial reimbursement of the application fees planned. Another advantage of the project is the financial support of UNICEF for additional experts – psychiatrists, medical doctors, etc. For example, the team of the project in Shumen needed to use these services for some traumatized children.

As far as these expenses are not planned by public authorities, they were necessary and timely.

The value of the benefits of these innovations, which have an effect on the overall development of the national model for foster care, cannot be measured with precision. The effectiveness of these expenses may be inferred by comparison with the equivalent data for the cost of service provision planned in the project "Priemi me".

"Priemi me" project – funded by HRD OP and conducted by ASA – is the only project with similar design and of similar size in Bulgaria and that is why it is used as a referent project for comparative analysis of UNICEF project costs effectiveness. The "Priemi me" project provides support to the process of de-institutionalization of children by creating and implementing sustainable model for development of substitute family care for children placed in institutions and children at risk of abandonment. It can be seen as part of the projects’ package of the Action Plan for implementing the National Strategy "Vision for deinstitutionalization of children in Bulgaria” and of the common policies to promote foster care. Regarding UNICEF pilot project the "Priemi me" project can be considered as an opportunity for scaling up of the achievements of UNICEF project. Moreover, in relation to the funding of the UNICEF foster care project "Priemi me" project allows us to analyse:

1. To what extent in budget planning is taken into account the achievements and results of the UNICEF project and the extent to which continuity of the project by the state institutions was ensured.

2. To what extent were practically considered the recommendations developed within the UNICEF project for the amount of the standard cost for social service "foster care."

3. Efficiency of the UNICEF project compared to planned cost-benefits ratio of the "Priemi me" project.

The “Priemi me” project duration is 26 months and envisages the following results for investments totalling 14,989 455.30 BGN (including 12,741 037.00 BGN from the European Structural Funds and 2 248 418.30 BGN - national contribution):


- The number of children in care institutions and children at risk of abandonment placed in foster families and relatives – 600 children;

- Increased number of foster families – at least 500 persons

- Increased numbers of children, biological families, foster applicants and families and relatives using social services in the community – at least 700 children and adults.

- Increased number of providers of social services in the community – 82;

- Number of trained foster parents – at least 500.

It makes reason to expect that the UNICEF project should contribute to reduction of the transitional costs of implementing the reform of deinstitutionalization. The results of UNICEF project investments should be taken in consideration in the strategic documents for deinstitutionalization and "discounted" from any planned budgets in the relevant priorities and measures.

Furthermore, it can be expected that as a result of the experience of the UNICEF piloting and based on the tools developed by UNICEF and its partner organizations (curriculum and materials), and information campaigns nationwide the average costs per service provider and per child within the project "Priemi me" should be lower than those in the pilot project of UNICEF.

Given the investment made by UNICEF and the results achieved in the nine pilot areas (representing one third of the districts in Bulgaria), it should be expected that these project costs can be (at least partially) discounted from the "Priemi me" project.

Adopted regional strategies for development of social services 2011 - 2015/6 (including foster care) should also contribute to reducing the cost of analysis of regional planning and development of recommendations.

There is not enough information that can demonstrate to what extent the UNICEF project and possibly other projects experience was used to reduce the costs of the “Priemi me” project.

Although the research team addressed a formal letter to request a detailed report about the project "Priemi me", incl. budget breakdown, such was not received by the ASA. Therefore, the research team cannot make grounded conclusions on how that type of potential savings resulting from the implementation of the UNICEF project were taken into account when budgeting the project "Priemi me". It should be noted that in the initial costs of the project “Priemi me” UNICEF team identified several gaps – no costs or limited budgetary lines for meetings and campaigns on selecting foster families, costs of supervision and methodological support to specialized team, foster care overheads and the costs of visits to support foster care and training of teams in foster care. Furthermore, UNICEF team gave a relevant feed-back to ASA and “Priemi me” project team but there is no information available to what extent those financial tips reshaped the “Priemi me” project design and budget.

The average annual cost of service provision within the project "Priemi me" amounts to about 86 000 BGN, while in the UNICEF project is a bit more efficient – the expenses for service supplies are within the UNICEF project are approximately 84 000 BGN per year on average. In other words, the usefulness of the investments made by UNICEF and its partners (given the long-lasting and nationwide effects) are implemented at an relatively low price.

This comparison shows that the cost effectiveness of the project “Priemi me”, the only bigger initiatives in foster care succeeding the UNICEF project, is to some extent doubtful. Besides, with project costs of app. 15 million BGN the project "Priemi me" far outweigh the single cost standard to finance foster care services, developed within the project of UNICEF. The standard states that for an average number of 800 foster families served on average of three years, the average annual cost in the first year should be 2367 million BGN, second year - 4.734 million BGN and the third year - 7.101 million BGN (for a total of just over 14 million BGN in three year period for 800 foster families). A comparison between the UNICEF standard calculations and the costs of the "Priemi me" project shows less results for more money of the ASA’s project costing almost 15 million BGN for a period of 26 months and envisaging minimum of 700 of children and adults served.

V.5.3. Comparative analysis of project costs


The project effectiveness analysis has another key dimension: the comparability of expenses for implementation of similar activities. For instance, the project costs can be compared with the costs set out in the draft standard developed by UNICEF for financing of foster care and the costs of the project "Priemi me".

The combination of direct and indirect expenses of the UNICEF project on annual basis accounts for approximately 10 430 BGN per child (including expenses and salaries for foster parents). This cost is lower than the average cost per child, planned under the project "Priemi me", amounting to approximately 11 530 BGN per child.

In practical terms the annual per child expenses incurred under the UNICEF project are commensurate with the annual costs calculated under the financial standard of foster care developed in the project itself estimated to amount 10 327.2 BGN, which gives grounds to judge that the level of cost effectiveness of the project is satisfactory.

It must be recognised that all these costs are relatively high compared to the cost of providing care in the institutions for children, where economies of scale achieved at the expense of low quality of services and lack of individual approach to the children. Data from the study "Comparative costs-benefits analysis of the systems for child care (CCI 2010.CE.16.0.AT.076)", commissioned by the European Commission (DG Regional Policy), p. 21, 2011, show that considering benefits, costs for foster care are fully justified, given the fact that foster care in all its forms has the highest benefit/cost ratio than other forms of care for children.

A key aspect of assessing the foster care cost is a comparison of potential costs for the prevention of child abandonment. The legal basis for social support of vulnerable groups does not provide sufficient funds in this direction, while "saving" these costs leads to higher price in institutions and in various forms of deinstitutionalization.

Almost all interviewed experts strongly identify poverty as one of the leading causes of abandonment of children from their biologic families. Some professionals share the view that if the reason for the abandonment of children is the families’ poverty, then fewer children will be abandoned if the money intended for children in institutions or foster families are directed to their biologic families in the form of social benefits to prevent institutionalisation, neglecting and abandonment.

“We’ll need the foster care - children will be abandoned, but we can reduce these costs. However, much less public funds than now are invested in foster care families can be used to prevent the abandonment of children from their biologic families due to lack of money. In some cases even with monthly 150-200 BGN children could have been kept in their biologic families. Now we put a lot of money – a biologic family would not receive 600 BGN, which is the cost of foster care.”

Expert in public institution

“To foster family initial package needed to meet the needs of a baby is about 500 BGN – but these funds can go to prevent abandonment of babies. If the system for provision of social support would work effectively, we could achieve a 70% level of prevention of abandonment of children.”

Social Worker

The survey showed that most of interviewed professionals advocate for provision of a stable social policy and support – both financial and professional – in order to ensure the retention of children in biologic families. Definitely, that is the overall goal of the foster care itself: providing the necessary support to biologic parents to restore its ability to return children to their best family environment – the biologic family.

V.5.4. The necessity of the expenditures the project implementation

In the context of economic crisis and limited supply of jobs – especially in so-called "depressive" regions and small towns – the minimalistic policy impact on interest in foster care is not great, but with improving economic conditions minimalistic fiscal policy can be an obstacle to ensuring the targeted number of foster parents necessary for the purposes of deinstitutionalization.

“The financial side is important, it will encourage more foster families. Actually I think there would be more foster families if their payment is real and cover their needs, which I think is not the present situation.”

General practitioner


Practical implementation of the normative basis for social support shows that de facto it is rather an exception when foster families receive more than one time lump-sum grant for occasionally emerging needs of the child. Interviewed foster parents share instances where they felt humiliated when submitted request for a bed for one child:

“There is no sense to seek any additional financial support from institutions.” Foster parents

Often the burden of the shortage of funds for foster children’s maintenance is transferred to foster families. Overall, the interviews show that the funds for salaries and maintenance of children in foster care are considered inadequate.

“It is difficult if you look at the prices for food, diapers, one of the children suffer from an open vertebra and often wet its bed, the others from time to time.”

Foster parent

“You can say that the means are on the brink. Everything must be done very economically. You should be saving. Some enjoy the compassionate relatives providing help by carrying clothes and toys.”

Doctor

“The money is not enough. This girl is now starting as a pupil – I have to buy everything for her because she has grown and now she is very tall and needs new clothes and shoes. Well 200 BGN for eating and dressing are just not enough. And that every month during the winter we need 60 BGN for medications when ill.

Look in Bulgaria the life is complicated, complicated, complicated, and the other issue – the money is not enough. You just have to be a family that can afford this thing. Just costs and they give us very little.”

Foster parent

“Maintenance is not enough, because I do not know who thought and calculated this. Well, I do not want thousands of money, but simply there are needs that must be satisfied. These children grow very quickly. If you buy her winter boots that cost 40 BGN, in the spring I have to buy shoes because she has grown two sizes. From this point of view the money is not enough. At school there is a continuous cost for the theatre, for this for that, textbooks, notebooks… which ruptured, which lost… and again and again. And although small amounts those money is continuously rotating. For example, I cannot let her go to the “forest school” because it costs 200 BGN. Now here is another topic that this school is a bit expensive, but one way or another it costs 150 BGN. Her excursion is 50 BGN.

But here we live on a salary either. Absolutely we do not have any other income and no one helps us. I do want to buy them bicycles, because both grew up and began to look around and want a bike. One bike is 150 BGN upwards. However we need two, because one cannot watch ... But we are doing somehow. There are second hand clothes. Thankfully, not sick as often.”

Foster parent

Within the UNICEF project challenges of this type are addressed through indirect measures: Providing more intensive support from social workers and alleviating the burden by providing funding in advance and additional resources.

Along with that administrative procedures are not flexible enough and do not allow timely receipt of funds to foster families. Technical regulations allow payment of benefits to be delayed more than a month. Respondents – foster parents say they often have to make expenditures in advance and be reimbursed later. This leads to serious tensions in the family budget and in some cases the borrowing is necessary.

“The difficulty is in the beginning, the child came with nothing, 50 days anything of nowhere, nothing can help best than receiving the support in the beginning of placement -especially in the cases of crisis placements. And if possible something can be done about the medicines because if your child gets sick your salary goes for drugs. (Foster mother showed what medications she bought for the child and the cost of approximately 70 BGN.)

If you are unemployed it is hard to become a foster parent. You need to have to funds beforehand. We went several times in the House (Institution): you must buy something for the child and you cannot carry anything


only for him, and then the car – petrol. You need the money early. There are requirements even before starting the training, medical check-ups.”

Foster family

“The first salary and support for the child maintenance are given one month later and the family is struggling to meet the child needs in the first days of the placement.”

Social Worker

This problem is partly addressed in the UNICEF project as some of the foster parents are provided timely advance funds to cover the most necessary expenses – fees and expenses when placing children.

Identified financial challenges may exercise a significant influence on the selection practices of choice of children predetermined by financial arguments: most of foster families opt for children who have no disabilities and diseases (which, among other things, require costly treatment), and avoid most young children, where there are higher costs for special diets.

“The money for foster care for children with disabilities is not enough.” Expert in public institution

“Health Fund provide only that – full stop! The institutions say "We do not care – deal yourself!" And unfortunately it still exists as a practice when a child is born with a disability “specialists” at the hospital, doctors and nurses, to tell the mothers: “Leave it!"... Medical care for such child have not ensured sufficiently with financial support – in visiting medical specialists and for rehabilitation. Money envisaged in the law as support for such a child, are scarce.”

Expert in NGO

Evaluation data show that overall payments to foster families are regular, though in some locations minimum disturbances of the rhythm of their payment have been identified.

In summary: within the framework of the UNICEF project the main financial challenges of foster care are considered and measures that lead to alleviation of the financial barriers to foster parents are developed. In this way the project makes foster parenting accessible for families with limited financial resources.

Substantial contribution of UNICEF project are efforts to analyse the financing needs of foster care and laying the foundations for the elaboration of cost standard for foster care, which has the potential to minimize the gap between the real needs of foster families and public funds for the their services. UNICEF should continue to carry out advocacy activities for normative regulation of the standard and its implementation. The standard will be needed especially in the period after the expiry of the projects implemented by funds from operative programs when the core funding for the expanded foster care will be provided by the state budget.

V.5.5. Involvement of additional non-financial resources

National Public Awareness Campaign

A PR company has been contracted after competitive procedure to develop and support the implementation of the national awareness campaign for Foster care. The launch of the National public awareness campaign “Every child wants a family” was on 20th April 2010 and continued until September 2010.

The partnership with more than 30 media companies has ensured broad pro bono use of mass communication channels. Summary figures of the national awareness campaign are:

Table V.3. Number of publications and broadcasts by type of the media

Media Media partners Number Type

Press 15 128 publications

Radio 14 6765 broadcasts

TV (nationals and regional) 12 3,598 broadcasts

Online 13 77,771,704 impressions


Outdoor 3 473 boards

Indoor advertising 1 380,328 broadcasts

Source: UNICEF “Interim Report June 2011”

As a continuation of the campaign, in December 2010 a 3 month documentary series “Life as it is – Foster families” was launched in partnership with bTV14. The documentary was broadcasted between December 2010 and February 2011 once per week and showed real life stories of 11 foster families. The documentary has been following the families for more than 7 months.

Some of the families participating in the series were included in the IDIs and indicated that they personally know people that took the decision to apply for foster parents after seeing the real life of the foster families and children. Foster care was further promoted during the TV fundraising show “The Magnificent Six 2” – a production of bTV.

In fact the TV programmes are the main informational channel for all survey target groups: Bulgarian

population, foster parents in UNICEF regions and foster parents in other regions. In fact the respondents in

NRP indicate the traditional informational channels as the main sources of information about the foster care.

The personal social networks of the current FPs – the friends and other foster parents - have greater

significance.

Table V.4. Impact of the informational channels on awareness

Media Main group Control group

National representative survey 2012

Television 46,3% 60,5% 88,0%

From friends 25,0% 36,8% 14,6%

Acquaintances who have been foster parents

18,8% 31,6% 6,1%

Information website on the net 10,0% 18,4% 17,7%

Press 12,5% 10,5% 27,4%

Billboards, posters, flyers 7,5% 5,3% 6,4%

Radio 5,0% 5,3% 22,9%

Social media on the net 2,5% 7,9% 9,0%

Other 22,5% 23,7% 1,7%

Source: Foster parents survey, May 2012 (Expert Analyses Group), Open bus May 2012 (OSI-Sofia)

V.6 CONNECTEDNESS

V.6.1. Promotion of inclusion of the Foster care into the child welfare system

The participants and beneficiaries were asked what would be the ideal model for foster care. The ideal

model would be to have more foster families and more children placed under foster care. That would change

attitudes in society as foster care won’t be seen as something exotic any more.

V.6.2. The political will by to mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system

According to UNICEF, up to this stage of the development of the ASA project it is not clear how the coordination work between the municipalities will be organized on the regional level. This is a concern and

14

The Bulgarian TV channel with highest audience rating in Bulgaria for the past couple of years


UNICEF identifies possible opportunities that can support the real implementation of the coordination work, which is considered very important, through the process of regional planning of the social services. Another very serious problem with the ASA project is that the NGO organizations are not included as

participants in this project. The municipalities will be the only player in the project. They will provide the FC

service and are “not allowed” according ASA to contract other organization to provide the service. This is in

contradiction with the practice of other services that the municipalities are providing where NGO and other

entities are eligible to contract the delivery. Some of the municipalities, that had already experience with FC

and understand the important role of the partnership with NGO for the FC provision, have signed

memorandums for cooperation and included those organizations in the process of training and other

activities or just started unofficial cooperation with the organization. In this situation NGO that already have

significant experience with FC will be in the position to raise alternative funds to develop FC and support the

municipalities for FC development and provision. The lack of using the ASA project for developing this

partnership and upgrading the already existing experience is a concerning trend that can be recognized in

other important projects that are implemented by the government as the Social Inclusion project.

V.6.3. The financial standard

UNICEF developed a financial standard for foster care, which was proposed to the state authorities. Into the

recently started governmental project, most of the expenses are taken in consideration by the government

but some not. Although the selection, training, evaluation, support to FF are an essential element of the

activities and therefore of the costs, they are underestimated into the planned state activities and budget.

Moreover, the social services providers can overtake responsibilities in regards with foster parents, but they

do not provide services to children in foster care and they have no competences for placement of children in

foster care, which is mandated to the CPD. Therefore, the basis for funding of this service must also be based

on the number served foster parents.

V.7 COVERAGE

V.7.1. Which are the organization’s own standards for coverage, and how far these have been met?

Desk research and the survey performed during the evaluation shows that all objectives and tasks were

covered during the project and the results were achieved. In most of the documentation, the expected

results were described in general terms and the accents in project goals defers during the almost 3 years of

project implementation. However, the reported by UNICEF numbers at the end of the project show

significant change with regards to the numbers at the start of the project.

Table V.5. Quality changes as per UNICEF conclusions for project implementation15

Objective Status Description

Common approach of work and understanding

Achieved Regional foster care centres

Common training programme

Professionalizing of foster care Achieved Support of the professional foster parents

Change in attitudes – of professionals and society

Achieved Increased awareness

Institutional stereotypes were challenged

New practices – foster care for Achieved 31 new-borns

15


May 2012


new-borns and small children 25 children with disabilities

UNICEF summary figures for the foster parents16:

738 information meetings with over 19 000 participants in the 9 regions of the project;

384 new candidates for foster parents (1/3 attracted by the national public awareness campaign, 1/3 local campaigns and 1/3 by other foster parents. Limited impact by the Labour bureau or other sources.);

From the above – approved 277 (16 volunteer), 48 dropped, 22 in procedure, 37 denied;

238 families, where child was placed within the time of the project ( till Feb 2012);

54 families are passed through taking out the child;

In 40 families was placed children more than once;

In 33 families were place more than one child;

2/3 of the families are couples of two parents;

Half of the foster parents are at age between 40 and 50, 25% are under 40 and over 50 years;

About 60% - have high school graduation;

75% - women;

Diverse ethnicity

V.8 IMPACT NB: The evaluation team is outlining only the potential impact of the project! There are two

methodological reasons for that. On one hand, the evaluation was carried out immediately after the end

of the project, but the impact measurement needs longer post-period in order to trace the after effects

and trends. On the other hand, the last year of the project run in parallel with the governmental project “I

have family, too” and there are contextual cross-effects, which could bias the statistics about institutional

dismantling, abandonment rates, and public awareness and attitudes.

V.8.1. Multiplication of the activities and good practices related with foster care

One of the project outcomes is the increased awareness and understanding of the state governmental and local authorities on the needs and the effects of the foster care. The Government started to invest in foster care funds, human resources and efforts, which will be significant for the deinstitutionalization and development of FC in BG. The ASA initiative (“I have family, too” will hopefully make the FC service easily accessible all over the country. The state authorities currently recognise the implementing regional partners of UNICEF as a partners who provides them with valuable resources and support without which they couldn't handle the service provision.

Focus group held in Sofia with representatives of ASA, SACP, SAPI, ISS and NGOs implementing other projects for FC emphasise on the information campaign’s role for overcoming the prejudices about foster. The participants agreed on the important role of the NGOs in the FC service provision. As per the legislative amendments made in 2008-2009 the NGOs can participate in the whole cycle of FC provision and not only in the trainings. Thus within only two years the foster families’ number enlarged several times thanks to the NGOs that overtook part of the job of the CPDs, which capacity was insufficient.

16


May 2012


V.8.2. Impact of the project on the related to other foster care polices and activities

As per UNICEF opinion expressed in its project reports the Regional Foster Care Centres, the Child Protection Departments, the Child Protection Commissions (which are responsible for approving foster parents), Regional Directorates of Social Assistance and other service providers in the regions agreed and gradually developed common understating on the foster care principles, procedures, roles and responsibilities. Some differences still continued to exist, which are determined to a great extent to the specificities of the regions and the level of development of foster care.

The desk research showed that the nature of the local partnerships was dynamic and evolving along the project duration. At project beginning agreements had to be reached on the roles of the partners in the provision of foster care. Towards project completion topics narrowed down to discussing individual cases and details on the service elements. The positive relations with the institutions were created with informational meetings before the start of the project. UNICEF have organised various meetings at regional and national level, training of the CPD and CCP, etc. all this contributed to the good relations with the institutions.

The NGO implementers indicate that in the beginning CPD and RDSP were afraid of delegating working tasks to an external NGO-social provider. Besides the foster care work was an additional burden for the employees who have already enough work to do with children at risk. Previously their work was considered finished with the placement of the children to institutional care. Now, the foster care meant that the CP employee work continue after the placement of the child under foster care. This is the moment when the constant care of the CPD starts. During the project implementers have overcome the difficulties they had with the public institutions in the beginning. Currently CPD and RDSA in most cases recognise implementing organisations as a partner who provides them with many resources and support without which the institutions couldn’t handle the service provision.

“It is an advantage to work with NGO”; “The social support departments in the municipalities are understaffed and they need the help of external contractors”

(CPD experts)

Government partners, e.g. Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, State Agency for Child Protection and Agency for Social Assistance participated in project events and monitoring process. Conclusions drawn during project implementation were summarized by UNICEF and presented to Government partners, later part of them were included in the propositions for amendments to the Child Protection Act.

The public social experts share positive opinion on the use of the planning on regional level:

“Two things are very valuable from the UNICEF project: 1) to develop the regional planning of FC service, because of the specifics of our municipality, as one municipality should work with the FC service first for the prevention the abandonment of children. To develop the service in prevention and in integration. Regional planning is to encompass both local and common interests. 2) the experience of the RDFC is good in regards with the quality of the FC. Within the region the work is done as per unified standard and approach. This is very big support to the CPDs. This regional approach of training and evaluation was very good… There are many children with parents from other municipalities – it cannot we to take out children and at the same time the other municipalities to continue to place in institutions.” – CPD expert

Within the conversations experts from the entire project regions (included in the evaluation survey) indicate as a positive result of the project and simultaneously as a concern for the continuation of the FC work within new ASA project is the aspect for the training of the RDSA and CPD experts.

“Trainings are absolutely necessary, as in the whole country a lot of experience is accommodated. The UNICEF conference was very important, as we shared this experience. Sharing information is of great importance and should be not only in the project realisation regions but in the whole country. Trainings are constantly needed”

“Yes, there is a big need for more education and training in the field. These seminars should also encompass educators and health professionals. …there should be a uniform methodology and criteria for training seminars for social workers and foster families. The modern model is the network model.”


It is necessary to have many case studies within the trainings. There is accumulated experience already which could allow learning trough more practical cases. We already train other colleagues trough resource centre.” – CPD experts.

A distinguished difference is the attitude towards the role of the FP in the foster care process. Best presented during the focus group in Sofia (including experts from institutions and NGOs), whereas the service providers of FC states that the FF families are partners in all aspects of the process “For us FP are partners and with every placement they get bigger experts than us. Many times in the groups learning is reciprocal. We also learn from them" NGO experts consider FC as a two-sided process and a lot of support is to be provided to FP so that they can fill as colleagues and equals.

On the other side the ASA representative defines that it is the FF who should firstly proof itself

acting as a professional one and then it can become a partner. This client-provider attitude is

predefined by the legislation – e.g. applicants for FF are sent by the CPD with directions.

V.8.3. Impact dismantling of institutions

The UNICEF project was active since June 2009 till February 2012 and in that period a significant increase in

the number children placed in foster care was observed. In fact, during the first year of the project (2009-

2010), the number of foster kids was doubled. By this time, the state project was in its preparation phase,

i.e. has no impact on the data. However, one needs to take under consideration the parallel impact of the

state project, which explains the enormous increase during the second year of the project (2010-2011).

Table V.6. Number of children placed in foster care

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Towards

March, 31 2012

1 9 5 29 48 75 135 198 284 480 1024

Sources: SACP, АSA, 2012

V.8.4. Impact on public awareness and attitudes

The interviewed experts assess the UNICEF informational campaign very positively:

“Thanks to the UNICEF information campaigns, the public became much more aware of the problem and the number of volunteers wishing to become foster parents increased significantly.”

(CPD expert)

“The media engagement is until this moment extremely useful and the strong and different campaigns helped very much. I realize that when things are shifted to regional or local level (I mean the media) the impact is less than if things happen on national media. It would be perfect if this commitment develops further.”

(CPD expert)

“It can be said that thanks to the UNICEF – The Magnificent Six and other events the FC has become a more mediatized topic. People started to be interested in”

(a social worker)

Unfortunately, the national public awareness campaign has rather an imaginary positive affect on the actual knowledge. The proportion of people, who think they know what the “foster care” is, increases from 38% in 2006 to 47% in 2012. However, the further analysis of those data reveals the fact that an increased proportion of people are wrong what foster care is. If we go back to the definition of foster care: “Trained people, paid by the state, who take care of children in their home”, about 61% of the people, which say “Yes, I know” chosen this option both in 2006 and 2012. That is to say there is no impact on the knowledge. Among the people, which say they know “to some extend” what foster care is, the proportion of people that point out this definition even decreased from 64% in 2006 to 51% in 2012. A significant increase is observed


towards understanding that foster care is: “Professionals taking care of children in a little family house”. The proportion of “cognizant respondents”, which chose this option increased from 14% to 19% and the proportion of “supposition respondents” pointing it even doubled from 12% in 2006 to 24% in 2012. Most probably, one of the main reasons for such confusion is the fundraising show “The Magnificent Six”. The show ended by the establishment of several “Little houses for children” and this obviously had an impact on the public opinion. From this point of view, we are able to put a positive evaluation on the awareness component – due to the fact that more people were informed about the need of institutional dismantling. However, the “informational component” had a negative impact i.e. the knowledge about what foster care was actually biased by the campaign, so it requires a negative score.

Graph V.9. Self-assessment of knowledge what the foster care is

Source: Foster parents survey, May 2012 (Expert Analyses Group), Foster parents survey, May 2006 (ИСДП)

Table V.7. Comparison of awareness what the foster care is before and after the project

Which of the following

definitions corresponds to

the actual foster care in

Bulgaria?

Do you know what „FOSTER CARE“ is?

2006 2012

Yes, I do

To some extent

Yes, I do

To some extent

Column Valid %

Professionals taking care of children in a little family house 14% 12% 19% 24%

Trained people, paid by the state, who take care of children in their home 61% 64% 61% 51%

Adoption 18% 17% 14% 13%

Preparation for adoption 7% 7% 5% 12%

Source: Foster parents survey, May 2012 (Expert Analyses Group), Foster parents survey, May 2006 (SAPI)

V.8.5. Organizational capacity building of the implementing partners

UNICEF team and the three organisations implementing the project consider the creation of the RFCC and the regional teams for provision of foster care service to be the success story of the project. At the final national project conference, the presentation of the Samaritans defined the elements that make the team strong and professional and the model of the expert team which to be able to provide a quality service to all related to the foster care. He defines the achievements and the difficulties of the FC teams at the end of the project and on the edge of the transition to the newly implemented state project for FC performed by ASA.

Table V.8. Achievements and difficulties perceived by the partners

ACHIEVEMENTS DIFFICULTIES


Team has accumulated experience; Bigger number of FF; Team is still highly motivated No turnover of experts; Good working conditions – PC for each

expert, car; Experts have initiative, have confidence,

like their job and are satisfied with the results, feel supported, conflicts are easily settled, smile and are polite;

Teams achieve flexible solutions.

Lack of financial stability; Frequent changes in legislation frame; Lack of supportive social services; Lack of reform in the context in which the

FC service develops; The service has direct access to key

systems – education and healthcare, which currently are in crisis.

Source: PP Presentation of Ivan Dimitrov, Samaritans Association, presented during the closure project event on 7-8th

May 2012

During the in-depth interview sessions, The Samaritans pointed out that UNICEF project taught the organization how to achieve the same results with smaller field teams. The SAPI and ISS experts explained that the project helped their teams to structure and much develop their capacity, knowledge and experience in provision services to FC. Almost all experts involved in the project are going to continue their work within the new ASA project for FC.


VI. SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION

The sustainability evaluation allows comparing the policies and measures raised by the project according their social, political and economic impact. Sustainability assessment can be performed by applying different approaches and tools ranging from indicators to sophisticated economic models17. For the sake of the current report we have chosen an evaluation approach based on comparison of two general factors: public acceptance and institutional succession. As it is shown on the graph 11, the public acceptance is regarded as a complex indicator, composed by the public awareness, informational channels, positive attitude shifts, and readiness for personal involvement. The institutional succession is traced by the succession of the structure, continuity in the process, and the accepted system adjustments.

Graph VI.1. Structure of sustainability evaluation

VI.1 The public opinion by May 2012

About 40.1% of the Bulgarian population knows and recognizes the foster care as it is defined in the

legislation: Raising children in a family of trained people, which receive child benefit by the state. To

make comparison, about 56.3% of FF from the main group and 89.5% of FF from the control group

pointed out this definition of foster care.

17

Dalia Štreimikienė, Stasys Girdzijauskas and Liutauras Stoškus. 2009. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 2009. No. 2(48), P. 51-62

public acceptance Institutional succession

Awareness

Information channels

Positive attitude shift

Public support for the

policy

Personal participation

readiness

Personal barriers Personal incentives

Sustainability

Structure

Process

System adjustments


Graph VI.2. Awareness what the foster care is

The TV is the main channel of information – about 88% of the informed people know what the foster

care is because of TV. The second most mentioned channel of information is the newspaper (27.4%),

and the third is the radio (22.9%). The situation with FF from the main and from the control group is

a little bit different – undoubtedly the television is the most important source of information about

the foster care, but these who are engaged in foster care themselves defined “friends” and

“relatives, who have been foster parents” as second in the line of importance source of information

– about 43.8% from the main group and 68.4% from the control group.

Graph VI.3. Information channels

About 47.8% of the informed population (these that said they knew what foster care is) have

changed its attitude towards foster care in positive way in the last some years. About 33.9% said that

they had before and have now completely positive attitude towards foster care as an alternative of

the state institutions for the children whose biological families cannot take care for them.


GraphVI.4.Attitude shift towards foster care

The foster care is still not perceived as a definitive alternative of the state institutional care. Only

about 48.7% of the population find it better then the state institutions. Almost ¼ of the population

demonstrate a big misunderstanding of the idea of the foster care – about 24.8% said “foster care

must lead to adopt the child”.

Graph VI.5.Public opinion about usefulness of the foster care

However 44.7% support the foster care because “it is good for the child to live in a family

environment even if it only for a short term period”, and 37.2% would support it if it is a long term

alternative. The cumulative proportion of non-supporters is 13.3%.


Graph VI.6. Public endorsement of the foster care

19,9% of the population would agree, but 57.4% would never agree to be foster parents.

Graph VI.7. Attitude towards personal involvement in foster parenting

For these who would agree to be foster parents, the most important circumstance is to have the

right to choose – 43.3% want to choose the child’s age, 14.4% want to choose the child’s ethnicity,

51.4% want to choose the child itself and only 25% said they would take a child no matter what it is.

The same results are shown in the national representative survey made by ASA in 2006 year. So the

population attitudes from this point of view didn’t change at all.


Graph VI.8. Personal requirements to accept a child as its foster parent

The 3 most important circumstances that would stop someone to become foster parent are financial

status, age and free time – 39.2% of respondents said “I don’t have enough money to be FP”, 38.7%

said “I’m too old to be FP” and 19.7% said “I don’t have enough time to be FP”. These 3 factors were

the most frequently mentioned as main obstacles in the 2006 representative survey too.

Graph VI.9. Personal barriers to foster parenting

The 3 most important circumstances that would stimulate someone to become foster parent are

more emotional then practical – 50% pointed out “The satisfaction of the good deed”, 13.6% defined

“To help relatives that cannot take care for ther children themselves” and 11.1% said “It will make

my life liveable”. The satisfaction of the good deed was most frequently mentioned 72.5% of the

respondents specified this as a stimulus to be foster parent. It is interesting that 24.9% of the

population in 2006 took up the idea of foster care as a way to “receive some financial resource that

is extremely needed”, but this proportion in 2012 is only 5.7%. This data completely corresponds to

the one gathered from foster families – 97.5% of the main group and 81.6% of the control group said

they became foster parents because of “The satisfaction of the good deed”, 52.5% from main group

and 63.2% from the control group said “It made my life liveable”. About 18.8% said that they had

decided to become foster parents because of the financial support that they extremely needed, and

34.2% of the control group said the same.


Graph VI.10. Personal stimuli to adoption

If we build a brief sustainability checklist based on the public opinion indicators, the outcomes look quite a

controversial. In fact, the public opinion has a very positive attitude towards the foster care, which is a

premise for a sustainable development of the service. However, the weak point is the informational

campaign, which seems to have been misleading. The public knowledge decreased because it was replaced

by the “little family house” due to a not proper media campaign. It is very indicative that the foster care in

the main target regions shows significantly lower understanding of what a FC is in comparison with the

foster parents in the other regions.


Table VI.1. Sustainability checklist based on public opinion indicators

Sub-indicator Description Assessment Grounded on

Awareness 1

Public opinion knowledge of

the definition

Negative The public knowledge decreased

by 6.4%

Awareness 2 Foster parents knowledge of

the definition

Negative The control group (FPs trained

by other institutions) show

33.2% better understanding of

the definition

Information

channels 1

Comparison between the main

group and control group

Negative Among control group is

observed better FP networking

(friends and acquaintances)

Information

channels 2

Comparison between the main

group and control group

Negative Among the control group is

observed better use of the info

channels (TV, project website,

social media)

Positive attitude

shift

Self assessment by the national

representative sample

Positive 47.8% reported positive change.

33.9% reported positive attitude

Participation

readiness

Agreement to be a foster

parent

Somewhat

positive

20% agreement (much more

then the proportion of children

in need). 25% would accept

child without any requirements

Public acceptance Usefulness assessment Positive 66.3% good for children

Only 13% do not endorse FC

VI.2 Sustainability of the UNICEF FC practice

The core aspects of UNICEF FC improvement practice can be recognized in the new project of the Agency for Social Protection. Although both UNICEF and partners share common worries about the development of the EU co-funded project for FC that is led by ASP, some of the main institutional aspects of the UNICEF FC practice are present. Those are the FC expert team, the FC approval commission that acts on a regional level, the fact that FC as a service is prepared to be transmitted for provision to the municipalities as state delegated service (the municipality will hire the FC families). This shift is planned to happen in 2014 with the end of the ASP project. This is a result from the advocacy and capacity building functions and activities UNICEF developed during the project and is a clear sign that UNICEF was successful in addressing the system adjustments regarding FC.

In the same time the service will be managed and implemented on municipality level and the main funding is budgeted per municipality. This situation will impede the application of the planning and managing the service on district level and will directly affect in a negative way the quality and the impact of the service. The postponement of the new Child Protection Law, where the guarantees for the institutional changes were present also creates risk for the sustainability of the intervention. In the end of August 2012 the Council of


Ministers adopted an additional act that regulates the foster care provision and some of the measures that were included in the draft law.

The sustainability of the improved quality aspects of the FC service that UNICEF addressed during the project are also at risk. The threat is that the new government project will slowly develop the Child Protection Departments and municipal capacity to provide FC development towards effectiveness, because it starts with a new teams and providers without experience. This will directly influence in a negative way the quality of the service provision nationally and the care and services that are offered to children and families (FC and biological).

In this context the UNICEF practice has two establishments that have the potential to minimise and react to the possible lack of activity in the system: the developed capacity and practices of FC service in 8 of the 9 district of the UNICEF project activities.

Moreover, the district in risk of ensuring sustainable FC as developed by UNICEF is Stara Zagora where in the government project will participate several municipalities form the district except the municipality of Stara Zagora. UNICEF regional team was based there and the FC experts are not going take part in the staff that will be implementing the service in the other municipalities. In some of them FC is entirely new service to be developed and there are concerns regarding the capacity of the social workers and the development of the service. The positive effect of the project of UNICEF is that the local partner is now well known in the district and could be consulted to multiply the practice. In addition some of the social workers in the CPDs and RDSP were included in the trainings under UNICEF project and could expand further the experience among their new colleagues.

In all other regions the experts from the teams became part of the staff of the new project in the municipalities or joined the Centres for Community Support that will deliver the FC in those municipalities and are managed by the UNICEF partners. Those people will work directly on FC and will be the main factor to keep the positive practice developed. Those regions have the lessons learned from the active communication with the NGO and already developed mechanisms for collaboration. They will be a strong positive factor that will influence the development of FC. In some of the regions under the ASA project was created a second expert team as it was realized that the existing team will not have enough capacity to serve all the FC families in the region.

UNICEF trainings for regional directorates and child protection departments are very important for the enforcement of the foster care model developed under the project and its sustainability. Unlike the regions of the project, no training for state authorities was provided in the control regions studied for this assessment. The experts interviewed in the municipalities in Plovdiv and Sliven did not participated in any training on foster care although some of them do recognise the need of it and count on the future training that will be arranged by ASA within the new national project. Nevertheless, there were experts who explicitly stated that they do not consider this kind of training important as the service is still underdeveloped. In Varna some of the experts did foster care training on a voluntary basis. It was not organised by their institutions and was carried out by local NGO working in the area.

Thanks to the UNICEF project the state authorities got to know the foster care practice in other regions. The field work under this assessment showed that the regional and national meetings were the only source of information and exchange of experience for the social workers in many municipalities of the project. This created professional networks, which could be very useful for future development of the service and follow up and continuance of the UNICEF approach and best practices under the project. For comparison, in the control regions that took part in the current assessment, UNICEF FC practice is unknown and cannot be discerned by the social experts. (An expert from Varna states that she is not aware of the UNICEF project and FC practice neither in her working duties, nor in the media). The lack of national meetings and experience sharing of social workers countrywide in ASA project could be a threat for further dissemination of UNICEF good practices outside its project regions.

- the existence of local FC community that shares and promotes the FC philosophy and values that were disseminated by the UNICEF project.

The FC experts, families, social workers, children, teachers, medical practitioners and supporters are very powerful factor that has the potential to influence the sustainability of the UNICEF FC practice improvement.


They share the same positive attitude for the FC and this is a significant sign of the change in the attitudes that UNICEF project brought. Those people know the positive personal stories and are the main voice to disseminate the FC values and principles. This investment made in people and professionals is an important resource that has the potential to affect in positive way the sustainability of the project.

UNICEF FC practice has also a support from the FC activists, including other FC providers and networks of organizations working on children polices. This group raises different resources to plead with the government and authorities the positive results that UNICEF intervention brought and shares worries about the implementation of the new government project. The organizations that are competing UNICEF for influencing and developing the FC practice and are active in the field have a positive impact too. They are very active in the advocacy and policy monitoring activities and ensure that the development of FC and deinstitutionalization processes in the country are monitored and assessed.

An important factor for the sustainability of the FC practice is UNICEF, its role for the development of social policies and the strategic plans of the organization for the next years. The existence of sustainable commitment to the FC developments is an important sign to the government and the group of providers. As an international organization UNICEF has additional opportunities to interact successfully with the government including the Annual Framework Agreement.

UNICEF will support the new project by consulting ASA on the management of the project. They will focus also on supporting ASA to ensure the quality of the FC service and to develop the capacity on regional level. UNICEF will deliver trainings for the regional commission for FC family assessment and empower them to ensure a strong assessment procedure in respect with quality aspects of FC. Those activities are part of the UNICEF Action Plan for 2012 that was signed with the government. This document is a guarantee that UNICEF will participate in the process and ensures continuity of UNICEF work to support FC development in Bulgaria.

The general approach for influencing and bringing a change to the existing practice of FC is considered by UNICEF as a model of change that can be successfully implemented. It can be applied even in other problem areas. UNICEF is planning to launch a new process that addresses the policies for family social assistance and prevention. This cannot be implemented if the guarantee and influence to the process that UNICEF brings is not present.

There are several risks that are connected with the direct management and implementation of the national policies and projects for deinstitutionalization:

- As already mentioned the draft of the new Child Protection Law was stopped and is expected to be discussed in the parliament not before the next parliament elections in mid 2013. This text contains the basics amendment on the system level that will ensure the implementation of the de-institutionalisation priorities and guarantees for the FC service quality and effective management. The lack of legal guarantees about the FC system and quality related changes (UNICEF practice) will harm the FC implementation and quality provided to children on a national level.

- The on-going implementation of several EU funded projects that are the base of the deinstitutionalization activities in Bulgaria reveals that still the administrative approach for their management is leading. NGO organizations alert that the social system is now concentrated in reporting successful data and this “government order” is followed without ratio and adequate reaction to the real cases. Example of that is directly connected with the implementation of the FC:

NGO FC provider reacts rapidly after the news that a new-born had to be placed in institution 0-3 because of abandonment. The provider has a family that is ready to start the procedure and admit the baby and communicates this with the CPD. CPD do not permit the placement in FC and places the child in institution 0-3 that is in the official closing list under the deinstitutionalization projects. Later CPD will permit FC placement but they need this case for the statistics of successful closure. In this case the child is put in institution without any reason.

- The social assistance administration is still overloaded with cases. Related to this is the simple lack of time to take care about each case. According to NGO providers this goes along with a general lack of interest and enthusiasm about their work as the social workers in the system are underplayed. The


FC practice developed by UNICEF will be expected to deal with those system problems and find sustainability.

In conclusion, the general context and the existence of clear government priority for deinstitutionalization and strategic documents that plan and guide this process along with the commitment to allocate funds and other resources for those policies is a clear sign that UNICEF FC practice was developed as respond of the needs, after 10 years of existing practice, and will influence the FC implementation process in the county.

The sustainability of the multiple aspects and developments that this practice brings will be supported by the individuals (experts and people) that were involved in the project and create the community of UNICEF FC supporters that share same values.

In the same time the social system and the current developments of the government FC project creates risk about replication and active and quality dissemination of the UNICEF practice. In this situation the clear commitment about the future steps for influencing FC that UNICEF will follow is important for the developments.

From the point of view clients of the service (families and children) the sustainability of the quality of the provision as defined by UNICEF practice will be highly dependent on the success of keeping the institutional changes and quality standards alive and advocated. The lack of the institutional sustainability of the practice will influence in a negative way the care for the children and the motivation of the FC families that were recruited and trained during the project.


VII. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

VII.1 CONCLUSIONS

What are the differences, specifics and unification that UNICEF intervention brought to the existing FC practice?

The UNICEF FC practice consists in measures that were developed as a reflection of the existing FC practice. Some of them didn’t existed in the official methodology, other were part of the provisions but didn’t find place in the practice. In the list below the main specifics of the UNICEF FC practice that were identified during the assessment are described:

Clear responsibilities for the different players in the FC service delivery: the Child protection department to be responsible for the accommodation of a child, assessment of the child and tracking the child care, the work with the biological family; the provider to be responsible for the total service delivery to foster parents;

Expert teams that are responsible for the FC: In practice the existence of such teams is a part of the provisions of the official methodology but the FC practice, at the time of the start of the UNICEF project, didn’t follow this principle and FC wasn’t delivered by such specialized teams;

FC care service is designed to be delivered by municipalities and other entities, NGO including, and to become part of the existing system of state delegated activities: the UNICEF FC practice prepares the shift of the service from Directorates for Social Assistance to the municipalities;

Information campaign to support the FC service: a campaign to be launched not before a clear service design is ready to be provided; not just a campaign that aims to raise the number of FC families but campaign that responds to the needs of the children.

Different specifics emerged during the implementation of the project. They represent special issues and aspects of the FC service management and/or delivery:

- Planning and coordination of the FC service on a regional level (in general the service is managed on a municipal level): the need of launching a planning process for the service was something that emerged in connection of making logical link between the existing children in need and the recruitment and preparation of families. Planning on a regional level was a completely new approach in connection of the service;

- Focus on working with babies and children with disabilities: this focus is a result of the planning activities in relation to the FC service. UNICEF approach is not unique in focusing FC services for babies as there are other organizations that develop also this aspect. The specific here is putting this as a priority of the planning process and in the attention of the Social Services representatives as an instrument for closing the entrance to institutions for child care;

- Stable and active relations and communication between Child protection department (social system) and the service providers: this was a weakness of the general system for delivery of FC service; initially CPD and RDSA were afraid of delegating working tasks to the social providers. The development of the FC service though increased the burden for the CPD employees as their work didn’t finish with the placement of the child in FF but they were made responsible for following up with the foster children.

- Active collaboration between all parties on regional level for the implementation of FC: the creation of local FC networks was the real shift to make the system operative in favour of the FC service;

- Service provider that participates and is responsible for the implementation of the whole service to foster families;


- FC service represents shared responsibility between the parties that are involved in the process. The philosophy of FC is co-parenting. That means that foster care is a care shared by professionals + biological family + fosters family;

- Foster families are considered to be partners and professionals, not clients of the service

- Development of additional services to support children and families that are in FC care: additional trainings, counselling and self-help groups of foster parents, etc.

- Additional financial and material support to the foster families: UNICEF have reimbursed 50% of the paid application fees to all professional foster families, material support (trolley, bed, diapers, etc.) was provided to families that took care for 0-6 months old children.

- Development of community of FC supporters that share common understanding for FC philosophy and practice and distributes this FC culture;

- Philosophy of the FC - a clear focus on the prevention: this includes clear understanding of the need of involvement of the biological families and work with children in early ages. For UNICEF it is clear that FC will serve with the deinstitutionalization but main focus should be put on the prevention of institutionalization.

Going back to the DAC criteria, we are able to put an extremely positive overall evaluation of the “Expansion of Foster Care Model in Bulgaria” project. The project gets some extremely high scores on the indicators: relevance, coherence, coordination, and efficiency. Some lower scores are observed by the indicators: coverage, effectiveness, and impact.

Table VII.1. Overall evaluation checklist based on DAC criteria DAC Criteria Evaluation questions Evaluation score Score description

Relevance/ Appropriateness


+ +

Very relevant


+ +

Very relevant

3. How relevant were the trainings and the training materials? + +

Very relevant

4. To what extent is the Foster care project sensitive to cultural, ethnic diversity and gender? + +

Very sensitive

5. How clearly defined and strategically chosen are regions, partners and target groups?

+

Some clearly

(The partners are chosen but regions comes with partners)


Coherence 1. What is the relevance of the Foster care project and its contribution to the Deinstitutionalization Reform in the Bulgaria?

+ + Very relevant

2. Have respective governmental and local experts supported the implementation of the Foster care project? + +

Very good collaboration with governmental and local experts

Effectiveness

1. To what extent did the Foster care project result in better opportunities for child development, access to primary health care, access to education, connection with biological family, etc.

+

Some effectiveness

(connection with biological family rather failed; access to social services vary by regions. However, there is significant improvement in child development)

2. Foster care project managed to address and respond to the diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families?

+

Some effectiveness

(The project had no time and capacity to develop foster care for children with disabilities, children with behavioural problems, and teenagers)

3. To what extent the activities are appropriate, practical and consistent with the objectives and expected results? + +

Very appropriate


1. What is the value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs, national priorities, national and international partners’ policies and global references such as human rights and in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Concluding Recommendations of the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child made to the Bulgaria?

+ +

Very much valuable

2. Has the Foster care project been in any way mainstreamed by MLSP/ASA in the policy documents, standards, trainings? +

Partially mainstreamed

(The training and supervision are reduced; the outside providers are excluded)

3. To what extent has the Foster care project complemented and created linkages as well as synergetic or multiplier effect with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders?

+ +

To the greatest extend

4. To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in improved communication between stakeholders at a local level?

+ +



Efficiency 1. How do the actual costs of the Foster care project compare to benchmarks for similar initiatives (Agency of Social Assistance, municipalities, and social service providers)? (cost-benefit analyses)

+ +

The overall approach of UNICEF has advantages compared to the partial financial costs of the state in foster care.

2. What is the added value of project’s quantitative and qualitative outcomes that can be measured at national level?

+ +

Multiple aspects:

- Developing and testing a pilot model.

- Monitoring and evaluation of the model.

- Advocacy activities for the implementation of the model.

- Developing of training programs and training guides

- Trainings for the provision of professional services by NGO providers - Set up of a standard cost for FC

3. What is the value of the efficiency ratio between the estimated costs and expected results? +

The level of cost effectiveness of the project is satisfactory

4. To what extent the expenditures are necessary for the project implementation and achievement of targets?

+ +


(due to the insufficient public funding)

5. To what extent the project team managed to involve additional non-financial resources – in-kind, volunteer work, etc.

+ +


(media, TC companies, volunteer work)

Connectedness

1. How much did the Foster care project managed to promote inclusion into the Foster care system?

+ +

The planned state intervention is going to be closely based on UNICEF approach

2. Is there a political will by MLSP/ASA/local authorities to bring to scale and mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system?

+ +

The foster care project is very well accepted by the local experts and already mainstreamed

3. How do the actual costs of the Foster care project fit within the government budget plans over the next 3 years?

+

UNICEF set up the standard but the governmental project underestimates the share or training and travel expenses


Coverage 1. Which are the organization’s own standards for coverage, and how far these have been met?

+ + The main target groups were

covered

2. What is the extent of exclusion bias (that is exclusion of groups who should have been covered but were not)?

=

Rather negative

The kids 0-3 are mostly desired for adoption and they have greatest

chance for going out of the system. The children with disabilities,

children with behavioural problems, and teenagers are undesirable neither for adoption, nor for FC

3. What were the main reasons that the intervention provided or failed to provide foster families with assistance and support, proportionate to their need (including international, national/regional and local levels)?

0

The local (regional) context has greater impact both for the

successes and failure. However, the monthly child benefits and the

lower amount of the FP salary are pointed out by the stakeholders, although there were set by the

government.

Impact 1. To what extent the project offers opportunities for multiplication of the activities and good practices related with foster care?

+ +


(The project set up a model and standards)

2. What is the (potential) impact of the project (after the completion) on the related to other foster care polices and activities? +

The public policies are influenced by the approach of UNICEF. However, the government is going to apply it on municipal and not on the regional level

3. What is the impact on the process of dismantling of institutions?

+

Some impact

A lot of children were taken out of the institutions. However, the local experts claim that there is an increasing number of entering children and thus a zero impact is observed: “If we take child out of an institution another one takes its place”

4. What is the impact on factors of abandonment of children in institutions?

0

According to NSI database, the

proportion of children in HPMSCC

is increasing. It is probably needed a longer period in order to have an impact. The project number show regional correlation – very successful in some regions and failure in other

5. What is the impact on public awareness and attitudes? + +

Very positive

6. What is the impact for the organizational development of participating organizations and their capacity to influence social policy?

+ + Very positive

UNICEF influenced FC implementation in Bulgaria by addressing two main aspects of the FC service – system

arrangement of the service and quality of provision. By addressing the formal organization, system and

management issues UNICEF supported several institutional developments/changes that influence and

creates guarantee for the effective delivery of the FC and the de-institutionalization developments in

broader context. Those system interventions had direct positive impact on the general management of the

service and on the results from delivering FC. This work was also the base for preparation of a model

approach for improving the FC implementation by the Agency for Social Assistance and influenced the

development and planning of the service on a national level.


The FC beneficiaries recognize UNICEF as the herald of the tradition of the foster care service and consider it is crucial that UNICEF keeps up the activities in this regard. The main contribution of UNICEF to the foster care development is considered by the beneficiaries to be the regional approach, the training methodology and the information campaign, carried out at national level. Something that will be kept in the new ASA project is the involvement of the social service provider from the beginning to the end of the provision of foster care service.

The FC community including UNICEF representatives, partner organizations and beneficiary of the FC project recognize the UNICEF FC practice influence the development of the FC project of the Agency for Social Assistance. Although both UNICEF and partners share common worries about the development of this EU co-funded project the main institutional aspects of the UNICEF FC practice are present there and this is a clear sign that UNICEF was successful in addressing the system adjustments regarding FC. The concerns of the partners are addressing the quality aspects of FC service provision including the underestimation of the importance of the training that is much shorter than the training program that was developed by UNICEF; not enough investment and attention to the FC teams that puts in risk the quality of the service that will be provided; the NGO organizations are not included as participants in this project; the new project does not foresee work with the biological families and with the children after the placement in foster family.

UNICEF considers that the combination between the elements of their FC activity is the model of

problem areas as policies for family social assistance and prevention.

The UNICEF FC project indicates for the next important issues that have to become focus of the FC work in

Bulgaria:

biological families and the active work in addressing the main FC principle the child to be reintegrated in the bio family if this is its best interest;

the discussion about the FC family and adopters should be put on the focus. International practice shows that the clear division between the two roles strengthen the FC delivery and quality.

A need of collecting and evaluation of enough information that will become the evidence base about the development of FC and de-institutionalization in Bulgaria. Special focus on data that reveal the core of the principles of this policy

Sustainability of the introduced FC practice is directly linked to the function of the social system and the

ability the system to take up and implement the piloted practice. In the context of f lack of holistic action and

strategy for the social system the established local FC communities, local practices, direct results in

connection of children and good relations with ASA locally will act as a supporter to that process. UNICEF

role as a guarantee and monitor to this process is very important.


VII.2 LESSONS LEARNED

The following chart lists the lessons learned for the UNICEF project. It is important to note that not

only failures or shortcomings are included but successes as well. It is in order to indicate what wider

relevance there might be out of the project.

Clear responsibilities for the different players in the FC service delivery. UNICEF project set up clear roles of the state (the Child protection departments) and the providers. The partial outsourcing of the social work additionally increases awareness and facilitates the communication with the potential foster parents.

FC care service is designed to be delivered by municipalities and other entities, including NGO, and to become part of the existing system of state delegated activities. The UNICEF FC practice prepares the shift of the service from Directorates for Social Assistance to the municipalities. Due to preliminary synchronisation with the existing system it was recognized by the government and finally mainstreamed.

Information campaign to support the FC service: The campaign was intended to be launched not before a clear service design is ready to be provided. However, the UNICEF used the media opportunities and pro bono participation, which raised the number of FC families. Unfortunately, this biased the mass understanding what the foster care is and probably could play a negative role on the future development of the service potential. Therefore a new informational campaign is needed since there is a clear service pattern adopted by the governmental institutions since August 2012.

Planning and coordination of the FC service on a regional level: Planning the recruitment and training of families on a regional level was a completely new approach for Bulgaria. At first it was rejected by the governmental experts but lately it became a part of the new legislative changes and regulations. This approach broadens opportunities for finding the most suitable foster family for the existing children in need, keeping a fair spatial proximity to the biological family.

Babies and children with disabilities: During the second year of the project a focus on the new-born babies and children with disabilities was set up as an instrument for closing the entrance to institutions for child care. The fostering of the babies was rather successful. Unfortunately, due to the existing public stereotypes and prejudices the foster care for children with disabilities failed. There is a need of an additional public campaign on the need of equal opportunities in that respect. It was mentioned by some experts that at first place should come the work with medical doctors and medical professionals in the maternity hospitals, as far as they are first to create positive attitude and to prevent abandoning of disabled children.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are written with respect to the requirement for relevance to the evaluation

object, evidence based procedure, and in relation with relevant target groups. The list consists not only of

recommendation about the coping with the failures but aslo reassure the good practices.

Table VIII.1. Recommendations

Object Evidence/conclusion Target groups priorities for

action

potential

constraints

Result Based

Management

Defined adequate expected

results, based on appropriate

well timed and

covering all major

1. Legislative changes


analysis needs 2. Insufficient funding

Result Based

Management

Clearly identified project

beneficiaries

new-borns and

children of age 0-3,

clearly defined as

most vulnerable

and best suited for

the FC service

A shortage with the

work of the

biological families

The biological families

often want to “forget”

about the child and

refuse to cooperate

Result Based

Management

not presented any procedure for

identification and management

of the risks during

implementation

Discussions

between partners

Clear written

procedures on risk

management

consistent with the

state regulation and

local governmental

structures

Risk of losing potential

partners in some regions

Training programme developed unified training

programmes for foster care

teams and foster parents

Trainers

Trainees

Local social workers

Nationwide

implementation of

the programme

Legislative changes

foster care for new-

born babies

there is an institutional

stereotype that babies are not

suitable for breeding by foster

parents

Local social workers

Staff into maternity

hospitals

In order to

overcome the

institutional

stereotypes a

trainings and

informational

campaign is needed

The doctors and most of

the social workers

usually support the

institutional cares and

may reject such a

campaign as “too liberal”

financial standard for

the Foster Care

service

essential element of the

activities and costs are the

selection, training, evaluation,

support to FF

Foster families Continuation of

advocacy efforts

Legislation change

needed

Additional state funding

needed

National Public

Awareness Campaign

The campaign was misleading

and the audience thinks that

know what the FC is but it is a

wrong understanding

Bulgarian

population,

Potential foster

parents

Preliminary

marketing tests of

the effect of the PR

messages

Time consuming

More costly campaign

IX. GENDER AND HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING CHILD RIGHTS

IX.1 HUMAN RIGHTS BASED APPROACH IN THE PROJECT DESIGN

Both projects of ISS and SAPI and Samaritans Association are designed to focus on the reduction of the

number of children living in institutions and development of professional foster care and thus ensuring

implementation of the right of the child to live in a family environment.

The children rights are explicitly declared as longer term result and in the PCA/BULA/2010/02 between

UNICEF Bulgaria and Samaritans Association (p.1) and as a matter of project consistency with the principles

of the national and international legislation on child protection and of the international standards for

treating children at risk in the PCA/BULA/2011/03 with the Consortium of “International Social Services –

Bulgaria” Foundation (ISS – Bulgaria) as leading organization and “Social Activities and Practices Institute”

Association (SAPI) as partner (p.2). Furthermore, the Consortium declares that the project is based on the


modern social work principles like “Placing the best interest of the child at the centre of attention of the

specialists” and “Individualization of work based on an assessment of the needs of the child or parent”. Those

principles are consistently followed in all stages of project implementation.

The review of data collection and analysis shows that gender dimension and human rights including child

rights were essential part of indicators monitored during the process of project implementation. UNICEF

project team identified a set of indicators to monitor the effectiveness of interventions among diversity of

beneficiary groups, incl. gender, family status, age, disability and ethnic belonging, parents education,

possible previous accommodation in foster care and other forms of foster care, geographical distribution of

services etc.

As regards the data on ethnic identity it is not enough clear whether the different implementing

organisations used the same methodology and how the teams dealt with the cases of possible conflicts of

three different sources of information on children’s ethnic identity: child self-identification, biological

parents’ self-identification and data from the official registers.

Although the system of indicators in the field of human and child rights was developed within the project,

there are few examples of how the data was analysed with a view to develop flexible measures to address

the specific issues of vulnerable groups. The reports on project implementation do not deal in detail with the

gender and human rights dimensions of project implementation and gender equality and human rights

aspect including child rights are not explicitly stressed as part of internal process of monitoring and self-

evaluation of the project.

IX.2 CAPACITY OF FOSTER FAMILIES IN THE AREA OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In the first national training program, which has been developed in 2003, child rights are only partially

discussed and a separate topic on their rights was not designed (Ministry of Labour and Social Policy No

ПK19/83 of 10.12.2003, Training program for candidates for foster families).

The UNICEF project demonstrates progress in this regard, though not as large as would be needed for a full-

fledged and complete training for foster families. The methodology of training of foster parents includes the

topic on the rights and child protection. (Topic 1: Rights and Child Protection) with the following purpose: to

raise the understanding of the rights of the child and the measures that had taken by the state for child

rights violation. This topic does not include a comprehensive review of all the rights of the child set in the

CRC, but only those "with priority importance."

In the project methodology the duration of training in the field of children's rights also seems insufficient. It

envisages just 10 minutes of exercise on the topic (page 53. “Occupation: the system of child protection,

Exercise 1. Brainstorming "Rights of the Child" (10 minutes)”.

There are no project indicators developed to assess the level of training of foster parents. The mechanisms

for assessing the effectiveness of the training in respect to human and child rights are unclear. There is no

data for collected and analysed feedback for learning and skills acquisition for protection of the child rights.

As part of the evaluation a case was detected in which a foster parent violates the child rights related to

healthy eating and life style. The immediate reaction of the project team is fast and adequate: the problem is

identified and the child is promptly taken out from the foster family. However, there is lack of clarity on the

way in which the causes and weaknesses, that led to the error in the selection of foster parents, were

analysed and what measures are taken to prevent similar mistakes in the future and how and who is

responsible for the weaknesses. There is also lack of clarity in terms of what measures are taken by project


teams to disseminate internally (among the partners) or nationally information on the lessons learnt and

risks to protect the child and foster families’ rights better.

IX.3 HUMAN AND CHILD RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE WITHIN THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation team is well prepared and aware about basic human and children’s rights. The social

workers are both theoretically and in practical terms prepared in the area of human rights based on their

academic qualifications and experience gained during their field work for beneficiaries’ rights protection.

All local project teams consist predominantly of females and there are few if any representatives of ethnic

minorities, while the majority of children accommodated in foster care and bulk of foster care families

served in the regions with overwhelming number of ethnic minorities do not belong to the majority group.

The project approach to human rights protection is based on the methodology for foster care used and

updated in the framework of the project. The methodology includes basic requirement to drafted contract

(art. 7.2.1.) for provision of foster care services integral part of which is the responsibility of foster family and

obligations of the duty-bearers to fulfil obligations related to the children’s rights. Those responsibilities and

duties are focused on the best interest of the children and cover all major aspects of rights protection of the

accommodated in foster care children (personal needs, emotional support, education, health, regular

contacts with biological family etc.).

IX.3.1.Right to live in family environment

The Preamble of CRC states that “recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his

or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and

understanding”. In addition it is said in the CRC that those rights need to be addressed immediately after

birth and to the maximum extent (Article 6, 2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible

the survival and development of the child. And Article 7, 1. The child shall be registered immediately after

birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible,

the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. Article 27, 1. States Parties recognize the right of

every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social

development.)

The UNICEF project has contributed to provision of immediate access to this right – just after the birth of

children. Procedural delay is not in the best interest of the children since in the meantime they have to stay

in institutions. The UNICEF project developed a good example of avoiding any institutionalisation. In the

course of the project implementation in Shumen region the team developed and tested a successful model

of interaction with the maternity ward of the district hospital. In the region of Shumen numbers of children

are placed after birth directly in a foster family – without having to enter the institution. This example is

indicative of adequate and at the earliest possible approach to care and prevent institutionalization of

children.

However, it should be noted that in this respect the work with biological families in the UNICEF project, as

well as in the whole system of social care, needs to be further encouraged to ensure fullest implementation

of these rights and also the right according to the art. Article 8. 1. of the CRC – “States Parties undertake to

respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations

as recognized by law without unlawful interference”.

In the accommodation contract there is a detailed description of foster families’ rights – and they are also

focused on the best interest of the children. However, the evaluation data show that both within the project


and in the control areas rights of biological families are not fully realized as set in the approved methodology

for foster care.

Often, the low capacity of the biological parents – low education, low literacy and legal culture, lack of

experience in interacting with institutions – results in poor implementation of the rights of biological

parents: to express their opinion when a foster family is chosen; to participate in the development of plan of

care for the child, including any medical examinations; to receive regular information about accommodated

child; to request and require services for the accommodated child, and services to enhance parental

capacity.

These deficits of the biological parents are not adequately addressed not only within the project but also in

the whole system of foster care provision and this counteract to the reintegration of children in their

biological families.

Moreover, there are only limited positive examples of support provided from foster parents to biological

parents, as it is stipulated in the methodology and contracts for foster care.

IX.3.2. Non-discrimination

The project is in line with the principle of respect for human rights and non-discrimination, in particular with

CRC – Article 2, “1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to

each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her

parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or

social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.” and “2. States Parties shall take all appropriate

measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis

of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family

members.”

The proportion of ethnic minority children placed in foster care is quite significant and over 80% of foster

parents are from ethnic majority. Therefore, considerable number of ethnic minority children is placed in

foster families self-identified as ethnic majority.

Table IX.1. Ethnic affiliation of the foster parents and foster children

Ethnicity Foster Parents Children

Bulgarian 81,3% 24,0%

Turks 8,1% 15,6%

Roma 9,5% 47,6%

Missing data 0,0% 9,1%

Other 1,2% 3,6%

Besides, the project has achieved very good results in the mobilization of Roma in foster care. Roma are one

of the most vulnerable for discrimination minorities in Bulgaria. Nevertheless, the UNICEF project fights with

negative prejudices towards Roma and reveals their potential to contribute to development of foster care as

care-givers and not as care-consumers. The share of Roma among foster parents participating in the UNICEF

project is about two times greater than the proportion of Roma in the general population.

IX.3.3. Health

The children’s right to health care and services is declared in the Article 24: “1. States Parties recognize the

right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the

treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived

of his or her right of access to such health care services.”


The practical realization of the right to health is related to provision of a number of key conditions. In the

case of the UNICEF project the most important one is the means of transportation to centres of high quality

health care. Interviewed health professionals (doctors and GPs) reported that in some foster families,

especially those situated in remote towns and villages with poor transport links with major cities (where

there is quality medical care), the right of access to health care is not always fully respected. Often foster

parents do not have enough means of transport, which is extremely worrying, especially in emergencies.

IX.3.4. Education

In accordance to Article 28, “1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to

achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity.”

The project evaluation discovered a number of cases of denial or obstruction of enrolment of children from

foster families in kindergartens or schools. In many cases educational institutions are using the pretext that,

at the time of placement in foster care, the places in the kindergarten are already taken and there is no free

capacity for the children accommodated in foster care through the educational year. The practical

experience shows that, usually, larger and well-focused resources and efforts are needed in order to support

the process of foster children’s adaptation to the school / kindergarten. They include individual work which

is difficult to finance in the circumstances of “optimized” school system. Within the project there are

examples of support rendered by social workers to foster families to enrol and adapt foster children in

kindergartens and schools. However, it is beyond the capabilities of the project teams to provide daily

support to children in school / kindergarten and this type of support is in the competence of the respective

institutions, many of which not always have the will and the necessary resources to provide it.

In conclusion, as a whole the UNICEF project is implemented in compliance with the rules and standards for

protection of human rights, including the rights of the children. The project contributes to protection of key

children’s rights set in CRC. Although, the appropriate indicators are developed to monitor the project’s

process and outcomes in the human rights perspective, the human right protection is not a central activity in

this project are not there are no targeted efforts identified to improve the achievements in respect to

human rights (incl. gender, equity & child rights).

X. APPENDIXES List

1. Appendix 1 Terms of Reference

2. Appendix 2 Quantitative data on district level- activities, beneficiaries, results

3. Appendix 3 Regional Data for FC – UNICEF

4. Appendix 4 UNICEF Foster care preliminary project plan (Bulgarian)

5. Appendix 5 UNICEF foster care plan 2011 (Bulgarian)

6. Appendix 6 Case studies from UNICEF reports

7. Appendix 7 Case study biological families (in Bulgarian)

8. Appendix 8 Evaluation criteria and questions

9. Appendix 9 The distribution of the different data gathering tools and the respective

stakeholders by the selected regions

10. Appendix 10 List of the documents reviewed during the desk research

11. Appendix 11 Stakeholders cross-check by data gathering tools

12. Appendix 12 Detailed information about data limitations

13. Appendix 13 Entry and Exit of institutions by June 2011

14. Appendix 14 Issued licences and number of services


XI. Appendix 1 Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference

for a consultant or organisation


Context

In Bulgaria the last couple of years substantial efforts in changing the old social protection system

and developing modern community based type of services in support of children at risk are observed.

As part of the deinstitutionalization process and the determination to diminish the number of

placement of children in institutions the development of alternative services became a priority for the

government of Bulgaria. One of them, foster care, represents a family based model of care, which

provides children with a greater opportunity to temporally live or grow in a family environment and

develop their full potential.

In Bulgaria foster care was first introduced in 1990s with the objective of providing family based

service for children who could eventually be integrated in their biological family at a later stage.

However, sustainable results were not observed until recently, but compared to other countries in the

region, in Bulgaria foster care system is still underdeveloped. UNICEF has been providing support

to develop foster care, including a research from 2006 looking into the stumbling-blocks of process

of development of this type of care in Bulgaria. The results showed two key reasons: very low level

of knowledge amongst the public of what foster care is, and capacity of Child Protection

Departments, both human and financial, assessed to be very insufficient to support the promotion and

development of the new service.

In 2008 UNICEF supported a pilot project for provision of foster care at regional level in the region

of Stara Zagora. Since 2009 UNICEF extended the project to 8 more regions of the country – Sofia,

Sofia region, Pernik, Veliko Turnovo, Gabrovo, Turgovishte, Shumen, Smolyan. The project

included: wide public awareness campaign – national and local; building capacity of private service

providers and their specialized teams for provision of information campaigns, assessment and

training of candidates for foster parents and support for the matching between children and families

and post-placement support to foster parents; building capacity of the child protection bodies in the

pilot regions; development of a common approach to foster care - unified methodology, procedures,

training programme. Regional Foster Care Centres were established in all 9 regions. The project was

completed in December 2011 with some follow-up activities for ensuring sustainability continuing in

2012.

The project led to a 300% increase of the number of foster parents in the country, introduction of

foster care for new-born babies and increase in awareness on foster care - at the beginning of the

project there were about 300 foster families and now there are more than 1000. This type of care

proved to be main instrument of the process of closing of institutions, both as a tool for prevention

and reintegration. The project duration was sufficient for problems to be revealed in legislation and

implementation practice. Furthermore, the need of additional services to children placed in foster

care also became obvious.


For that reason an evaluation of the project implementation is necessary in order to provide with

recommendations for improvement of foster care in general and UNICEF planning of further

activities in particular.

Besides, the Government initiated a national project (general info attached), which will be

implemented until 2014 in 82 municipalities in the country. Although the project has just been

launched the lessons learned from UNICEF experience would be instrumental for its successful

implementation. Therefore this evaluation will be very useful to national and local authorities and

should provide a useful contribution to improving services provided to vulnerable children.

Purpose and use, objectives and scope

The evaluation is being conducted to review the implementation of UNICEF Foster care Project, the

results achieved in regards of best interest if children and to assess the foster care service in Bulgaria

as well as its sustainable development after the end of the project.

The main objective of the evaluation is to measure the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and

sustainability of the intervention. The project has to be evaluated in relation with its external

environment, in particular in relation with government plans and with similar approaches or

programme interventions tested by other partners.

The specific objectives include:

an evaluation of whether the planned objectives and results of the project have been achieved

considering effectiveness;

an evaluation on whether child wellbeing has been in the centre of the project and whether it has

brought positive impact on vulnerable children;


identification of gaps in the planning and implementation of the project;

The scope and focus of the evaluation takes into consideration the following criteria and evaluation questions: Relevance

What is the relevance of the developed Foster care services with regards to four criteria, i.e. availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability?

What is the value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs, national priorities, national and international partners’ policies and global references such as human rights and in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Concluding Recommendations of the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child made to the Bulgaria?

What is the relevance of the Foster care project and its contribution to the Deinstitutionalisation Reform in the Bulgaria?

For policy actors, what is the relevance of the Foster care project in relation to their involvement in planning and design of policies related to foster care?

How relevant were the trainings and the training materials? Effectiveness in terms of outcomes for children placed in foster care

To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in better opportunities for child development, access to primary health care, access to education, connection with biological family, etc.

At local level in terms of outcomes for communities and parents

To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in improved communication between


stakeholders at a local level? Efficiency

How do the actual costs of the Foster care project compare to benchmarks for similar initiatives (Agency of Social Assistance, municipalities, social service providers)? How do the actual costs of the Foster care project fit within the government budget plans over the next 3- years?

Inclusiveness

How much did the Foster care project managed to promote inclusion into the Foster care system?

How much did the Foster care project managed to address and respond to the diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families?

To what extend is the Foster care project sensitive to cultural, ethnic diversity and gender? Sustainability

Has the Foster care project been in any way mainstreamed by MLSP/ASA in the policy documents, standards, trainings?

What are there any quantitative or qualitative outcomes that can be measured at national level?

To what extent has the Foster care project complemented and created linkages as well as synergetic or multiplier effect with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders?

Have respective governmental and local experts supported the implementation of the Foster care project?

Is there a political will by MLSP/ASA/local authorities to bring to scale and mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system?

In addition to this, the following approaches and issues should be considered: Results-Based Management In examining the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes and sustainability of the Foster care project, the external evaluation will explore some underlying questions as to how the project was designed and managed and what information and data stakeholders had access to and used to take key decisions in design and implementation. Human Rights-Based Approach to Programming The goal of the current Bulgaria country programme is to support the Government in meeting its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Observation and Recommendations made by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The evaluation will have to show as well how the Foster care project contributed to the

implementation of the CRC recommendation on alternative care (CRC/C/BGR/CO/2, 36):

The Committee recommends that the State party review its policies on alternative

care for children deprived of a family with a view to developing a more integrated and

accountable system of care and support by:

a) Strengthening and expanding the foster care system through improved training of social workers

and increased counselling and support for foster families;

b) Enhancing coordination between all persons involved in the care of children deprived of a family

environment, including police, social workers, foster families and the staff of public and private

orphanages;

c) Establishing a set of standards and procedures for all public and private organizations working

with these children that encompass the principles of the Convention, particularly the best

interests of the child and respect for the views of the child, and ensure that their placement is

periodically reviewed, in accordance with article 25 of the Convention;


d) Taking steps to regularly monitor the status of children in kinship homes, foster care, pre-

adoptive homes and other care institutions;

e) Ensuring regular visitations and inspections of all alternative-care facilities;

f) Providing an independent child accessible complaints mechanism; and

g) Developing care plans for each child in care which will be reviewed on a regular basis.

The assessment should be based on the different phases of the work of the foster care teams:

Promotion of foster care;

Training and assessment of the candidates for foster parents;

Matching children with foster parents;

Placement of the child;

Support to the families and the children;

Support to reintegration of families in biological families/adoptive parents.

The process should include:

impact on the development of children placed in foster care;

review of the activities under the project with view of their effectiveness and achievement of

planned results;

evaluation of the organisational capacity of the 3 NGOs implementing the project to continue

working in foster care;

evaluation of the advocating and lobbying capacity of UNICEF team regarding foster care;

evaluation of the impact of the project on the work of professionals, decision and policy makers

active in the area of foster care;

assessment of the interaction of the project team with other non-governmental organisations

working in the field of foster care and their contribution to the policies on national level;

quality of the proposed services;

satisfaction of foster parents from the provided training and support;

summative evaluation on the usefulness of training and other materials prepared in the

framework of the project;

foster care impact on deinstitutionalisation;

social and behavioural change towards foster care;

possible dissemination of the developed model;

The evaluation of the project should be focused on the results to children facing inequities as

children from institutions, abandoned babies, children from minorities, children with disabilities and

other vulnerable children.

The evaluation should include UNICEF team, members of the project team, foster families, children,

social workers, experts from relevant institutions and local authorities, NGOs developing foster care

outside of UNICEF project.

The period to be covered by the evaluation is July 2009 – March 2012

The geographic coverage of the evaluation is 3 regions where the Project teams have been active

(identified jointly by the Evaluation team and UNICEF) and 2 where other organisations or local

authorities are developing foster care.

Main Stakeholders include UNICEF team and consultants, responsible for project coordination, the

three organisations implementing the project, other NGOs providing services related to foster care,

Child Protection Departments, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Agency for Social Assistance,

local authorities, foster parents, biological parents, children placed in foster care, child rights

monitoring bodies like State Agency for Child Protection and Ombudsman office.


All the stakeholders should be involved in different stage of the evaluation process. Scenarios for

focus group discussions, questionnaires and interview sheets will be designed by the Evaluation

Team and reviewed by UNICEF team. When possible, quality interviews with children placed in

foster care (including those who already left their foster parents), should be included, as well as

interviews with extended family networks and communities. If identified, other stakeholders could

be added at a later stage.

Based on the evaluation recommendation should be prepared, with a special focus on:

Monitoring the quality and non-violation of the rights of children placed in foster families

Risks for the sustainability of the services

Risks for the quality of the services for children and for foster parents

Risks related to contact with biological parents and possible reintegration

Services that should be additionally developed (in relation to staff, biological and foster parents,

children)

lesson learning and good practice

Requirements for effective evaluation recommendations:

To ensure programmatic and technical relevance, key stakeholders should be consulted during

the development of recommendations;

The evaluation team should highlight key strategic recommendations, suggesting an appropriate

sequencing in the implementation of recommendations whenever possible;

Recommendations should be firmly based on evidence and analysis;

Recommendations should clearly identify the specific operational units/offices/divisions

responsible for its implementation;

The evaluation is undertaken at this specific point in time because the project is towards its end and

also government is starting a big intervention in the field of foster care.

The evaluation results will be disseminated by UNICEF team to relevant stakeholders through

publishing a summary of the evaluation, designated meeting with relevant authorities, discussions

towards planning future activities, and suggestion for legislative amendments. Some of the

stakeholders will be involved in reviewing the draft report.

List of intended users of the evaluation - UNICEF, state administration, local administration, NGOs,

foster parents, general public, donors, international partners.

The main sources of info will be Agency for Social Assistance and State Agency for Child Protection

data, and data and information provided by UNICEF and the implementing NGOs.

Evaluation method includes triangulation, preferably with analysis of both qualitative and

quantitative data and with a range of stakeholders.

For the need of the evaluation, the evaluators will have access to:

the project plan;

the government project;

reports prepared within the project implementation;

a grill of indicators and data filled by the implementing organisations;

official data on foster care;

Other existing information sources will be also made available to the evaluation team.


Methodology

UNICEF office is not providing a specific methodology but this ToR incorporates what the

methodology needs to be based on towards ensuring a representative sample and accurate analysis,

with a focus on vulnerable groups.

The evaluation methodology should be defined by the Evaluation team but it should be will be

guided by the Norms and Standards of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG), as well as the

ethical guidelines18

. The evaluation methodology should take into account the overall purposes of the

evaluation, as well as the needs of the users and other stakeholders. The design of the methodological

plan and carry out of the evaluation has to be based on the answers of the issues addressed in the

section “Purpose, objectives and scope “.

The evaluation should be based on data and documents analyses and interviews/focus groups with

the above listed stakeholders.

Some of the recommended tools for collecting information should be as follows:

Desk review of documents related to the Foster Care project – e.g. reports, budgets, minutes of

meetings, etc.;

Review of national documents, existing analyses, evaluations and documentation of similar

projects implemented by other partners;

Key informant interviews - involves in-depth discussions with individuals (could be conducted

over the telephone or by e-mail in some cases); Field Observations in some of the regions where

Foster Care project has been implemented: focus discussions with children, review of school

records and interviews of principals, teachers, administrators, pupils, parents, and other

stakeholders (local NGOs and community-based associations involved in the project). Necessary

tools such as focus group guides, interview protocols and questionnaires will be developed.

Group interviews;

Direct observations;

Questionnaire surveys;

Meetings and Consultations with policy makers;

As emphasised above, the evaluation questions should reflect relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,

impact and sustainability of the project interventions.

The questions should correspond to the criteria stated in key equity-focused evaluation questions19

and reflect relevant human rights, child rights and gender equality aspects. Evaluation will follow

the UNEG Norms and standards20

. Questions related to HRBA and result based management should

be included within each evaluation criteria.

As a whole, the methodology should respond to the following questions:

How should the evaluation process be managed?

What information needs to be collected?

What tools should be used to collect and analyse information?

How should the results be cross-checked, triangulated, and validated?

How should the evaluation results be presented?

18

http://www.uneval.org/search/index.jsp?q=ETHICAL+GUIDELINES 19

Please see Guidance and book on Equity-focused evaluation for some example of equity-focused evaluations organized by evaluation criteria and relevant UNICEF guidelines http://www.uneval.org/papersandpubs/documentdetail.jsp?doc_id=980 20

http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4


How can use of the evaluation results be encouraged?

Principles of the evaluation

Standard OECD DAC Criteria include: Relevance; Effectiveness; Efficiency; Sustainability; Impact;

Coverage; Coordination; Coherence; Protection

The evaluator should base the evaluation on the following principles:

Utility: Design and implement the evaluation so that it will be useful to its intended users.

Sensitivity to context: Take into account the environment in which the evaluation is being designed

and carried out.

Participation and negotiation: Include internal and external intended users in the entire evaluation

cycle.

Learning by doing: Promote learning from the evaluation process by involving people in the

evaluation process.

Systematic documentation: Document the findings and suggestions so they are substantiated and

can be reflected on later.

Integrity and transparency: Encourage an open and honest evaluation process to ensure fairness

and acceptance of the evaluation’s procedures and results.

Feasibility: The evaluation should be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and cost-effective.

Propriety: The evaluation should be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the

welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.

Accuracy: The evaluation should provide sound information (i.e. trustworthy sources, valid and

reliable information, justified conclusions, etc.) on the object of the evaluation

It is not clear whether children including those currently in care and those who have already left state

institutions were consulted in the design of this evaluation.

Work Plan and expected deliverable

1. Provision of draft methodology and plan of the evaluation - 2 April

2. Start of the evaluation - 6 April

3. Submission of first draft of the report (in English) – 20 April

4. Submission first draft of recommendations (in English) – 20 April

5. Submission of final report, final recommendations and a summary (in English)– 2 May

Structure of Evaluation report

The evaluation report to be produced must be compliant with the UNICEF Evaluation report

standards21

.

Payment schedule

The contracted evaluator or evaluation team will be paid as follows: 30% - after signing of contract;

40 % - after delivery of the first draft report 30 % - after submission of final report.

21

http://intranet.unicef.org/epp/evalsite.nsf/0/2BDF97BB3F789849852577E500680BF6/$FILE/UNEG_UNICEF%20Eval%20Report%20Standards.pdf and the GEROS Quality Assessment System


Evaluation team qualifications

The evaluation team has to consist of external national experts selected based on the following

criteria:

Experience in conducting organisational and project evaluations;

Experience in design and conducting of quantitative and qualitative assessments

Expertise in issues related to child wellbeing;

Excellent communication, analytical and report writing skill;

Ability to keep with strict deadlines;

Sensitive to beliefs and act with integrity and respect to all stakeholders;

Knowledge of countries in the region which are also going through similar reforms is an asset;

Monitoring and evaluation of the assignment

The selected contractor will work under the direct supervision of the UNICEF Project Officer,

“Monitoring and Evaluation”. In the absence of the above, the contractor is expected to report to the

Programme Officer “Social services”.

The Evaluation Team will be responsible for conducting the desk review of the initiative, organizing

the technical preparation of the field visits (methodology, tools, scenarios for focus group

discussions, questionnaires, interview sheets, observation sheets), and writing the draft and final

reports. The Evaluation Team will take measures and will put mechanisms in place to ensure that the

evaluation process was ethical and that stakeholders were protected, and will address any ethical

dilemmas or issues that could emerge.

UNICEF should be informed at a regular basis about the evaluation development and will validate all

the process steps. UNICEF will approve the final product and arrange its dissemination.

Consultant’s performance will be evaluated against the following criteria: timeliness, responsibility,

initiative, communication, and quality of the products delivered.

In case of unsatisfactory performance the contract will be terminated by notification letter sent 5 days

prior to termination. In the meantime, UNICEF will initiate another selection in order to identify

appropriate candidate.

Prepared by:

Approved by:

Elena Atanassova Tanja Radocaj


XII. Appendix 2 Quantitative data on district level- activities, beneficiaries, results

June 2009 - May 2012

responsible organization ISS

SAPI ISS SAPI SAPI Samaritans ISS SAPI

District

V.Tarnovo Gabrovo Pernik Smolian Sofia Sofia

districts Stara

Zagora Targovishte Shumen

Stara Zagora -

dynamics of the team

FC teams

FC team members during the UNICEF project 4 3 5 3,5 6 5 7 7 6 5,16667

2009 - 9 p; 2010 - 8 p; 2011 - 2012 - 7 p

social worker 2 1 4 3 4 4 3 3 5

2009 - 5; 2010 - 4; 2011-2012 - 3.

psychologist 2 1 0 0,5 0 0 4 3 0

2009 - 4; 2010 - 4; 2011-2012 - 4.

health worker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

other 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1

0

description other coordinator

and later psychologist

manager of the team

manager of the center, accountant

manager of the team

coordinator

and later social worker

manager of the team


territory of FC activities

number of municipalities

5 out of 10 3 out of 4 6 5 out of

10

24 (districts of Sofia town)

22 11 4 out of 5 6

territory in sq. M 2223,2 1467,4 2394,2 1955,3 1 348,9 6687,6 15151,1 2401,2 2 239,8

population of the territory 176612 57434 133 530 80496 1291591 242114 333265 114154 137480 2566676

potential of the population for FC families

V.Tarnovo Gabrovo Pernik Smolian Sofia Sofia

districts Stara

Zagora Targovishte Shumen

Sofia included

Sofia excluded

FC families to the population of the municipalities where FC activities were provided 0,016 0,035 0,010 0,027 0,002 0,004 0,007 0,060 0,055 0,011 0,027

children in FC to population 0,014 0,044 0,014 0,035 0,001 0,003 0,005 0,074 0,092

reintegrated children to children placed in FC 0,000 0,080 0,211 0,071 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,047 0,063 0,052

children 0-3 in FC to children 0-3 in institutions n.a.

FC free capacity as of June 2012 (FC families number - children placed in FC; * adopters and FC family leavers not calculated) 8,00 3,00 4,00 3,00 9,00 2,00 5,00 -4,00 -13,00

total


FC families

number of persons that were trained 37 28 17 27 29 14 39 90 98 379

number of approved FC families 29 20 14 22 20 9 22 69 76 281

of them: families that provided care to 1 child 25 12 12 15 10 7 17 54 56 208

of them: families that provided care to 2 children 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 3 19 33

of them: families that provided care to 3+ children 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

children

number of children placed in FC as of June 2012 21 17 10 19 11 7 17 73 89 264

number of children that were placed in FC - do not include the actual placements 3 8 9 9 3 0 1 12 38 83

reintegrated children to the biological families 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 4 8 20

adopted children after FC 2 1 4 5 2 0 1 4 15 34

FC fails 1 4 1 2 1 1 0 4 2 16


providers

number of providers in the district 3 5 0 1 n.a. n.a. 2 1 2

numbers of providers that cooperated with FC team 2 2 0 0 n.a. n.a. 1 0 1

FC team

activities consultations provided in hours n.a.

number of information meetings held 36 79 72 75 220 121 45 30 60

participants in information meetings 1500 1050 613 806 9755 3761 969 350 300

media publications n.a. over 100

Number of children placed in foster care

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Towards March,

31 2012

1 9 5 29 48 75 135 198 284 480 1024

Sources: SACP, АSA, 2012


XIII. Appendix 3 Regional Data for FC - UNICEF

Count

Column Total N %

Main group 1. At the moment you are: Professional foster parent 77 96,3%

Volunteer foster parent 3 3,8%

Control group 1. At the moment you are: Professional foster parent 30 78,9%

Volunteer foster parent 8 21,1%

Count Mean Mean in MONTHS

Main group 2. How long have you been approved to be a foster parent for? - years

80 1,7 21

Control group 2. How long have you been approved to be a foster parent for? - years

38 2,9 35

Main group 3. How many children in TOTAL have been placed in your home, since you became a foster parent?

80 1,6 19

Control group 3. How many children in TOTAL have been placed in your home, since you became a foster parent?

38 1,5 18

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 4. As a foster parent, did you regularly get:1. Financial support for the child

Yes, totally 73 91,3%

There were delays from time to time

4 5,0%

The financial support was delayed most of the time

1 1,3%

Control group 4. As a foster parent, did you regularly get:1. Financial support for the child



0 ,0%


0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 4. As a foster parent, did you regularly get2. Salary ( For professional foster parents ONLY)



4 5,2%


0 ,0%

Control group 4. As a foster parent, did you regularly get2. Salary ( For professional foster parents ONLY)



4 13,3%


0 ,0%


Count Mean

Mean in MONTHS

Main group 5. How many YEARS did it take until a child was placed with you for the FIRST time, after you were approved?

80 ,4 4

Control group 5. How many YEARS did it take until a child was placed with you for the FIRST time, after you were approved?

38 ,3 4

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 6. At the moment, is there a child placed in you home?

Yes 75 93,8%

No 5 6,3%

Control group 6. At the moment, is there a child placed in you home?

Yes 34 89,5%

No 3 7,9%

Count Mean

Main group 6. At the moment, is there a child accommodated in you home?- number of children

75 1,2

Control group 6. At the moment, is there a child accommodated in you home?- number of children

34 1,1

Count Mean Mean in MONTHS

Main group 7. How long has the child been living with you? - years

80 1,2 14

Control group 7. How long has the child been living with you? - years

38 2,3 27

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 8. Sex of the child Boy 41 51,3%

Girl 38 47,5%

Control group 8. Sex of the child Boy 12 31,6%

Girl 26 68,4%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 9. The child is registered at: School __ grade 21 26,3%

Pre-school group 6 7,5%

Kindergarten 20 25,0%

Nursery 4 5,0%

Other 5 6,3%

Does not attend either 23 28,8%

Control group 9. The child is registered at: School __ grade 12 31,6%

Pre-school group 1 2,6%

Kindergarten 7 18,4%

Nursery 1 2,6%


Other 4 10,5%

Does not attend either 13 34,2%

Count Mean

Main group 10. Age of the child- completed years 80 5,1

Control group 10. Age of the child- completed years 38 6,7

Count Column

Total N %

Main group q11_mult The child has: Normal for their age growth 61 76,3%

Physical disability 5 6,3%

Mental disability 9 11,3%

Physical slowness 2 2,5%

Mental slowness 8 10,0%

Chronic disease 7 8,8%

Other significant specifics 2 2,5%

Control group q11_mult The child has: Normal for their age growth 24 63,2%

Physical disability 1 2,6%

Mental disability 2 5,3%

Physical slowness 3 7,9%

Mental slowness 11 28,9%

Chronic disease 0 ,0%

Other significant specifics 8 21,1%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 12. What is the child's ethnicity: Bulgarian 19 23,8%

Turkish 14 17,5%

Roma 36 45,0%

Other 4 5,0%

I do not know 6 7,5%

Control group 12. What is the child's ethnicity: Bulgarian 12 31,6%

Turkish 4 10,5%

Roma 19 50,0%

Other 3 7,9%

I do not know 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 13. Which of the following definitions corresponds to the actual foster care in Bulgaria ?

Professionals taking care of children in a little family house

16 20,0%

Trained people, paid by the state, who take care of children in their home

45 56,3%

Adoption 13 16,3%

Preparation for adoption 6 7,5%

Control group 13. Which of the following definitions corresponds to the actual foster care in Bulgaria ?

Professionals taking care of children in a little family house

1 2,6%

Trained people, paid by the state, who take care of children in their home

34 89,5%


Adoption 1 2,6%

Preparation for adoption 2 5,3%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group q14_mult Where did you find information about foster care from?

Television 37 46,3%

From friends 20 25,0%

Other 18 22,5%


15 18,8%

Information website on the net 8 10,0%

Press 10 12,5%

Billboards, posters, flyers 6 7,5%

Radio 4 5,0%

Social media on the net 2 2,5%

Control group q14_mult Where did you find information about foster care from?

Television 23 60,5%

From friends 14 36,8%

Other 9 23,7%


12 31,6%

Information website on the net 7 18,4%

Press 4 10,5%

Billboards, posters, flyers 2 5,3%

Radio 2 5,3%

Social media on the net 3 7,9%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 15. Did you change your attitude towards foster care, since you became a foster parent?

No, I continue thinking that… 35 43,8%

Yes, in a positive way because… 37 46,3%

Yes, in a negative way because 8 10,0%

Control group 15. Did you change your attitude towards foster care, since you became a foster parent?

No, I continue thinking that… 7 18,4%

Yes, in a positive way because… 31 81,6%

Yes, in a negative way because 0 ,0%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group q16_mult Why did you decide to be a foster parent?

Feeling of satisfaction of the good deed

78 97,5%

This brings meaning to my life 42 52,5%

It will brighten my home and I will not be lonely

32 40,0%

Receiving the financial support I need

15 18,8%

To be able to stay home and look after my own children

7 8,8%

Other 3 3,8%

To help my close ones, who are not able to take care of their child at the moment

1 1,3%

To make sure my child has a pal 1 1,3%

I will have someone to help me with housekeeping

2 2,5%

I will have someone to take care of me when I grow old

0 ,0%

Control group q16_mult Why did you decide to be a foster parent?

Feeling of satisfaction of the good deed

31 81,6%

This brings meaning to my life 24 63,2%

It will brighten my home and I will not be lonely

12 31,6%

Receiving the financial support I need

13 34,2%

To be able to stay home and look after my own children

5 13,2%

Other 4 10,5%

To help my close ones, who are not able to take care of their child at the moment

2 5,3%

To make sure my child has a pal 2 5,3%

I will have someone to help me with housekeeping

0 ,0%

I will have someone to take care of me when I grow old

1 2,6%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group 17. How long after you applied for foster care was there a social worker on your case?

A week and less 38 47,5%

Between one and two weeks 17 21,3%

After about a month 8 10,0%

After more than a month 17 21,3%

No social worker was given specially MY case

0 ,0%

Control group 17. How long after you applied for foster care was there a social worker on your case?

A week and less 19 50,0%

Between one and two weeks 10 26,3%

After about a month 4 10,5%

After more than a month 5 13,2%

No social worker was given specially MY case

0 ,0%

Count Mean

Main group 18. How many meetings were there between the social worker and you before your approval for foster parent?

80 9,2

Control group 18. How many meetings were there between the social worker and you before your approval for foster parent?

38 9,3

Main group 19. How many visitations did the social worker make to your HOME before you got approved for being a foster parent?

80 5,5

Control group 19. How many visitations did the social worker make to your HOME before you got approved for being a foster parent?

38 3,1

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 20. Who is your "foster care" social service provider?

The municipality 0 ,0%

Social assistance directorate 44 55,0%

NGO 24 30,0%

Other 12 15,0%

Control group 20. Who is your "foster care" social service provider?

The municipality 1 2,6%

Social assistance directorate 14 36,8%

NGO 19 50,0%

Other 4 10,5%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group 21. Who directed you to them? SAD Director 5 6,3%

SAD employee who accepted my application

44 55,0%

Other foster parents 10 12,5%

Other 20 25,0%

Control group 21. Who directed you to them? SAD Director 3 7,9%

SAD employee who accepted my application

22 57,9%

Other foster parents 7 18,4%

Other 4 10,5%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 22. Were you able to choose between different licensed social service providers?

Yes, I had a couple of possibilities

3 3,8%

No, in my region only __ works 77 96,3%

Control group 22. Were you able to choose between different licensed social service providers?

Yes, I had a couple of possibilities

10 26,3%

No, in my region only __ works 27 71,1%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 23. Did thе provider explain your rights and obligations in the contract for evaluation and training?

Yes, I was explained to very clearly

76 95,0%

Yes, but some things remained unclear

2 2,5%

Yes, fomally, and I did not understand them as a whole

1 1,3%

No, I was not given any explanation

0 ,0%

Control group 23. Did thе provider explain your rights and obligations in the contract for evaluation and training?

Yes, I was explained to very clearly

32 84,2%

Yes, but some things remained unclear

6 15,8%

Yes, fomally, and I did not understand them as a whole

0 ,0%

No, I was not given any explanation

0 ,0%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group 24. Did you have any problems with the documentation when applying for foster care and how did you overcome them?

No, none 64 80,0%

Yes, but the social service provider helped

10 12,5%

Yes, but the provided did not help, even though I asked

0 ,0%

Yes, but I did not consult the provider and solved them myself

3 3,8%

Yes, other 3 3,8%

Control group 24. Did you have any problems with the documentation when applying for foster care and how did you overcome them?

No, none 26 68,4%

Yes, but the social service provider helped

5 13,2%

Yes, but the provided did not help, even though I asked

0 ,0%

Yes, but I did not consult the provider and solved them myself

4 10,5%

Yes, other 3 7,9%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 25. Are you satisfied with the training before being approved as a foster parent?

Absolutely satisfied 72 90,0%

Rather satisfied 7 8,8%

Rather not satisfied 1 1,3%

Absolutely not satisfied 0 ,0%

Control group 25. Are you satisfied with the training before being approved as a foster parent?



Rather not satisfied 4 10,5%


Count Column

Total N %

Main group 26. In case you applied for professional foster parent, have you taken an ADDITIONAL qualification course, preparing you especially for PROFESSIONAL foster care?

I did not apply 9 11,3%

I applied and passed a special course for professional foster care

70 87,5%

I applied but I did not take any courses

1 1,3%

Control group 26. In case you applied for professional foster parent, have you taken an ADDITIONAL qualification course, preparing you especially for PROFESSIONAL foster care?

I did not apply 8 21,1%

I applied and passed a special course for professional foster care

28 73,7%

I applied but I did not take any courses

2 5,3%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group q27_mult As a foster parent, are you familiar with the reglament about your relations with the provider?

Yes, it is in the contract I signed 66 82,5%

Yes, I am familiar with the SAD reglamentations

25 31,3%

Yes, other 0 ,0%

No, I am not familiar 0 ,0%

I do not know 0 ,0%

Control group q27_mult As a foster parent, are you familiar with the reglament about your relations with the provider?

Yes, it is in the contract I signed 14 36,8%

Yes, I am familiar with the SAD reglamentations

23 60,5%

Yes, other 1 2,6%

No, I am not familiar 8 21,1%



28. Prior to meeting the child, have you been acquainted with their: Count

Column Total N %

Main group 1. Life story Yes, completely 55 68,8%

Yes, partially 13 16,3%

No 11 13,8%

2. Health condition Yes, completely 53 66,3%


No 14 17,5%

3. Personal preferences (food, favourite games etc)

Yes, completely 38 47,5%


No 28 35,0%

4. Behaviour features ( aggression, slow growth, apathy)



No 20 25,0%

5. Individual characteristics (ethnos, religion, physical appearance)



No 11 13,8%

6.Previous accommodation (if any) Yes, completely 41 51,3%


No 21 26,3%

7.Biological parents relationship Yes, completely 55 68,8%


No 17 21,3%

8.Circumstances about leaving their biological family or the specialised institution



No 8 10,0%

Control group 1. Life story Yes, completely 27 71,1%


No 1 2,6%

2. Health condition Yes, completely 27 71,1%


No 3 7,9%

3. Personal preferences (food, favourite games etc)



No 9 23,7%

4. Behaviour features ( aggression, slow growth, apathy)



No 1 2,6%

5. Individual characteristics (ethnos, religion, physical appearance)



No 1 2,6%

6.Previous accommodation (if any) Yes, completely 28 73,7%


No 8 21,1%

7.Biological parents relationship Yes, completely 23 60,5%


No 8 21,1%

8.Circumstances about leaving their biological family or the specialised




institution No 2 5,3%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 29. Is the child legitimately recognized by his father?

Yes 32 40,0%

No 41 51,3%


Control group 29. Is the child legitimately recognized by his father?

Yes 15 39,5%

No 23 60,5%

I do not know 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group q30_mult Did you have any significant problems with information about the child?

It was spreaded withing the different institutions

8 10,0%

It was not complete 17 21,3%

It was not accurate 11 13,8%

It was not written 9 11,3%

Another proble 3 3,8%

There were no significant problems with information

50 62,5%

Control group q30_mult Did you have any significant problems with information about the child?

It was spreaded withing the different institutions

5 13,2%

It was not complete 6 15,8%

It was not accurate 6 15,8%

It was not written 7 18,4%

Another proble 0 ,0%

There were no significant problems with information

24 63,2%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 31. Have you ever refused to "receive" a child as a foster parent?

Yes 11 13,8%

No 69 86,3%

Control group 31. Have you ever refused to "receive" a child as a foster parent?

Yes 1 2,6%

No 35 92,1%

Count

Main group q32_mult What were the reasons for this?

The child is at the unsuitable age of _ years and _ months

5

Another reason 4

The child has indured violence and I will not be able to manage

1

The child has serious health problems

1

The child comes from a bad family and I am afraid of that

1


Count Mean

Mean in MONTHS

Main group 32. What were the reasons for this?- years

5 ,7 9

33. After you agreed to "receive" the child:

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 1.The social worker prepared you for the meeting with the child.



No 9 11,3%

2.The social worker made an easy atmosphere for better communication with the child.



No 7 8,8%

3.The social worker assisted you during the child's first visit to your home.



No 4 5,0%

4.Your biological children attended the meetings.



No 46 57,5%

5.The child was prepared for the process of getting to know you.



No 14 17,5%

6.As a whole, the get-to-know process went by smoothly.



No 3 3,8%

7. Due to the get-to-know process, a close relationship with the child was established.



No 2 2,5%

Control group 1.The social worker prepared you for the meeting with the child.



No 2 5,3%

2.The social worker made an easy atmosphere for better communication with the child.



No 1 2,6%

3.The social worker assisted you during the child's first visit to your home.



No 1 2,6%

4.Your biological children attended the meetings.



No 16 42,1%

5.The child was prepared for the process of getting to know you.



No 2 5,3%

6.As a whole, the get-to-know process went by smoothly.



No 2 5,3%

7. Due to the get-to-know process, a close relationship with the child was established.



No 1 2,6%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group 34. How long was the get-to-know the child process after you agreed?

2 weeks and less 32 40,0%

2-4 weeks 36 45,0%

4-6 weeks 5 6,3%

More than 6 weeks 5 6,3%

I do not remember 1 1,3%

Control group 34. How long was the get-to-know the child process after you agreed?

2 weeks and less 8 21,1%

2-4 weeks 13 34,2%

4-6 weeks 13 34,2%

More than 6 weeks 4 10,5%

I do not remember 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 35. Does the child keep in touch with their biological parents?

Yes, every week 2 2,5%

Yes, once every 2-3 weeks 4 5,0%

Yes, once a month 12 15,0%

Yes, once every 2-3 months 6 7,5%

Yes, more rarely 9 11,3%

No 46 57,5%

Control group 35. Does the child keep in touch with their biological parents?

Yes, every week 1 2,6%

Yes, once every 2-3 weeks 0 ,0%

Yes, once a month 4 10,5%

Yes, once every 2-3 months 1 2,6%

Yes, more rarely 3 7,9%

No 29 76,3%


37. Do you agree with the following: Count

Column Total N %

Main group 1. Your family and you felt prepared for the placement.



No 0 ,0%

2. During the FIRST month you were provided with 24-hour consulting and support services by your social worker.



No 2 2,5%

3. In general, the child has adapted easily to their new life with you.



No 4 5,0%

4. Many difficulties with the child's adaptation occurred ( insomnia, shaking, aggression, apathy).



No 49 61,3%

5.You didn't feel enough support from your social worker.



No 56 70,0%

6.Your biological children accepted the child easily.



No 5 6,3%

7.You regret agreeing to foster the child. Yes, completely 1 1,3%


No 74 92,5%

8.You were confident that cooperating with your social worker you can overcome the problems occurring and eventually everything will be alright.



No 0 ,0%

Control group 1. Your family and you felt prepared for the placement.



No 0 ,0%

2. During the FIRST month you were provided with 24-hour consulting and support services by your social worker.



No 2 5,3%

3. In general, the child has adapted easily to their new life with you.



No 4 10,5%

4. Many difficulties with the child's adaptation occurred ( insomnia, shaking, aggression, apathy).



No 18 47,4%

5.You didn't feel enough support from your social worker.



No 23 60,5%

6.Your biological children accepted the child easily.



No 1 2,6%

7.You regret agreeing to foster the child. Yes, completely 0 ,0%


No 34 89,5%

8.You were confident that cooperating with your social worker you can




overcome the problems occurring and eventually everything will be alright.

No 1 2,6%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 38. As a receiving parent, are you informed about the Care plan for the child?

Yes 74 92,5%

To some extent 5 6,3%

No 0 ,0%

Control group 38. As a receiving parent, are you informed about the Care plan for the child?

Yes 37 97,4%

To some extent 0 ,0%

No 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group q39_mult What are the main priorities of the child Care plan?

Providing a safe and secure environment at home

77 97,5%

Providing proper health care for the child

72 91,1%

The child''s socialisation with other children the same age

64 81,0%

Providing more entertaining things like toys, which the child hadn''t had before

50 63,3%

Providing proper education for the child

26 32,9%

Honouring the child''s origin and biological family

18 22,8%

Encouraging the child to be independent and determined

10 12,7%

Accepting the specific aspects of the child''s behaviour- they are to manage them whenever they are ready

10 12,7%

Compensating the missed material at school and reaching the right level

1 1,3%

Another important priority 1 1,3%

Control group q39_mult What are the main priorities of the child Care plan?

Providing a safe and secure environment at home

35 94,6%

Providing proper health care for the child

33 89,2%

The child''s socialisation with other children the same age

31 83,8%

Providing more entertaining things like toys, which the child hadn''t had before

15 40,5%

Providing proper education for the child

13 35,1%

Honouring the child''s origin and biological family

9 24,3%

Encouraging the child to be independent and determined

13 35,1%

Accepting the specific aspects of the child''s behaviour- they are to manage them whenever they are ready

11 29,7%


Compensating the missed material at school and reaching the right level

4 10,8%

Another important priority 1 2,7%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group q40_mult Who participated in making the Care plan for your placed child?

Your social worker 67 84,8%

The social worker leading the case

54 68,4%

You, as a foster parent 26 32,9%

Children psychologist 19 24,1%

SAD Director 18 22,8%

The child''s personal doctor 12 15,2%


Someone else 3 3,8%

The child if they are at a certain age

1 1,3%

Biological family 2 2,5%

An expert in the field of education

0 ,0%

Control group q40_mult Who participated in making the Care plan for your placed child?

Your social worker 32 86,5%

The social worker leading the case

36 97,3%

You, as a foster parent 24 64,9%

Children psychologist 21 56,8%

SAD Director 0 ,0%



Someone else 0 ,0%

The child if they are at a certain age

2 5,4%

Biological family 1 2,7%

An expert in the field of education

1 2,7%


Count

Column Total N %

Main group q41_mult According to you, who has to participate in making such Care plan?

The foster family''s personal social worker

63 78,8%

The case leading social worker 60 75,0%

The foster family 49 61,3%

Children''s psychologist 37 46,3%


The child themselves if they are at a certain age

10 12,5%

The biological family 11 13,8%

The SAD director 15 18,8%

An expert in the sphere of education

7 8,8%


Someone else 0 ,0%

Control group q41_mult According to you, who has to participate in making such Care plan?

The foster family''s personal social worker

31 81,6%

The case leading social worker 33 86,8%

The foster family 33 86,8%

Children''s psychologist 24 63,2%


The child themselves if they are at a certain age

19 50,0%

The biological family 7 18,4%

The SAD director 1 2,6%

An expert in the sphere of education

4 10,5%


Someone else 0 ,0%

42. After the child was placed with you, how often were you visited by:

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 1.The leading social worker Once a week 26 32,5%

Once every two weeks 25 31,3%

Once a month 18 22,5%

Once every 2-3 months 5 6,3%


Control group 1.The leading social worker Once a week 4 10,5%





Main group 2.Your personal social worker Once a week 33 41,3%



Once every 2-3 months 0 ,0%


Control group 2.Your personal social worker Once a week 5 13,2%






43. Did you need to be visited more often by:

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 1.The leading social worker Yes 9 11,3%

No 70 87,5%

Control group 1.The leading social worker Yes 11 28,9%

No 27 71,1%

Main group 2.Your personal social worker Yes 10 12,5%

No 69 86,3%

Control group 2.Your personal social worker Yes 9 23,7%

No 29 76,3%

44. After the child was placed with you, please share how satisfied you are from:

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 1.The support you received by the leading social worker



Rather not satisdied 4 5,0%

Absolutely not satisfied 1 1,3%

I have never used such services 1 1,3%

There was no such service 0 ,0%

2.The support you received by you personal social worker





I have never used such services 0 ,0%


3. The trainging was clear and understandable



Rather not satisdied 0 ,0%




4.The training was easy to put to practise







5.The health care services Absolutely satisfied 59 73,8%






6.Education services Absolutely satisfied 27 33,8%





There was no such service 4 5,0%


7.Working with psychiatrists, psychologists and other specialists







8. The specialists from the municipality centre of foster care in you region







9.The support by the social workers regarding the relationship with the biological parents







10.The provider's organised support group including other foster families







11.Other important service Absolutely satisfied 1 1,3%

Rather satisfied 0 ,0%





Control group 1.The support you received by the leading social worker







2.The support you received by you personal social worker







3. The trainging was clear and understandable








4.The training was easy to put to practise







5.The health care services Absolutely satisfied 18 47,4%






6.Education services Absolutely satisfied 14 36,8%






7.Working with psychiatrists, psychologists and other specialists







8. The specialists from the municipality centre of foster care in you region







9.The support by the social workers regarding the relationship with the biological parents







10.The provider's organised support group including other foster families







11.Other important service Absolutely satisfied 1 2,6%

Rather satisfied 0 ,0%






45. After the child was placed with you, did you need ADDITIONAL help by: Count

Column Total N %

Main group 1.Teacher from the child's school/ kindergarten

Yes, and I received it 14 17,5%

Yes, but I did not receive it 2 2,5%

No 58 72,5%

2. Psychologist from the child's school/ kindergarten


Yes, but I did not receive it 0 ,0%

No 61 76,3%

3.Child's personal doctor Yes, and I received it 31 38,8%


No 45 56,3%

4. Official of a state institution Yes, and I received it 5 6,3%


No 0 ,0%

5. Other Yes, and I received it 1 1,3%


No 0 ,0%

Control group 1.Teacher from the child's school/ kindergarten



No 19 50,0%

2. Psychologist from the child's school/ kindergarten



No 20 52,6%

3.Child's personal doctor Yes, and I received it 25 65,8%


No 8 21,1%

4. Official of a state institution Yes, and I received it 11 28,9%


No 0 ,0%

5. Other Yes, and I received it 4 10,5%


No 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 46. How often did you encounter difficulties with respite care ( when you were absent from your home for a while and could NOT take care of the child?

I have never had difficulties with respite care

19 23,8%

I have difficulties from time to time

3 3,8%

I have difficulties almost every time

0 ,0%

I have NOT needed respite care 57 71,3%

Control group 46. How often did you encounter difficulties with respite care ( when you were absent from your home for a while and could NOT take care of the child?

I have never had difficulties with respite care

8 21,1%

I have difficulties from time to time

1 2,6%


I have difficulties almost every time

1 2,6%

I have NOT needed respite care 27 71,1%

Count

Main group 47. How did you overcome the difficulties with respite care?

I asked my social worker for help and he assisted me in finding a substitutor

2

I asked my social worker for help but they did NOT help and I had to stay with the child

1

Other 0

Control group 47. How did you overcome the difficulties with respite care?

I asked my social worker for help and he assisted me in finding a substitutor

1

I asked my social worker for help but they did NOT help and I had to stay with the child

0

Other 1

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 48. Until now, have you ever need emergency foster care (the situation when emergency intervention by institutions is required)

Yes 6 7,5%

No 73 91,3%

Control group 48. Until now, have you ever need emergency foster care (the situation when emergency intervention by institutions is required)

Yes 3 7,9%

No 33 86,8%

Count

Main group q49_mult What was the reason for that? The child had problems with behaviour and I couldn’t manage with that

4

The child''s biological parents did not approve the placement and broke the contacts rules

0

Another reason 1

Control group q49_mult What was the reason for that? The child had problems with behaviour and I couldn’t manage with that

1

The child''s biological parents did not approve the placement and broke the contacts rules

1

Another reason 1


Count

Main group 50. What was the way out of this critical situation?

The critical situation was overcome and the child stayed with your family

4

The child was removed from my home

1

Control group 50. What was the way out of this critical situation?

The critical situation was overcome and the child stayed with your family

3

The child was removed from my home

0

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 51. Has it ever happened the process of receiving a child to be stopped due a NON crisis situation?

Yes 4 5,0%

No 75 93,8%

Control group 51. Has it ever happened the process of receiving a child to be stopped due a NON crisis situation?

Yes 7 18,4%

No 30 78,9%

Count

Main group 52. What was the reason for that? The child was adopted 0

The child returned to their biological family

1

The child turned 18 0

Other 2

Control group 52. What was the reason for that? The child was adopted 6

The child returned to their biological family

1

The child turned 18 0

Other 0

Count

Control group 53. How would you describe your participation in the process of adoption?

I participated as an active partner

3

I was only an observer 3

Other 0

Count

Control group 54. How satisfied are you by the organisation and the process of adoption?

Absolutely satisfied 3

Rather satisfied 3

Rather not satisfied 0

Absolutely not satisfied 0


55. To what extend, regarding the end of placement,…: Count

Main group 1. Was the plan of ending the placement discussed with you?

Completely 2

To some extent 0

Absolutely not 1

2. Did you receive support about parting with the child

Completely 1

To some extent 1

Absolutely not 0

3. Did you keep in touch with the child after parting

Completely 1

To some extent 0

Absolutely not 1

4. Was a plan for support with reintegration, independent life and other measures of protectiong made

Completely 2

To some extent 0

Absolutely not 0

Count Mean

Main group 56. How do you evaluate the work done by your social worker as a whole?

80 9,3

Control group 56. How do you evaluate the work done by your social worker as a whole?

38 9,0

Main group 57. How do you evaluate the work done by the social worker of the child's case as a whole?

80 9,1

Control group 57. How do you evaluate the work done by the social worker of the child's case as a whole?

38 9,4

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 58. Sex of the foster parent Male 3 3,8%

Female 77 96,3%

Control group 58. Sex of the foster parent Male 5 13,2%

Female 33 86,8%

Count Mean

Main group 59. Age in complete yearsof the foster parent

80 48,6

Control group 59. Age in complete yearsof the foster parent

38 48,8

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 60. Do you have a partner, who is also a Yes 52 65,0%


foster parent? No 28 35,0%

Control group 60. Do you have a partner, who is also a foster parent?

Yes 23 60,5%

No 15 39,5%

Count

Column Total N %

Main group 61. Highest educational level completedof the foster parent

Higher- bachelor, master, Phd 14 17,5%

College degree 2 2,5%

Secondary 45 56,3%

Primary 19 23,8%

Initial 0 ,0%

Lower than initial 0 ,0%

Control group 61. Highest educational level completedof the foster parent

Higher- bachelor, master, Phd 9 23,7%

College degree 4 10,5%

Secondary 17 44,7%

Primary 8 21,1%

Initial 0 ,0%

Lower than initial 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 62. Social status of the foster parent Working ONLY as a professional foster parent

70 87,5%

Working 3 3,8%

Working as a professional foster parent and __

4 5,0%

Working retired person 2 2,5%

Not working retired person 0 ,0%

Unemployed 0 ,0%

Studying 1 1,3%

Housewife 0 ,0%

Maternity leave 0 ,0%

Working and studying 0 ,0%

Control group 62. Social status of the foster parent Working ONLY as a professional foster parent

30 78,9%

Working 3 7,9%

Working as a professional foster parent and __

2 5,3%

Working retired person 1 2,6%

Not working retired person 1 2,6%

Unemployed 1 2,6%

Studying 0 ,0%

Housewife 0 ,0%

Maternity leave 0 ,0%

Working and studying 0 ,0%

Count Mean


Main group 63. Monthly net income by PERSON - modified scale

80 464,5

Control group 63. Monthly net income by PERSON - modified scale

38 400,3

Count

Column Total N %

Main group 65. Marital status of the foster parent Single 3 3,8%

Living together 7 8,8%

Married 52 65,0%

Married not living together 1 1,3%

Separated 10 12,5%

Widow 7 8,8%

Control group 65. Marital status of the foster parent Single 2 5,3%

Living together 4 10,5%

Married 20 52,6%

Married not living together 2 5,3%

Separated 7 18,4%

Widow 3 7,9%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 66. Ethnicity of the foster parent Bulgarian 54 67,5%

Turkish 17 21,3%

Roma 9 11,3%

Other 0 ,0%

I do not know 0 ,0%

Control group 66. Ethnicity of the foster parent Bulgarian 26 68,4%

Turkish 3 7,9%

Roma 6 15,8%

Other 3 7,9%

I do not know 0 ,0%

Count Column

Total N %

Main group 67. Religion of the foster parent Christian orthodox 50 62,5%

Catholic 0 ,0%

Protestant 6 7,5%

Muslim 23 28,8%

Other 0 ,0%

I do not have any 1 1,3%

Control group 67. Religion of the foster parent Christian orthodox 29 76,3%

Catholic 0 ,0%

Protestant 3 7,9%

Muslim 5 13,2%

Other 0 ,0%

I do not have any 1 2,6%


XIV. Appendix 4 UNICEF Foster care preliminary project plan (Bulgaria)

РАЗШИРЯВАНЕ НА МОДЕЛА НА ПРИЕМНА ГРИЖА В БЪЛГАРИЯ

І. ОСНОВНА ЦЕЛ

Този проект цели да подпомогне развиването на социалната услуга “приемна грижа” в 8 области в

страната като така подпомогне процеса на деинституционализация и развиване на социални услуги в

общността.

ІІ. КОНКРЕТНИ ЦЕЛИ

1. Създаване на обща практика на предоставяне на социалната услуга “приемна грижа” между

партньорите в 8 области в страната – доставчици на социални услуги (НПО, Общини), ДСП (ОЗД),

Комисии за закрила на детето.

2. Създаване на единна обучителна програма за кандидати за приемни родители и за обучители –

социални работници.

3. Провеждане на национална информационна кампания за приемна грижа.

4. Развиване на капацитета на партньорите в процеса на предоставяне на услугата “приемна грижа”.

5. Създаване на устойчивост – въвеждане на финансов стандарт за социалната услуга “приемна грижа”

като държавно-делегирана дейност.

ІІІ. ЦЕЛЕВИ ГРУПИ

1. Доставчици на социални услуги – НПО и общински администрации. 2. Структури на АСП – на национално и местно ниво. 3. Членове на Комисии за закрила на детето. 4. Кандидати и одобрени приемни семейства. 5. Деца, които имат нужда от приемна грижа. 6. Деца, настанени в приемни семейства.

ІV. ТЕРИТОРИАЛЕН ОБХВАТ

Проектът ще бъде реализиран на територията на 8 области – Велико Търново, Габрово, Перник,

Смолян, София-град, София-област, Търговище и Шумен.

Областите са избрани поради наличието на други – свързани социални услуги, чиито развит капацитет

може да се използва като база за развиване, разширяване и интегриране на приемната грижа в мрежа

с останалите социални услуги. Областите са различни като профили, което предполага възможност за

тестване на модела в различни условия.

V. ОЧАКВАНИ РЕЗУЛТАТИ


1. 300 одобрени приемни родители в осемте области за период от 3 години.

2. 400 деца настанени в приемна грижа в осемте области за период от 3 години.

VІ. ДЕЙНОСТИ ПО ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА ПРОЕКТА

1. Изграждане на партньорства за реализацията на проекта 1.1. УНИЦЕФ – доставчици

Управлението на проекта ще бъде осъществено в партньорство между УНИЦЕФ и консорциум от

неправителствени организации с опит в развиването на социални услуги за деца и семейства и

предоставяне на обучения. Консорциумът ще отговаря за изпълнението на дейностите от т.2.

1.2. Доставчици – партньорства на местно ниво. Реализацията на проекта на местно ниво – в пилотните области – от консорциума от неправителствени

организации ще изисква създаване на мрежи с общинските администрации, ДСП (ОЗД), Комисиите за

закрила на детето и други социални услуги и доставчици на социални услуги. На базата на тези общи

принципи и с оглед на единния модел на прилагане на услугата, за всяка пилотна област ще бъде

развит модел за осъществяване на проекта.

За изграждането на местните партньорства консорциумът от неправителствени организации ще

извърши оценка на местните ресурси (организации на местно ниво, които развиват или имат интерес

да развиват приемна грижа – лицензирани и регистрирани доставчици на социални услуги за деца и

семейства в общините в рамките на пилотните области) и договаряне с местните партньори.

2. Развиване на модела от доставчици 2.1. Описание на обща методика на работа

Въпреки наличието на Методика за социалната услуга “приемна грижа”, скорошно изследване,

организирано от УНИЦЕФ показа съществени разлики между практиките на отделните доставчици и

ДСП във всеки от основните етапи на услугата. За гарантиране на общ подход на работа, консорциумът

от НПО ще изготви заедно с УНИЦЕФ описание на основните работни процеси в осъществяването на

социалната услуга “приемна грижа”, който ще бъде следван във всички пилотни области и ще бъде

заложен в споразуменията с всички партньори.

Описанието на работните процеси ще бъде изготвено на базата на: нормативната уредба; опита на

областния екип по приемна грижа към сдружение “Самаряни” Стара Загора финансиран от УНИЦЕФ и

фондация АРК; външната оценка на модела в Стара Загора, финансирана от УНИЦЕФ; други

международни практики.

2.2. Разработване на единна обучителна програма

Консорциумът от НПО ще разработи 2 обучителни програми:

- програма за обучение на кандидати за приемни родители - програма за обучение на социални работници, ОЗД и Комисия за закрила на детето

2.2.1. Обучителната програма за кандидатите за приемни родители трябва да се базира на посоченото

в нормативна уредба и добри международни практики като при нейната подготовка се вземат

предвид съществуващите обучителни програми, използвани от доставчиците на социални услуги-


партньори по проекта и програмата, използвана от фондация АРК и сдружение “Самаряни” в проекта

за областен модел на приемна грижа. Обучителната програма трябва да бъде базирана на

компетенциите, които се очаква да бъдат притежавани от приемните родители. Тя трябва да включва

подробно описание на всички включени модули.

Програмата трябва да бъде единна за кандидати за доброволни и професионални приемни родители.

Програмата трябва да бъде консултирана с АСП, ДАЗД и МТСП. След нейното апробиране в рамките на

проекта, програмата ще бъде предложена за утвърждаване от МТСП като задължителна при

подготовката на кандидати за приемни родители.

2.2.2. Обучителната програма за професионалисти, ангажирани в процеса на приемна грижа трябва да

бъде разработена на модулен принцип и да се базира на съществуващите програми за обучение на

социални работници на доставчиците-партньори по проекта.

2.3. Структуриране на местни екипи

Ситуацията в общините от пилотните области е различна от гледна точка на съществуващи социални

услуги за деца и семейства, реализирани от доставчици на социални услуги. Във всички области в

областния център има действащ център за социални услуги, който включва или би могъл да включи в

обхвата си и приемна грижа – управлявани от външни доставчици или Общините. В някои от малките

общини в областите също има развити социални услуги или има потенциал от местни организации и

доставчици, които биха могли да работят в партньорство.

Реализацията на проекта цели дългосрочно развитие на приемната грижа чрез надграждане на

местните ресурси и включва различни подходи в зависимост от конкретната ситуация:

o При наличие на съществуващи социални услуги, които включват приемна грижа – възможност за подкрепа и развитие на съществуващата инициатива;

o Включване на местния доставчик в дейностите по приемна грижа на общинско или областно ниво, в зависимост от капацитета му;

o При наличие на лицензиран и регистриран доставчик на социални услуги в общността за деца и семейства, който към момента не развива приемна грижа – възможности за включване на приемната грижа като вид дейност на местния екип, при изявено желание за това.

o При отсъствие на местен доставчик или на желание за включване в реализацията на проекта – осъществяване на дейностите с екип, нает от администратора по проекта.

За всяка област трябва да бъде развит специфичен модел на работа като се спазват следните

параметри:

- във всяка област бъде създаден специализиран екип по приемна грижа в областния град в рамките на съществуваща социална услуга. Специализираният екип трябва да включва 2-5 души като числеността на екипа да бъде определена на базата на големината на територията, която се очаква да бъде покрита и като се има предвид, че 1 социален работник може да работи с около 10 приемни семейства. Екипът трябва да покрива задълженията по подбор, обучение, оценка, напасване, подкрепа и наблюдение на кандидати и одобрени приемни родители. Доставчиците трябва да предложат начин за осъществяване на информационните дейности и координирането им с и участието на екипа по приемна грижа. Проектът ще предостави подкрепа за освежаване и допълнително оборудване на офис на всеки екип.


- да бъдат изградени механизми на работа с всички общини в областта като се гарантира, че за всяка община има екип, който да осъществява услугата. Този екип може да бъде екипът по предишната точка или бъде определен специален (в рамките на действаща социална услуга или чрез партньорски организации). С всяка Община трябва да бъдат подписани споразумения за работа.

Моделът за всяка област ще бъде изготвен след:

o Анализ на ситуацията – брой общини и населени места в областта, брой ДСП-ОЗД, транспортни връзки;

o Анализ на местни доставчици, лицензирани и регистрирани за услугата ПГ, оценка на капацитета им и степента на ангажираност;

o Структуриране на местни екипи, след оценка на ситуацията; o Създаване на структура на реализация на услугата ПГ (степени на ангажираност и отговорности

на наетия персонал по изпълнение на дейностите на областно ниво; механизми на взаимодействие).

2.4. Обучение на професионалисти в процеса на приемна грижа - местните екипи, социални

работници от ОЗД, членове на КЗД и други

Една от причините за липса на достатъчно на брой приемни семейства, с настанени при тях деца е и в

липсата на достатъчно познания за модела на приемната грижа при специалистите, които би трябвало

да подпомагат процеса. Съществува недоверие към приемните родители. Обучението е крайно

наложително за членовете на Комисиите за закрила на детето, които дават предложение за

утвърждаване на приемните родители, а много често изобщо не познават спецификата на модела на

приемната грижа

Цели на обучението: запознаване с модела на приемната грижа; преодоляване на негативни нагласи;

установяване на работни взаимоотношения.

Обучението ще бъде извършено на базата на разработената обучителна програма от всеки партньор

за съответната област. Обучението трябва да включва въвеждащо обучение и форми на надграждащо

и поддържащо обучение за времетраенето на проекта.

2.5. Развиване на услугата приемна грижа

Предоставянето на услугата приемна грижа ще стартира след сформиране и обучение на екипите.

Екипите по приемна грижа ще бъдат ангажирани в следните етапи в процеса на приемна грижа:

информационни дейности, подбор, обучение, оценка, подкрепа при напасване и след настаняване на

деца. Доставчиците – партньори по проекта ще осигурят административно управлението на услугата,

екипите и приемните родители.

А) Информационни кампании

Проектът предвижда провеждане на информационна кампания на национално ниво и локални такива.

Националната информационна кампания е описана в т... Доставчиците ще бъдат ангажирани в

провеждане на локални информационни кампании, които ще използват общите послания и печатни

материали (с местни контакти). За всяка област доставчиците ще разработят план за осъществяване на

кампаниите (цел, целеви групи, очаквани резултати, дейности, средства, места и начини за връзка с

хората, които проявяват интерес, предоставяне на допълнителна информация, наблюдение,

записване и анализ на ефективността), който трябва да бъде включва дейности за всяка община.


Б) Консултиране и подпомагане на хората, заявили интерес към приемната грижа

Предварителната информация за проблемите, които пречат на развитието на приемната грижа,

извежда липсваща подкрепа от страна на ОЗД, дори спъване на процеса от тяхна страна - най-често

чрез целенасочено отказване на кандидатите за приемни родители още на ниво заявяване на интерес.

Вероятните причини за това са свързани с по-голямата ангажираност и натоварване на социалните

работници от отделите, както и със съществуващите нагласи срещу приемната грижа като форма на

подкрепа за децата и техните родители.

Целта е да се посрещне интереса на хората към приемната грижа, като се предостави допълнителна

информация. Да се осигури възможност за информиране и консултиране на хора, които заявяват

интерес към приемната грижа, преди да са взели решение да подадат документи в ОЗД.

Дейностите включват:

o Предоставяне на допълнителна информация при заявен интерес: – На място в офиса на доставчика, при осигурено пространство за срещи; – По телефона, при осигурена информационна линия и специалисти, които предоставят

информацията; – Запис на случаите на предоставена допълнителна информация – какви въпроси се

задават; какви са притесненията; какви са причините за отказ от подаване на документи,

o Предоставяне на комплект документи при заявено желание. o Подпомагане при подготовката на документите

В) Оценка и обучение

Прегледът и приемът на документите, както и последващите дейности преди насочването на

кандидатите за приемни родители към доставчик за изготвяне на оценка, се извършва от социален

работник в ОЗД. Наредбата изисква директорът на ДСП да определи със заповед социален работник,

който приоритетно да работи по приемната грижа. Много често това остава единствено

административен акт, без да е съобразен с нагласите и желанието за работа по приемна грижа на

съответния социален работник. Проектът предвижда ангажиране на социален работник от ОЗД след

оценка на мотивацията и желанието за работа по приемна грижа.

След прием на документите започва да тече срок за оценка на кандидатите. При изискване на

допълнително документи, това може да съкрати срока на проучване, по тази причина много често

документите се “завеждат” след като са окончателно комплектовани. Понякога в този период

кандидатите се отказват, ако не бъдат подкрепени. За да се улесни максимално комуникацията между

кандидатите за приемни родители и ОЗД екипът по приемна грижа може да е свързващото звено.

Дейностите включват непрекъснато взаимодействие между членовете на екипа по приемна грижа,

социалния работник от ОЗД и кандидатите.

Екипите по приемна грижа ще планират оценка и обучение след насочване на кандидатите.



o Разработване на обща методика и въпросник/формуляр за оценка; Програмата е методиката се консултират с експерта ПГ към ТЗ.

o Сключване на договор с кандидатите за провеждане на оценката и обучението o Обучение и оценка на кандидатите. o Подготовка на доклади за КЗД

Представяне пред КЗД

Дейност Обосновка, цел и описание на дейността

Дейност 5

Оценяване и обучение на

кандидатите за приемни

родители. Подгготовка и

представяне пред КЗД за

утвърждаване.

o

Период на изпълнение От 3 месец до края на периода на изпълнение на проекта

Очаквани резултати Оценени и обучени кандидати за приемни родители

Подготвени доклади за КЗД

Отговорник НПО, администратор, местен доставчик


Дейност 6

Избор на приемно

семейство за конкретното

дете. Подкрепа в процеса

на настаняване на детето

Изборът на приемно семейство би следвало да е в зависимост от

потребностите на конкретното дете. В практиката се случва обратното –

след като бъде одобрено едно приемно семейство, стартира търсенето на

дете, което да бъде настанено. Брой на утвърдените приемни родители е

по-голям от броя на настанените деца, хората чакат дълго, което води до

тяхната демотивация и компроментиране на модела на приемната грижа.

Изчакването се получава, тъй като в ОЗД няма изготвени профили с оценка

на потребностите на децата, които имат нужда от приемна грижа.

Проектът включва паралелна работа по оценка на децата, която ще

стартира заедно с кампаниите за подбор на приемни родители, но е изцяло

в обхвата на дейностите на социалния работник от ОЗД. И към настоящия

момент социалните работници от ОЗД имат това задължение, но то остава

на зцаден план, поради голямата натовареност на отделите. Едно от

предизвикателствата пред проекта е във връзка с тези ангажименти на ОЗД.


o Договаряне с ДСП – ОЗД за целенасочена работа по приемна

грижа, която включва:

- Изготвяне на профили на деца, подходящи за настаняване в приемни

семейства;

- Преглед и актуализиране на плановете за действие на децата,

настанени в институции на територията на общината; преглед на

плановете на деца от общината, настанени в институции в други

населени места;


- Установяване на връзка с биологичните родители;

o Участие на доставчика, извършил оценката на приемните родители

в избора на приемно семейство и дете;

o Подкрепа на приемното семейство в процеса на настаняване на

детето.


Очаквани резултати Изготвяни на профили на деца, нуждаещи се от приемна грижа.

Настанени деца в утвърдени приемни семейства .



Дейност 7

Подкрепа на приемното

семейство и на детето след

настаняването.

Подкрепата на семейството от страна на доставчика също се реализира по

различен начин от страна на различните доставчици на приемна грижа.

Обикновено подкрепата е по-интензивна в началото, веднага след

настаняването на детето. От съществено значение е съдържанието на

подкрепата, която доставчикът предлага на приемните родители и

отношението, което има към тях – как се гледа на приемните родители –

като на партньори и колеги или като на клиенти. Към настоящия момент от

страна на ДСП приемните родители се възприемат като клиенти,

независимо, че с професионалните приемни родители се сключват трудови

договори.

Формите на подкрепа могат да бъдат различни:

o Групи за взаимопомощ

o Поддържащо обучение

o Супервизия

Подкрепата на детето и контролът по изпълнението на договора с

приемните родители се извършва от социалния работник от ОЗД.


Очаквани резултати Организирани групи за взаимопомощ

Проведено поддържащо обучение

Проведена суперввизия



Дейност 8

Подкрепа на биологичното

семейство

Приемната грижа включва, както подкрепа на приемното дете, така и

подкрепа на биологичните родители. Този факт обикновено се

трансформира в подкрепа предимно на детето. Това води и до смесване на

приемната грижа и осиновяването и очакването за дългосрочна грижа за

децата. Основните страхове, които кандидатите за приемни родители са

свързани с необходимостта да се работи с биологичните родители на


детето. Това притеснение съществува и при професионалистите, които

работят


Очаквани резултати


3. Информационна кампания Информационните кампании по приемна грижа, провеждани до този момент нямат единен характер,

реализирани са в рамките на различни проекти или програми, с различни финансови средства и са

различни по обхват и послания.

Целта е да се предложи обща програма и материали за провеждане на кампаниите, с обща визия,

лого, лица и послания.


1. Провеждане на кампании: o Разработване на информационни материали (обща визия за вида, материала, използваните

лица, цветовете, посланията на материалите за всички области, включени в проекта + конкретна информация за телефони и лица за връзка по места + общ www)

4. Обмяна на опит 5. Наблюдение и оценка

Управление


Дейност 1

Местни екипи

Период на изпълнение 1-2 месец от на началото на проекта

Очаквани резултати Привлечени местни доставчици на социални услуги за деца

Структурирани екипи по приемна грижа

Създадена организационна структура за работа на областно ниво.

Отговорник НПО, администратор


Дейност 2 o


Обучения екипи

Период на изпълнение 2-4 месец от началото на проекта

Очаквани резултати Разработена обща програма за обучение

Проведено базово и специализирано обучение

Отговорник НПО, администратор


Дейност 3

Провеждане на

информационни кампании

и информационни срещи

o


Очаквани резултати Проведени ??????? кампании

Проведени ??????? информационни срещи



Дейност 3


Очаквани резултати Консултирани ????????? кандидат приемни родители по телефона или на

място



Дейност 4

Взаимодействие между

екипа по приемна грижа и

ОЗД при кандидатстване и

насочване за оценка и

обучение



Очаквани резултати Подадени документи на кандидат приемни родители

Издадени направления за оценка и обучение



XV. Annex 5 UNICEF foster care plan 2011 (Bulgarian)

ПЛАН ЗА РАБОТА ПО ПРОЕКТА ЗА ПРИЕМНА ГРИЖА ЗА 2011 ГОДИНА

І. Цели

Основните цели на работата по приемни грижа да 2011 година са:

- консолидиране на модела, включително коригиране с оглед позицията на държавните институции - създаване на условия за устойчивостта на създадения модел чрез законодателни промени и осигуряване на финансиране - промени в законодателството за стимулиране развитието на приемна грижа

ІІ. Дейности 1. Областни центрове по приемна грижа

Продължаване функциониране за една година с приоритети: - Развиване на приемна грижа за бебета, в частност новородени - Развиване на приемна грижа за деца с увреждания

С оглед позицията на държавните институции за предоставяне на приемна грижа на ниво община, ОЦПГ трябва да развият по-тесни отношения с общинските администрации.

Очаквания брой нови приемни родители (кандидати и одобрени) за 2011 по области е както следва:

Област Брой нови семейства Общо брой семейства за годината

Велико Търново 20 30

Габрово 20 30

Перник 20 30

Смолян 15 25

София град 15 20

София област 15 20

Стара Загора 30 60

Търговище 40 80

Шумен 50 90

Общо 385

Развитието на приемна грижа за бебета ще бъде стимулирано с включване на допълнително финансиране за приемните семейства за подготовка за приемане на бебе в размер около 500 лв на бебе. Очакваме да има поне 50 бебета в приемна грижа.

През тази година ще бъде направен опит за пилотиране сключване на трудовите договори с доставчиците на приемна грижа. За целта е необходимо да бъде разработен механизъм заедно с АСП.

Работата с кандидатите за приемни семейства и одобрените ще продължи по утвърдения модел. В случаите, когато ОЗД не издава направление, ОЦПГ ще сключват договор за доброволни клиенти.

2. Областен подход към развитие на приемна грижа Ще продължи работата по развитие на областен модел на приемна грижа. Правителството декларира желание да въведе областни комисии по приемна грижа. Това обаче, няма да стартира до средата на годината. Ако се въведат до края на годината, е добре УНИЦЕФ да организира общо обучение за всички комисии.


До стартиране на областни комисии ще бъде извършено:

- Обучение на ръководители на РДСП за координация на процеса на приемна грижа в областта – от Ресурсния център;

- Разработване на годишни планове за приемна грижа в 9-те области; - Ще продължи развитието на мрежи на областно ниво.

3. Актуализиране на финансовия стандарт за услугата „приемна грижа” Необходимо е да бъде актуализиран разработеният финансов стандарт, така че да включва и разходи да издръжка на детето и заплати на приемни родители. Това ще бъде извършено около средата на годината.

4. Популяризиране и информационни кампании Информационната кампания тази година ще включва предаването „Такъв е живота” и печатни материали за ОЦПГ. Ще бъдат разработени нови материали насочени към приемни родители за бебета (първи вариант ще бъде предоставен от ИСДП), приемни родители за деца с увреждане (МСС ще предостави вариант) и по-подробна брошура за приемна грижа (предоставен от ИСДП). Материалите ще бъдат разработени в началото на годината. Разработването на местни материали или други информационни материали от партньорите ще става след съгласуване между всички и при спазване на общия дизайн. За целите на информационната кампания ще продължи поддържането на специализирания сайт priemime.bg. В сайтовете на всички партньори ще има препратка към priemime.bg. Телефонната линия по приемна грижа ще функционира както досега през първите 6 месеца на годината, след което ще бъде постепенно организирано прехвърлянето й към оператори в цялата страна.

5. Развитие на капацитета на доставчици, структури на АСП и Комисии по приемна грижа Ще продължат срещите за обмяна на опит между 9-те ОЦПГ. В рамките на годината ще бъдат проведени 2 срещи. Първата среща ще бъде през месец февруари в София.

Продължава дейността на Ресурсния център по приемна грижа. В дейностите на Ресурсния център ще се включи обучение за РДСП и за комисии по приемна грижа на областно ниво (ако бъдат създадени).

Ще бъде актуализирана обучителната програма за приемните семейства – в началото на 2011 година. За целта ще бъде предоставена обратна връзка от всички партньори. След това, тя ще бъде предоставена за обсъждане с други доставчици и АСП.

Ще бъде разработена и втората обучителна програма, предвидена в проекта, за екипи по приемна грижа – до средата на годината.

Ще бъде заснет обучителния филм по приемна грижа.

6. Наблюдение и оценка Общата таблица за данни ще бъде коригирана от УНИЦЕФ и разпратена за попълване до ОЦПГ и РДСП.

Данните ще бъдат събирани на три и шест месеца.

Посещенията за наблюдение и подкрепа от страна на УНИЦЕФ ще бъдат по 2 пъти на година за всеки

център. През 2012 година ще бъде направена външна оценка на изпълнението на проекта.

7. Лобиране за законодателни промени и устойчивост

Финансирането на 9-те областни центъра, Ресурсния център и телефонната линия ще продължи до

края на 2011 година. През този период ще бъде обсъждано с МТСП и АСП осигуряване на

финансиране за дейността на Центровете за 2012 година със средства по ОПРЧР.

Ще бъде организирана работна среща с представители на ДАЗД, АСП и МТСП за обсъждане на

концепция за промени в законодателството по приемна грижа.


Разработеният модел по проекта ще бъде описан и предоставен на Правителството от партньорите

през втората половина на годината.

8. Бюджет

Принцип на финансиране. До този момент към двата договора за приемна грижа бяха прилагани

различни принципи на финансиране. От 2010 година договорът на Самаряни се финансираше на база

разработения стандарт за приемна грижа в размер на 2921 лв. на семейство, с което се работи. Така за

една година на Самаряни са преведени 88 441 лв.

Договорът с МСС и ИСДП се финансира на база предоставения бюджет. За една година двете

организации са работили с около 120-130 семейства и са изразходвали 913 511 лв. Разходът на едно

семейство е бил 7 600 лв. за 20 месеца. В това, обаче, се включват и разходите за създаване на

офисите, закупуване на оборудване и стартиране на работа.

За въвеждане на общ принцип на работа, предлагам таваните на двата договора да бъдат определени

на база на изчисления финансов стандарт, заложените цели като брой приемни семейства и

допълнителни разходи за настаняване на бебета в приемна грижа. При прилагане на този принцип ще

се наложи промяна на договора с МСС за актуализиране на бюджета и траншовете.

Като се има предвид, че МСС имат осигурен бюджет, планирания брой приемни семейства,

преизчисления финансов стандарт за 9 месеца и разходи за настаняване на бебета в приемна грижа,

то таванът на бюджета за 8-те области може да се определи на 800 000 лв.

Разходите на Самаряни могат да се изчислят за 9 месеца на база 50 семейства – 120 000 лв.

Дейност Необходими средства

9 ОЦПГ 920 000

Информационна кампания 30 000

Ресурсен център 40 000

Финансов стандарт 4 000

Управление и наблюдение 40 000

Телефонна линия и сайт 10 000

1 044 000 лева

705 405 долара

Налични 514 510 долара


XVI. Appendix 6 Case studies from UNICEF reports

Human Interest Story # 1

Vanya and Asen are among the first Roma families in Stara Zagora region who applied to be foster parents and were approved in mid 2008. Though the couple was not much educated, they were hard-working trainees and looked forward to have yet another child in the family. At that time their son Miroslav was 10 years old and they hoped to provide foster care to a girl.

In March 2009 a 6-year old girl of Roma origin was accommodated with the family.

Before that Daniela had been transferred five times from one institution to another or relatives’ families. In most places she had been neglected and uncared for and so when she met social workers and foster parents first, she appeared to be a scared and anxious child.

Following five familiarization meetings with her new family Daniela came to know Vanya, Asen and their son Miroslav; she was accustomed to them and in March 2009 she moved to her new home.

For two years now she has been living with the foster family in a small village near the town of Chirpan. All elderly people in the village adore her. Still she finds it difficult to make and maintain lasting friendships and often has moments when she avoids children and plays alone in the foster family’s home.

This year the child completed her first grade at school. Her teacher says that though now and then Daniela is an unruly and somewhat mischievous child, she does well at school – she sings well and recites poems. She likes to help with housework and to dance and by the way she is a very good dancer. Still she finds it difficult to focus and thinks unfavorably of what she is, however, her foster parents say she is a “God’s gift” and are very happy to have her. They are now considering the option of taking one more child in foster care.

Together with the social workers over these two years the foster family and the child in foster care had both easy days and difficult days. Difficulties arose primarily from the child’s past emotional pains and abuse by friends and relatives.

A powerful moment of Daniela’s placement with the foster family of Vanya and Asen was the day when she was taken out from the institution. Upon her arrival at the home of the foster parents, Daniela saw their son, Miroslav. The boy was out to welcome them and the girl was very glad as she held him by the hand and so hand in hand, they stepped into the house which is now his home and her home.

Human Interest Story #2 When a miracle happens right before your eyes!

Tina’s story seems an ordinary one at first glance; until the story of a child abandoned in a home diagnosed with “severe oligophrenia” and countless other diseases is added to it. Yet, it is best to start at the beginning.

Tina was separated from her parents when she was eighteen and admitted to study in Varna. The first man she met there was Vladi whom she later married. Simeon, their son, was born three years later.

Tina never through she would have one child but this is how things happened in her life. While her son was young, she also took care of the daughter of a colleague who had passed away from cancer. The girl, Ani, even called her “mom.”

Time passed on and she realised it was too late for her to have another child and she decided that, in another way, she could do something for other children and be closer to them.

Tina started working in a home for children with disabilities.

Can you image my amazement during my first meetings with her when I listened to her stories filled with lots of pain and love for these abandoned children. She spoke about them and saw nothing troubling in the way they looked, how clever they were, etc.; to her, they were children who had not had the luck to receive a


parent’s caress, a bed of their own, a home. Full of sadness, she shared that after a year with the institution she did not feel she was helping any one but, on the contrary, she felt ever unhappier because, in this way, she was unable to give them what they needed, and that was individual attention to every one of them.

This is how, after troubled deliberation, Tine decided that she wanted to be a foster parent and, in her typical style, she said she found every one to be a child and she had no special preferences; she was only afraid that, should the child be too heavy, she would not be able to cope as her waist “was giving up on her” already.

Well, we, her social workers, could not ignore this desire of hers.

The long-awaited day came and Nina was placed in Tina’s home; Nina was one of the bed-ridden ones and at 14 she weighed a bare 12 kilos and was 110 cm tall.

The miracle started happening …. Right before our eyes, the child started to get up, to move and become ever more independent and more independent. Now, half a year later, the child is 116 cm tall and weighs 20 kilos; yet, this is not the most important thing. She moves on her own; when she wants something, she takes Tina by the hand and takes her to the desired object. She knows her bed, her glass, her plate and, also, her mother.

I almost missed a fact from the child’s story which shook me quite a lot. I had noticed that Nina had the habit of putting her hand in front of her face. I asked the staff what the reason for this act was and they answered that the child had often been bitten by another child and, thus, when afraid, she defended herself with this gesture of protection which had turned into habit.

Several months after the placement Nina no longer put her hand in front of her face and, feeling intrigued, I asked her foster mother what had happened. Tina told me that to make the child trust her and feel unafraid of her, she had started slowly getting closer to her face in the form of a game of “Eskimo kiss” they played. She did not even realise she had done something exceptional. To Tina, this was just an opportunity to be closer to the child, to be happy with her and hug her and this is enough for Nina.

Human Interest Story #3 The story of two little brothers

Kristina and Todor Petkov have been married for 13 years. They are an ordinary Bulgarian family – Todor works in the construction business, Kristina takes care of the home. The Petkovs live in a small village which is not very close to the city of Stara Zagora. Their willingness to give a home to a child who is growing up without parental care has brought them to the idea of foster families.

Kristina has a daughter of her own who is 26 and a young granddaughter who is almost 3 years old. Her daughter’s family lives in Stara Zagora and they cannot see one another very often but they help each other and visit whenever possible.

When they became clear about their desire to give a home to a child who needs a family, Kristina and Todor turned to the social services and the foster care team in Stara Zagora. Thus, with their help, it was not one but two children who came to the Petkov’s home – Pavel and Vladi who, at the time they were placed, were respectively 3 years and 6 months old and 1 year and 6 months old. They were placed with an institution immediately after they were born and had never left it. They were brought in the same building but they did not know each other and had never met. In the beginning, Kristina and Todor thought about and had the desire to take one of the kids only but, when they found out that he had a brother he had never met in the same home, they opened their home and their hearts to both Pavel and Vladi. From that time until now, almost four years later now, the kids have been living in the village with their foster family. They know they have a biological mother who, unfortunately, is sick and cannot take care of them but who loves them in her own way and sees them almost every month when her condition allows her to do so.

Pavel and Vladi’s foster mother and their biological mother have extended hands in a tolerant and humane manner so that the children can have a home where they can grow up loved and wanted. Kristina and the


biological mother know that this is important for the two boys. With the help of the social workers from Stara Zagora’s Child Protection Department and the regional foster care team and in their presence they all meet at a neutral place at a day and time agreed in advance. They feel happy with the children together and re-live their problems with them.

Vladi now walks and runs in a stable manner given that he could not even walk when he got out of the institution. In addition, he is ever more confident in talking. He likes to hug his foster mother and requires individual attention – he wants Kristina to be the one to dress and undress him. And when he goes out in the street, he can protect himself but does not do it because this is how he receives care.

Vladi has an aptitude for rhythm and likes to dance. He also loves playing football.

Pavel has grown quite a lot. He is now more independent and wants to do everything in his own. He wants to take a bath on his own, to go to the shop on his own and to mend the broken things in the house. Now he fully understands what is spoken to him and joins in a conversation himself. The bigger boy used to be sick a lot but has long learnt that now there is someone to take him to the doctor, to put him to sleep at night and hug him when he is sick and scared.

Pavel went to the kindergarten until now but will start the first grade in September in the village nearby while Vladi will continue going to the kindergarten.

Having found their mom and dad, they found friends of their own in the kindergarten as well.

Unfortunately, their biological mother does not have an appropriate home, support and financial possibilities to raise her children. That is why Pavel and Vladi will stay with their foster parents but their will know their origin.

Now, the two little brothers are happy children who have found someone to love them. They grow up in a healthy and stable family environment, go to the kindergarten, visit the town and have the opportunity to learn everything children can learn with their moms and dads.

Human Interest Story #4: Twin girls find new aunt and uncle

The small village of Kaspichan welcomed us with sun, smell of fresh cut grass and the European flag. Right ahead of us is the local community centre. And right in front Nedjimia is waiting for us with her two little princesses, Ivayla and Ivelina. They were coming back from the library where they had borrowed some new books to read. Nedjimia is a middle-aged woman but tough and open. You can tell her life was not a bed of roses but a second look tells you all the hardships didn’t break down her ability to care and help. She married her husband 18 years ago but before that each had been married to someone else. They broke away from their partners and made a new family. Her husband Ramzy already had two girls, she had two children herself. They built their nest and taught the children to respect the others. They never treated them differently: what’s there for one was there for the other. We are walking to their house close by the community centre and Nedjimia constantly turns around watching over the two little girls. She holds tight their tiny hands as if crossing a busy crossroad. In the meanwhile she is telling us that she has taught them to walk out of the house only after having been granted permission to do so. Indeed, the small meandering street welcomes all kinds of mischief and children games. Nedjimia tells us they got used quickly to the children at home. ‘You can tell their lives have been hard so far’, the ‘auntie’ goes on (the kids do not call her ‘mom’), ‘because they were mad about helping in the kitchen and the house’.

When we enter the house, the brand new granny and father Ramzy welcome us in. They are all expecting the guests: Ramzy is cleanly shaven, Nedjimia and the granny have baked a pumpkin pie and the girls have drawn a picture. Nedjimia and Ramzy decided to take in kids after her daughters left and his got married. They lost their self-esteem. They were alone. The house full of children suddenly was empty, with only the talks of days passed and new aches. Their love stayed the same but there was no one to look after, no one to make you smile when life turns hard. Then the ‘Six-size’ charity show was on TV and a tiny thought crawled


inte Nedjimia’s head, to take a child at home to look after. She thought about this every day, going through how the neighbours would take this, but one day she summoned her courage and told Ramzy. And Ramzy is mush inside. When he heard of Nedjimia’s idea, he was ready to help the way he could. They underwent training how to look after somebody else’s children. During the training they learned that two twin girls were waiting for adoptive care. Ramzy made a joke that they were used to looking after twos, so why not take these twins too. Soon the joke became reality and two little girls walked in their home – Ivayla and Ivelina.

Love was strong between the girls’ biological mother and father. Although sort of prohibited, it brought to the world two kids. Suddenly the father disappeared. The mother delivered them, the father formally acknowledged them. Their first years were spent in a home for abandoned babies, where they didn’t feel well. The girls’ parents’ life was not easy either. They had to survive each and every day. Democracy brought along a devaluation of family relations and values that hit first smaller towns and villages. Everyone was looking for his own freedom. Everyone had his own notion of freedom. The village slowly depopulated. Many left abroad. Many dropped their studies as consumerism took over traditional values. The girls’ father grew bitter and bitter by the day. He saw no light in the tunnel. He started feeling sorry to be alive. And one day he hung himself in the barn. When she learnt of this, the girls’ mother felt like the saddest person in the world. Pain gave way to an old psychiatric hereditary illness.

One day the social workers came and took away the girls. They placed them in an orphanage but soon convinced Ramzy and Nedjimia to take them home. That’s how the little ones met their new auntie and uncle. In the beginning the elders were stressed and scared. In vain. The little girls were looking forward to every meeting with them.

The first day at home was a holiday. Nedjimia even called her daughters in the Netherlands to show them the kids. And the girls were making acquaintance with the house, walking around, touching the oven, checking on the hens, picking a cucumber in the garden. Several months on they celebrated their birthdays. No one called to check if they were doing fine, Ramzy complains. And his heart bleeds that nobody rejoices in the sight of these wonderful children. The girls remember their mother. Nedjimia tells the story of the kids playing with an old telephone set. The elder girl often called her mother and led imaginary conversations with her. She would tell how much aunt Nedjimia and uncle Ramzy love them, how they look after the two sisters, but she would also invite her mother to come and see them and take them out for a walk. These imaginary conversations made Ramzy very sad. He wanted the mother to get better as soon as possible and come to take back her girls. Because there’s nothing like home.

On our way out the girls show me the hens in the yard. They show me a hen hatching, waiting for the chickens to come out. Then they show me the kittens playing in the dust, under the reproachful gaze of their mother.

This is Ivayla’s and Ivelina’s childhood, in a village called Kaspichan, close by the city of the same name. They wake up in the mornings, have breakfast, draw pictures, run around and look impatiently forward to their uncle in the evening so that they can play with him. During the day they help their auntie with the cooking, washing and cleaning. They are very responsible young girls. The hard life in the home for children and the few memories of their mother have made them strong. And kind.

I leave them drinking cherry syrup and eating pumpkin pie. I know that as long as auntie and uncle are around, auntie and uncle whose eyes grow full of tears every time they talk about the girls, life’s hardships will be away.

Human Interest Story #5 Two tiny birds to grow up and become eaglets

My name is Plamen. I am 44 years old. I grew up in the town of Shoumen, in its Gypsy neighborhood. My mother is very strict. She taught me to respect order, discipline and work. We never got anything for which had not worked to deserve it. It’s different in our neighborhood. We struggle on our own which is not easy as some values of the past still hold true. My house has to be as good as that of the man next door. I can’t


afford to be rude as we know one another within the community and you never know when you may need someone to help you. I will always remember my child days which, though poor, were very genuine. Ours was a big family, yet my father and mother always found the way to cope. They never drew a dividing line between us and the other children. They wanted us to mend our ways. My mother was very keen on education. However, I was a very mischievous boy and after the eighth grade in school, I plunged into life. Frankly speaking, it’s not easy to be self-made. We Roma are very united people, yet when it comes to setting up a household, parents don’t help much. At least my parents didn’t. My mother said that if I wanted to have a wife and children, I had to work and achieve and leave a trace.

I met my wife Galina in the center of the neighborhood. I was on my way to a friend’s place to repair his car when I saw that beautiful girl. Her beauty and straight manners captivated me. Who could throw a stone at or speak ill of a girl who was her mother’s pride? She was educated, hardworking and very reputable. Back home I told my mother and we got married before long. We loved each other somehow. You know the way of young flesh: the initial strong passion subsides by and by to give way to understanding and mutual support. We have three children. Today they are adults and have their children.

One day my mother who most people in the neighborhood call Granny Gyurga said she was sad as she watched TV where they featured distressing stories of parentless children. It was not the first time I heard about such children. To be honest, I disproved of that and wondered what kind of women could abandon their own children. Moreover, they say most of these women are Roma. I am confused – I will never leave my child in institutional care. I will throw up the bread that I eat and the water that I drink; I will never fall asleep. Doing so will cause pain and suffering.

After one of our daughters married, Galina and I decided to take children in foster care. I was somewhat afraid. I wondered how the children would react; I had no idea what the children would be; I was not sure our home would not upset them. Granny Gyurga insisted: “Take a child. You are young, healthy and coping. Where there’s space enough for three, it will be enough for four and five.” This is how she persuaded us and at last we agreed. Meanwhile Annie was telling heartbreaking stories on the TV and my wife was very sad. When we saw the children from the Shoumen place, we felt pang in our hearts. We breed cows and I know that when I separate a calf from his mother, the calf is sad, refuses to eat, loses weight and the cow suffers tremendously.

We applied. The social workers came to inspect our home. The inspections seemed endless. The social workers could see for themselves that we have a house and space for many children; they were shown our cowshed; they bought yoghourt from our shop and were satisfied. Before long they called us to ask us to go to school. Frankly speaking, I thought the training would be waste of time but it wasn’t. It appeared both Galya and I had been ignorant of the things that make up the life of children in orphanages. We even admitted between ourselves that we didn’t know much about our own children. We were taught to give attention even to the tiniest things that concern the children who would come to live with us as these things would have a formative effect on them. I realized there was a lot of truth in what they taught us. I remembered my child experience and memories sprang up to my mind.

Then THE DAY came. The social worker told us there were two suitable children in the Shoumen institution. My wife and I seemed to have grown wings on the way from the neighborhood to the institution. I don’t remember how we got there. But I remember that we entered a room and the children were brought in. The elder boy’s name is Ilian; the younger boy’s name is Suleiman. As the children entered, they rushed to the biscuits. They completely ignored us. At our fourth encounter they relaxed and cried as we were about to go away. They wanted us to stay. We wanted to stay. We were sad to leave them. It was not that difficult for us with Galina to decide that we would take these children. The two brothers didn’t know they were brothers. They were accommodated in different wings as their age necessitated.

They cried a lot during their first day in our home. I suppose it was then that they came to know they were brothers. We took them home a month before our feast day, the Day of St. George. Neighbors came one by one and brought sweets and toys as if we had a newborn baby and were delighted. In the evening we all celebrated the event of having children. Before long the children became the neighborhood’s favorites.


Wherever they moved, a man or a woman would speak to them, caress them or give them sweets. I loved Ilian, the elder boy, immediately. He is very close to my heart. My soul melts each time I see him rush. Galina loves very much Suleiman, the younger boy. He is like a motorbike: he is off before you could catch a glimpse of him. The two boys love to be fondled. As I come back from work in the evening they assault me and ask that I cuddle them and hold them in my arms. The force and power that they give me is indescribable. They are learning quickly and know a trick or two, to tell you honestly. They are very special to us and if they make a mischief or are running wild, I can’t bring myself to scold them. They are children after all. May they grow up.

Before the social workers let us take the children home, we went to the court where we saw their mother. I felt pity for her. She had fallen in love with a man, a Roma, who deceived her when she had her first child and got a prison term when she had her second child. Her parents are elderly; perhaps they were not happy with this prospective son-in-law; all in all they rejected her. She abandoned first Ilian and then Suleiman to be placed in the institution. Honestly speaking, I can understand how this woman feels. We should not be severe in our judgment as we never know what situation we may find ourselves in and be helpless. It is important therefore that people like us be there to support parents in difficult circumstances. The institution may look like a kindergarten but the children who are placed there are different from ordinary children. Ilian, the elder boy, was very weak when we brought him home. The two boys looked like unfledged birds and their cheeks were sunken.

We’ve been together for three months now. We are very happy. They never leave us at peace but they make us happy. They are there when we get up in the morning. They are there when we go to bed in the evening. We hold them in our arms in turn. We care for them in the way we did for our own children. My wife and I don’t do that for money: we have a shop and a cow farm for income. We do that because we feel we must give support, because we have a heart. We have brought up three children and we can afford to bring up another two. We do that because we want these children to make good. We hope kind people would come up to adopt them – the children are perfect. They are quite mischievous but that’s the way with children. We must continue to tend them so that they leave off their previous habit of tottering. They find it difficult to get accustomed to the thought that we will not abandon them, that we will not forget them. We will cure their innocent souls.

We want these two tiny birds to grow up and become eaglets, to fly away from this nest and one day to love children as we love them.

Human Interest Story #6 Angelica – the daily trouble pill

I turned 22 years old. I can’t really recognize myself. I so much want to be a child, to have mom make those butter buns for me which turned my Saturdays so delicious! I loved weekends because then mom would be up early to prepare the favourite family French toast. She would wake up my brothers who, much as the lazy-bones they were, had come early home from the Friday disco. Then – to the table, every one. My mother’s excited loud voice and typical chaotic movements would soon bring to life the sleepy faces together with a specific air of merriness. The smell of warm coffee, boiled milk and French toast would stir out of bed even dad, for whom Saturdays were like black Mondays. By all means he would end up as mom’s interlocutor for local Shumen dramas while turning the house upside down, beating the rugs clean and cooking. Together. I loved to fiddle around, getting in their way, until mom would find a delicate way to send me outside playing with the kids.

We were a happy family where not a single bad word could be heard. I was the youngest in the family – the last kid of the happy family of Violetta and Zhoro. We were three brothers who, just like in the fairy tale, could discover and rediscover the world around us. With the help of our mother’s love and dad’s support. What for parents our parents were, I would always wonder: honest and open and loving. Paying so much attention to us. I knew the alphabet way before I started school. I learnt it at four while walking with dad to buy some tomatoes.


They brought us up to be honest, sincere and good friends. My mother’s heart was open for other kids as well. Not a day would pass without a neighbour dropping her child at our place. I would ponder for a long time how mom could look after others’ kids, cuddle them and caress them just the way she did my brother and me. When I grew up I just asked her one day, when I was sick of her loving others when she could only love us. And she told me that when she was a child, she didn’t play with dolls like the other kids. She didn’t like it talking like a lunatic to something cold and not breathing. That’s why the kittens in the neighbourhood became her children. She diapered them, bathed them and fed them with milk stolen under my grandma’s nose. She protected them. And she bathed in the warmth and devotion she saw in their eyes. These were her children. When she met our father Georgi, she warned him she would leave him if they didn’t have a least three kids.

That’s how my mother became my friend, a courageous comrade who taught me how to love and respect even strangers. And to help them. Maybe this is why I ended as a volunteer in the Red Cross in Shumen. I would never forget the visits to the orphanages – I had never seen so sorry places. That was strange – some of the places looked much better than our own place, but they were so full of solitude! My brother, probably led by our family upbringing, decided to enroll in social pedagogy. After he saw several orphanages, he gave it up. He told me that when they had visited a home for babies, his female colleagues were instantly surrounded by kids. Not a single one was left for him. Some time later one of the nurses brought into the room a boy, Niki. The same name as my brother’s. When the boy stretched out his arms and cuddled into my brother, he was almost brought to tears. He cried a lot afterwards and he never went back to that home. He was afraid there was nothing he could promise to little Niki. Because Niki craved only for love and someone to take him away from the home.

When my parents told us they would become adoptive parents I was not surprised. My brothers either. We had grown up and we could perfectly understand our parents’ need to look after someone. We were genuinely surprised however when we found out we would be the first in Shumen to look after a new-born.

I still remember the phone call, ‘Come to fetch the baby!’. My mother’s eyes opened wide and her hands started shaking. ‘How come! We haven’t bought anything for the baby yet!’ The other side of the line apparently realized the delicate situation my mother, the perfectionist, found herself in and suggested we went just to see it. ‘Mitko, get the car keys, we’re going to the maternity hospital’, my mother ordered and started putting her clothes on. In the car she was shivering and nervously nagging, ‘I can’t buy a kilo of meat, let alone look after a baby…’

When we entered the hospital, I realized what the matter was. My parents had been training for almost half a year how to look after somebody else’s children. Now was the moment of truth when all these efforts would be rewarded. The maternity ward’s door was closed. My mother and I were standing in front. She was shaking and murmuring, ‘I knew I should’ve taken a stress pill. No time, being constantly on the run… They told me to come and see the baby, maybe there’s something wrong with it? What if they are preparing me for a bad news?’, she would go on and on.

The door flew open and nurse Petrova brought out a white bundle. Sticking out of it was a lock of black hair. I caught my mother’s look ‘It’s a baby negro!’ When she took it, my mother gently said amidst the awkwardness, ‘Hey, Angelica, your hair starts growing from your eyebrows!’ The doctors all started talking that the baby had proper features which really took my mother off board. ‘She’s ours, we’re going to raise her’, my mother said diplomatically. And fell in love.

The doctors apparently thought that because the baby was a Roma, we would not have it. Nonsense. The very same day my mother took the whole family shopping for the baby. We walked round shops, our feet hurting, and mom, like a proud granny, would ask, ‘The pink or the pink off colour, boys?’ The three brothers and the father rejoyed with her enthusiasm but were begging for the shopping to end.

The discharge from the hospital was a three-ring circus. But I was scared. When mom passed me the baby, I froze. It was so tiny! And then I knew I would love this Roma kid. When you touch the hot-plate, you burn


your fingers. When the wind blows, you get cold. Strong emotions come at once, without much thought. That’s how it was with Angelica

We are inseparable, as my father Georgi would say. In the beginning I watched him carefully. He works in a workshop making pallets for fuel. He gets out early in the morning, comes back late in the evening, deadly tired, washes his hands and his first word is about Angelica. He cuddles her and talks to her. We cannot have enough of her. She is the lucky charm of the family. I was somewhat concerned in the beginning that people would take a wry view of us. But then I realized that under the dark skin the blood runs red just like mine, and the heart beats like the healthy heart of white children. As well as my mother’s words that kids are like the dough, it’s what you make out of them.

Finally Angelica was at home and one day the phone rang again.

‘Come to fetch the second baby from the maternity hospital’, someone said. That’s how Marti came into our lives three months later. This time we were prepared. A procession – my mother, one of my brothers, the three-month old Angelica and I. The same nurse brought us the little boy. My mother even made a joke that she and the nurse took the same shifts – the one giving babies away, the other one taking them in. In the evening my father was surprised to find two babies where he had left only one. I never saw Marti smile in his sleep or cry. And I was completely taken by surprise when he said his first ‘Agouuu’ greeting to us, the elder in the house – a gruffy and very masculine greeting.

Marti went back to his mother and father. One day we were told his parents could take him back and look after him. Something seemed to break in my mother. We were all sick with grief. In the evening, round the Marti-less table, we remembered through tears how we used to sing Russian war songs to bring peace on the baby room – Marti to stop whining and Angelica to be able to sleep. Time passed and my mother told us how surprised she was that the woman who gave birth to Marti failed to show any emotion in court when she was told she could take Marti back while the father was genuinely excited and couldn’t stop thanking my mother for all the cares for his baby. He even gave a tea set for present standing right next to my parents’ marriage gifts.

But we know where we belong.

The whole family knows we have not adopted the kids, we just take care for them while the best solution for them is found. We know it will be painful to see the children go to their relatives or new parents. But we also know that we have left pieces of ourselves in their souls. And my father, whenever word goes about the locals being afraid of becoming adoptive parents, usually quotes Paul the Apostle saying that there is no such thing as disbelief, there is only ignorance. Our job is also pioneering.

We are one happy family. We have prepared a special gift for Angelica’s special moment when someone adopts her and she finds even kinder and truer parents. Mom already bought her a primer so she knows the Bulgarian alphabet no matter where she goes.

My guess is Angelica would go to Malibu and become an acrobat, knowing how strong she is.

But until that time she will still be our sweet pill to swallow down all daily troubles.


XVII. Appendix 7 Case study biological families (in Bulgarian)

АЙДЕ, ТАТЕ, ВКЪЩИ. И ТЯ ИСКА. АМА НЕ МОЖЕ.

(Викам, тате, нали знайш, нямаме къща, викам, отивай пак с тези хора. Пак ще се видим след на

другата среща. Разбират и те… И те искат да са при нас, ама.)

Предизвикателства пред биологичните родители

Семейството е ромско от Шумен, кв. „Бялата пръст“, но се е принудило да „излезе“ на квартира.

Женени са без брачно свидетелство. Съпругът е припознал децата.

Съпругът започва разказа си от това къде е завършил училище – в Новосел. След това се премества в

помощно училище във Васил Друмево – заради безплатни учебници, всичко безплатно, дрехи:

Имаше някои болни – не могат да помнят, не могат да пишат. Пък ний там имахме стол, обяд ни дават.

Хубаво беше там. И дискотека си правихме. Събота и неделя се прибирах вкъщи.

След като бащата на съпруга почива, синът не получава права над наследствената къща, където

семейството е живяло до момента и е принудено да живее под наем.

Жената е неграмотна и безработна. Съпругът й работи почасово:

Ако днес намеря работа, ще ядем, ако не намеря – няма да ядем. Няма работа и търся. Търся, но

работа няма.“

Не знаем към кого да се обърнем. Сега плащаме 60 лв. за наем. Като изкарам 10 лв. – давам по 5 по 10

лв. за наем.

Семейството живее в една стая: „“Много сме бедни. Една стая и едно легло имаме това. И ни взеха

децата.“

Заминах да работя в Холандия. Бях там за 1 седмица, но се върнах. Там искат майстори и за мен няма

работа. Аз мога да го правя. Но първата работа е да те питат: „Майстор ли си? А те искат да видят и

кетаб.“

Аз имам 11 клас от помощното училище.

Съпругата: „Аз имам само 1 клас. Баща ми се страхува да ме пуска на училище. Имаше много

момчета.“

Тя не знае нищо. Името си не може да напише. От пари не разбира.

При нас така е законът, нали знаеш.


Оженихме се и живеехме при нашите, обаче, всички починаха и вуйчо ми взе къщата и не ни пуска

вътре. Изгониха ни от къщата, когато тя бе бременна с първото лапе. И майка ми – тя е санитарка от 27

години – и тя вече 5-6 години е в чужбина.

Семейството има три деца – Галя, после Асен, после Фани. Имат 1-2 години разлика.

В началото децата са при семейството, но живеят в малка стая – без тоалетна, без баня:

Детските отиват за наем – 60 лв. С другите 45 лв. вземам картофи, брашно. Каквото мога работя и

добавям, но пари не остават за друго. Сега няма да те лъжа – дрехи не можем да купим. Със 100 лв. не

можем. Ток плащах. В „Бялата пръст“ като не плащаш – те режат. Зимно време не пускам печка на ток.

Събирам дърва от гората за през зимата, понякога вземам и дърва от чужбина.

Аз заминах зимата – март месец – имаше голям сняг.

Майка ми изпраща по 20-30 евро, но само понякога. Тя е в Белгия (Холандия). Той и брат ми там, ама

всеки за себе си. Тя ако прати на месеца един път, ама не може жената винаги – и тя няма работа.

Работи там за един турчин, когато я извика.

Сега и трите деца са в приемното семейство.

Аз, преди да тръгна, се обадих на социалните. Викам – заминавам в чужбина. Те тогава бяха болни

лапитата. Бяха на градина – болни. И от градината – в село Средня ги водят. А защо деца от Шумен са в

Средня? – Ами тука от закрилата ми казаха, че там трябва да ги водя. Там. Там децата са на седмична

детска градина.

Още тогава децата 5 дни не са били в семейството:

Вземаме ги само за събота и неделя.

Асен е на 3, Фани на 2, другата на 4. Вече от няколко месеца децата са в приемно семейство: Тука 3-4

месеца става.

Как са разбрали, че могат да потърсят помощ от социалните служби и държавата?

И аз не знам откъде.

Приятелите казват: „Има закрила на детето, вика, помагат вика! Те ни помагаха нали – даваха ни

памперси, дрехи… Обаче аз искам да ни помогнат за жилище.

Искам да имам къща…

Не знам за социално жилище. Нищо не са ни казвали. Никой нищо не казва.

Регистрирани сме в Шумен на „Висока поляна“ – горе на „Еверест“. Баща ми като беше жив – имахме

апартамент от „Жилфон“ – преди много години ти говоря. Тогава плащаше наем 40-50 лв. И ние такова

жилище искаме.

От социални грижи ми казват, че нищо не ми се полага.


Нищо не й дават. Само земахме детски на лапито. Друго нищо не сме зимали. Нашата работа е много

зле.

Нямаме личен лекар, нямаме и здравни осигуровки – няма откъде. Децата обаче имат личен лекар –

Петкова от старата „Окръжна болница“. Мисля, че е още тя.

Исках да са на едно място и трите – Обаче те така направиха… Жената не умей да пише, молбата я

писала някаква друга жена тука. Аз тогава бях в чужбина. И като чух, веднага се върнах тука. И сега

искам да си вземем децата – искаме да си ги вземем обратно. Искам да купя един диван в квартирата,

малко да оправим стаята и да ги вземем. Тя плаче. Но социалните искат държавна работа – но няма

никой не дава работа.

Идваха в нас. И казват: „Ти не можеш да гледаш.“ Казват – нямаме удобство. Малко банята

пооправихме, но няма удобства… От време на време намирвам работа. Аз не ги оставих, тя цялата

махала ме знай – аз работя.

Сега кой ще помага. Никой. Сега стана всеки за себе си гледа. Има някои помагат, но на нас никой не

ни помага. Майка й е болна и дава по някой лев после вика – връщай парите.

Ето днес отидох при моя зет – иска да мия градските тоалетни – той ги държи и тъй ходя всяка неделя

да помагам и той ми дава някой лев за хляб. Има хора дават пари на заем – 5 лв., 2 лв., но после искат

да ги върна.

Но аз си правя сметката – като взема 105 лв. от детските – брашно, картофи, 2-3 хляба, но си търся

работа – при мои познати – търся си работа. Не съм ги оставял, като бяха при мен.

Жената неграмотна, не разбира от пари – не може да работи. До 5 -10 лв. до 20 лв. може. Понякога

мие на комшиите килими, но и за нея няма работа. Има, ама няма всеки ден. Никой не ни вика засега

и …

Кога и как за пръв път са разбрали за възможността децата да бъдат настанени в приемно семейство

(ПС)? Каква е била първоначалната им реакция?

От тука – от закрилата ни казаха… Вика ше ги настаним на някакви хора тук.

Ми те направо от болницата ме взеха с децата. Излекуваха ги и ме питаха: „Ши ги остайш ли и ти ко шъ

прайш. И нямах пари. Няма как да ги гледам… И после ги земаха тука и мене ме оставиха в „Бялата

пръст“. После питах: „Казаха, че са в приемното семейство. Добре са децата. Гледат ги добре.“

Мъжът:

Като се върнах веднага дойдох да питам: Две са в Капитан Петко и едно е в Струйно. Почнали там на

градина. Добре са.

В началото малката се дърпа. Но оня ден вече почва да ни знай. Вече започна да разбира.

Вчера и снимка направих на големите – те разбират и се смеят – гледат тука на GSM-а.


Викам, тате, нали знайш, нямаме къща, викам, отивай пак с тези хора. Пак ще се видим след на

другата среща. Разбират и те… И те искат да са при нас, ама. Аз, ако бях тука, нямаше да ги дам.

Работих цяла зима в една фирма, ама заминах.

Сега искам да пооправя малко ремонт в тази стая, в която живеем. Сега имаме само 1 легло. Искам да

купя един диван, че нали като додат да има къде да спят. Ей тука има един магазин втора употреба.

Там за 50 лв. – вика – за 40 лв. ще ти го дам, вика човека. Да мажа тавана, да боядисам стените и

тогава ще пуснем една молба да вземем деца.

Няма училище за ограмотяване на Кремена (съпругата). Аз имам диплома за шивач. Не сме

регистрирани за безработни. Не отиваме и няма кой да ни упъти.

Сега на месец се виждаме 2 пъти с децата. На две седмици по 1 път.

Малката все се оплаква от детската градина – биха я. Но сега ходят в Капитан Петко. Тука хората от

махалата ме вземат като ходят за желязо и те мъ взеха – дават по 10 лв. – викат ще ходим в Капитан

Петко. И аз ги помолих: „Викам, момчета, само за 2-3 минути да гледам искам моите лапита. И те

викат: А, добре, казаха и спряхме на градината. Обаче аз нямам право да отида да ги гледам – от тука

така ми казаха – нямам право. И ко му има сега – аз отивам сега – купил съм туй онуй сладки работи

на мойто лапи, ко му има. Отивам. И те като ме видяха, учителките в детската градина, викат: „Ти

какъв си? Викам, аз съм баща на Асен и Галя! Идвам да ги гледам, да дам малко пари, викам, сладки

да купя на тях и си заминавам. И те казаха, добре, но да викаме и майката, дет ги гледа там. И тя идва

намръщена. Почва да се кара, че се видяхме с децата. Хората ме пуснаха. Те ме познаха. То дори не

остана време да купя сладко на тях. Тя таз жена доди. Направо мъ изгони. Вика, ако не си заминаваш,

полиция шъ викам. Викам, аз тука случайно минавам от туй село, нищо не съм правил. Да купя искам.

Дори викам на момчетата – дайте 5 лв. да купя вафли на тях и те викат ето и от нас 5 лв. – да купиш. И

момчетата викат: „Бе лелче не е хубаво, викат, така.“ Тя си замина. Аз няма какво да направя. Ни

сладки купих, нищо не купих. И си тръгнахме по работата.

После тя е казала тука и ми казаха после, че нямам право да отивам там и вече не отивам. И аз се

обадих по телефона един ден – все пак голямото момче разбира, нали. И таз жена ми каза много-

много няма да се обаждаш тука.

Идваме пеша до тука. Малко сядаме. Добър ден казваме. И ни оставят сами с децата. И аз вземам

сладки за децата и те се радват, нали. Играят тука. Там по шкафа бъркат. Гледаме се с децата, после ги

вземат.

Те се обръщам към мен с „Мамо“. Срещите продължават около половин-един час.

Приемните отиват там и си говорят с колегите. Имената на приемните не ги помня много. Само

здравей-здрасти, довиждане.

Ама другите са роми – дето вземаха Фани – роми са и по-добре се разбираме с тях.

Сега искаме да отидем с жената в чужбина, че искам да купя къща. Аз сега, докато съм млад, искам да

купя къща. Ако сега не купя, кога, като остарея ли. Тогава не мога. Сега намерих къща пак на „Еверест“

– за 2000 лв. Сега, ако имам пари, веднага ще я купя. И за 1500 лв. ще я взема. Горе на „Еверест“ там

до бялата къща, до казана – стая и салонче. Баня няма, тоалетна си има. Аз като я взема, ще направя


ремонт. То работа, ако има. Там за 2 дена вземах 100 евро. Като ги обърнеш са 200 лв. Аз от тук се

качвам на микробуса – тя ми плаща пътя.

Но ако вземем децата, ще ги оставя вкъщи. Аз пък отивам в Холандия, една квартира искам да хвана.

Ще видим, може да направим една молба и децата да останат при тез хора. Ще видим.

Креми, съпругата: „По-добре тъй – да отивам в Холандия“.

Да заработят пари за къща и да могат по-бързо да вземат децата при себе си.

А дали не сте мислили да вземете децата там:

Да, ако направя пари за една седмица, ще ги взема с мен. Ако не стане, ще ги оставя в тези хора още

една ли две ли години, ще видим.“

Имам договор с тези хора. Питам как е Фанито. Дупчили й ухото на Фани – искат обеци да й слагат. Не

лошо красива е сега. Тя сега е малка. Да не се ожени рано такава красива…

Вече говорят по български, по турски. Те са малки, но все пак приказват. В Капитан Петко говорят

турски в приемното семейство.

Дали екипът по приемна грижа се е консултирал с биологичните родители при избора на приемно

семейство?

Не, няма думата … Взеха децата и казаха, че временно ще ги оставят в приемно семейство.

Искахме в Шумен.

Искам на едно място – не може… Фани много малка няма да разбере.

После ще търсим хора тука и да ги върнем в Шумен. И така си остана. Това каза една друга – те са

много тука.

Ние ги вземахме временно, вика, направете къщата и ще ви ги върнем. И все ми искат държавна

работа. Но нямам доходи. Сега, ако има работа, аз ще почвам. Няма работа. Днеска, ако работиш, утре

не работиш и така.

Откакто дадохме децата, не сме получавали помощ. Аз й казах за жилфонд – тя ми каза, че за молба

трябва да събера 40-50 лв. за молба. Като събереш пари, ми казват, ще подадеш молба. Казвам на

едно момче – Айлин – пак от закрилата, майчина ли каква не помня.

Дори и децата като бяха при нас, все идват и не помагат, а казват: „Ше ти вземем децата.“ И не

помагат все идват и викат „Ше ти вземем децата“. Туй нямаш – онуй нямаш. Викам дайте нещо.

Веднъж отпуснаха 100 лв. – дрехи за деца, купиха и брашно. Като изкарам пари вземам боб, леща.

Понякога вземаме и кафе – на котлон, на джезве. Добре е да има кафе, ако дойде някой. Днес ако

ядем боб, утре леща. Правим и лучена манджа със салам. Макарони вземахме, децата като бяха тук.

Пастет. Вика тате, дай пастет – отивам вземам. Банбони обичаше.

Искам да ги вземам, но ето нямам къща, никой не помага.

Семейството ще отиде там, където има работа:


Вчера викам на голямата: „Айде, тате, вкъщи“. И тя иска. Ама не може.

Още не сме решили как трябва. Ще отидем в Белгия. Ако има работа, ще останем. Обаче там са скъпи

квартирите – по 500 евро. Но там ако ходим, там ще вземем повече пари – детски, майчински. Там

повече помагат на хората. Не е както тука. Ами значи там се регистрираш пак в бюрото и идват. Гледат

– бедно семейство и спускат ти пари. Да си плащаш там квартирата, дават и детски повече пари. Не

съм питал колко, но давали добри пари. Отпускат ти заем там, да си купиш къща ли и пак на квартира

ли…за ремонт пари ти пускат. Има много хорица отиват там и се връщат – идва да си купи къща,

ремонт ли да направи и пак отиват.

После тука зимата е много лошо – няма дърва, няма работа. Пък там няма сняг. Там сняг – един ден,

половин час и няма сняг. Там има дъжд. И после – газ, там всичко е 500 лв. Работиш 3-4 дена,

изкарваш за наема парите и после работиш за себе си. Ти една седмица като работиш и тя като

работи, само работа да имаш.

А децата в Холандия кой ще ги гледа – а тя ще ги гледа. Може и на детска градина да се дадат.

Значи ставате холандци вече, не ще те да сте българи? – Ами няма работа тука. Няма. Без работа да се

дим. Днеска се чудиш къде да отиваш да си търсиш работа. И като си ром не ти обръща внимание

никой.

Там няма такова нещо – няма българин, няма ром, няма турчин. Няма. Всеки ти казва добър ден и ти

прави уважение. Влизаш в магазина и ти казват – добър ден: „Чай ли, кафе ли искаш?“ Безплатно. Тука

в наште магазини като влезеш, веднага те обиждат, почват да се карат. Ти викаш „Добър ден“. Тя само

те гледа. Гледа като някой компютър. В автобуса се качваш – веднага те обиждат, да не се буташ. И

хората бягат натам. Там с 50 евро – хладилника е пълен с ядене и не мислиш там за ядене.

Тук е по-скъпо. Аз като отивам с 10 лв. нищо не можеш да купиш. Излизаш пак празен.

Тук 35 лв. стигат ли за едно лапе – не стигат. Работя аз, ама няма работа.

Ето никой не помага. Мойта жена е самотна майка, но никой не помага. Има друго момиче от

„Еверест“ – самотна майка с едно дете – от общината й помагат с пари за половината ток.

Ей, ами ти с нещо не можеш ли да ни помогнеш? Казвам на тях, ама никой не помага. Като бяха

лапитата Айлин идваше вкъщи…


XVIII. Appendix 8 Evaluation criteria and questions

3.1. Relevance

What is the relevance of the developed Foster care services with regards to four criteria, i.e. availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability?

What is the value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs, national priorities, national and international partners’ policies and global references such as human rights and in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Concluding Recommendations of the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child made to the Bulgaria?

What is the relevance of the Foster care project and its contribution to the Deinstitutionalisation Reform in the Bulgaria?

For policy actors, what is the relevance of the Foster care project in relation to their involvement in planning and design of policies related to foster care?

How relevant were the trainings and the training materials?

3.2. Effectiveness in terms of outcomes for children placed in foster care

To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in better opportunities for child development, access to primary health care, access to education, connection with biological family, etc.

3.3. At local level in terms of outcomes for communities and parents

To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in improved communication between stakeholders at a local level?

3.4. Efficiency

How do the actual costs of the Foster care project compare to benchmarks for similar initiatives (Agency of Social Assistance, municipalities, social service providers)? How do the actual costs of the Foster care project fit within the government budget plans over the next 3-years?

3.5. Inclusiveness

How much did the Foster care project managed to promote inclusion into the Foster care system?

How much did the Foster care project managed to address and respond to the diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families?

To what extend is the Foster care project sensitive to cultural, ethnic diversity and gender?

3.6. Sustainability

Has the Foster care project been in any way mainstreamed by MLSP/ASA in the policy documents, standards, trainings?

What are there any quantitative or qualitative outcomes that can be measured at national level?

To what extent has the Foster care project complemented and created linkages as well as synergetic or multiplier effect with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders?

Have respective governmental and local experts supported the implementation of the Foster care project?


Is there a political will by MLSP/ASA/local authorities to bring to scale and mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system?

Relevance/Appropriateness



8. How relevant were the trainings and the training materials? 9. To what extent is the Foster care project sensitive to cultural, ethnic diversity and

gender? 10. How clearly defined and strategically chosen are regions, partners and target

groups?

Coherence 3. What is the relevance of the Foster care project and its contribution to the Deinstitutionalization Reform in the Bulgaria? 4. Have respective governmental and local experts supported the implementation of the Foster care project?

Effectiveness

4. To what extent did the Foster care project result in better opportunities for child development, access to primary health care, access to education, connection with biological family, etc?

5. How much did the Foster care project managed to address and respond to the diversity of needs of vulnerable children and families?

6. To what extent the activities are appropriate, practical and consistent with the objectives and expected results?


5. What is the value of the Foster care services in relation to primary stakeholders’ needs, national priorities, national and international partners’ policies and global references such as human rights and in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Concluding Recommendations of the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child made to the Bulgaria? 6. Has the Foster care project been in any way mainstreamed by MLSP/ASA in the policy documents, standards, trainings? 7. To what extent has the Foster care project complemented and created linkages as well as synergetic or multiplier effect with Foster care projects implemented by other partners and stakeholders? 8. To what extend did the Foster care project resulted in improved communication between stakeholders at a local level?

Efficiency 6. How do the actual costs of the Foster care project compare to benchmarks for similar initiatives (Agency of Social Assistance, municipalities, and social service providers)? (cost-benefit analyses) 7. What is the added value of project’s quantitative and qualitative outcomes that can be measured at national level? 8. What is the value of the efficiency ratio between the estimated costs and expected results? 9. To what extent the expenditures are necessary for the project implementation and achievement of targets? 10. To what extent the project team managed to involve additional non-financial resources – in-kind, volunteer work, etc.

Connectedness

4. How much did the Foster care project managed to promote inclusion into the Foster care system? 5. Is there a political will by MLSP/ASA/local authorities to bring to scale and


mainstream the Foster care project concept and principles in the social system? 6. How do the actual costs of the Foster care project fit within the government budget plans over the next 3 years?

Coverage 4. Which are the organization’s own standards for coverage, and how far these have been met? 5. What is the extent of exclusion bias (that is exclusion of groups who should have been covered but were not)? 6. What were the main reasons that the intervention provided or failed to provide foster families with assistance and support, proportionate to their need (including international, national/regional and local levels)?

Impact Due to the fact that the evaluation will be carried out immediately after the end of the project, the evaluation team is going to measure the potential impact of the project. 7. To what extent the project offers opportunities for multiplication of the activities and good practices related with foster care? 8. What is the (potential) impact of the project (after the completion) on the related to other foster care polices and activities? 9. What is the impact on the process of dismantling of institutions? 10. What is the impact on factors of abandonment of children in institutions? 11. What is the impact on public awareness and attitudes? 12. What is the impact for the organizational development of participating organizations and their capacity to influence social policy?


XIX. Appendix 9 The distribution of the different data gathering tools and the respective stakeholders by the selected regions

Region Methodology Stakeholders Number

Sofia-city – target region from the project; Analysis only on project level

FGD State authorities and NGO experts (Social Assistance, Child protection agency, NGO experts)

1

IDI UNICEF team 2

IDI International Social Service representative (CEO) 1

IDI Social Activities and Practices Institute representative 1

Stara Zagora –target region from the project;

FGD Foster parents 1

FGD Representatives of educational institutions 1

IDI Social assistance experts (2 municipalities) 2

IDI Child protection expert (RDSA and CPD) 2

IDI Samaritans Association representative 2

IDI Foster families (pairs) 3

Talks during IDI Children in foster families 3

IDI Biological families 2

IDI Medical doctor 1

QNS Foster families 14

Shumen – target region from the project;


FGD Representatives of educational institutions 1



IDI SAPI representative (local team leader) 1






Gabrovo – target region from the project;




IDI ISS representative (local team leader) 1






Sliven – control region Not region within UNICEF project

IDI Social assistance experts (district/municipality) 2


IDI Representative of a NGO implementing similar projects 1





Plovdiv – control region Not region within UNICEF project








Varna – control IDI Social assistance experts (district/municipality) 2


region Not region within UNICEF project







XX. Appendix 10 List of the documents reviewed during the desk research

1. Desk review of documents related to the Foster Care project – e.g. reports, budgets, minutes of meetings, etc.

Project documents – project application forms, contracts and reports, project expenses;

Reports, policy documents, administrative data of SACP;

Project Partners' Budget Information provided by UNICEF;

“Comparative costs-benefits analysis of the systems for child care - CCI 2010.CE.16.0.AT.076" (2011), study by European Commission (DG Regional Policy);

Plan to reduce the number of children in specialized institutions in Bulgaria for the period 2003-2005";

Public awareness of foster care - Social Activities and Practices Institute (2005);

Report on a national study of the attitudes towards the foster care in Bulgaria Social activities and practices institute (SAPI) and Socio-economic Analyses Agency, Sofia (2006);

National survey on the attitudes towards Foster Care, ASA (2006);

UNICEF 2010-2012 country program for Bulgaria;

Foster parents survey, May 2012 (Expert Analyses Group), Open bus May 2012 (OSI-Sofia);

UNICEF summary figures for the children put in Foster Care and the foster parents presented at the closure project event (7-8th May 2012);

UNICEF-Bulgaria Country Programme and national development priorities on foster care set by UNICEF for the country.

2. Review of national documents, existing analyses, evaluations and documentation of similar projects implemented by other partners;

The evaluation team has explored the project consistency with the following basic strategic and legislative documents and analytical reports:

“National Action Plan for Reform in Institutional Care for Children in the Republic of Bulgaria 2008-2011”;

“National Strategy for Children 2008 – 2018”, adopted by the National Assembly;

Recommendations of UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (Art. 44 on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, June 6, 2008);

Methodology for the conditions and manner of provision of social services "Foster care";

UN General Assembly Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (June 2009) for the establishment of professional associations on foster care (A/HRC/11/L.13, 15);

National Strategy "Vision for deinstitutionalization of children in Bulgaria” (with special focus on the Action plan of the document adopted by the Council of Ministers in November 2010);

Action Plan for implementing the National Strategy “Vision for deinstitutionalization of children in Bulgaria”, (November 24, 2010) adopted by the Council of Ministers;

Agency for Social Assistance, (2010) Annual report for children joined foster family;


State Agency for Child Protection (SACP), (2011) Data of the process of deinstitutionalization in the Homes for mentally retarded children and youths (HMRCY) and homes for children and youths with physical impairments and undiminished intellect (HCYPIUI);

State Agency for Children Protection (2011), Data of social services for children throughout the country;

Social services for children throughout the country (2011) Data of State Agency for Child Protection (SACP);

State Agency for Child Protection (2012) Data of the Entry and Exit of institutions;

State Agency for Child Protection (SACP) and Agency for Social Assistance (ASA), (2012);

Ordinance on the conditions and order for application, selection and approval of foster families and placing children in them (December 2006);

Social Assistance Act;

Regional Plans for Development of social services "Foster care".

3. Official statistics

The major sources of information for the key statistical data are:

Data from the data base of the State Agency for Child Protection (based on the information of the Child Protection Departments of the Agency for Social Assistance);

Annual Reports of the State Agency for Child Protection and Child Protection Departments of the Agency for Social Assistance.


XXI. Appendix 11 Stakeholders cross-check by data gathering tools

Stakeholders Data gathering tools Number of interviews/focus discussions/respondents

UNICEF team 1. Desk review of documents related to the Foster Care Project

2. In-depth interviews 3. Expert discussions

1. Desk research 2. 1 in-depth interview 3. Regular team meetings 4. Several contractor-evaluator

meetings

3 NGOs implementing project – the International Social Service, the Social Activities and Practices Institute, and the Samaritans Association

1. Desk review of documents related to the Foster Care Project 2. In-depth interviews

1. Desk research 2. 3 in-depth interviews – 1 by each target region

Other NGOs providing services related to foster care

1. Review of national documents 2. In-depth interviews

1. Desk research 2. 3 in-depth interviews – 1 by each control region

Foster parents 1. Sample quantitative survey 2. In-depth interviews 3. Focus discussions

1. 118 quantitative interviews in 5 regions 2. 15 in-depth interviews – 3 by each target region and 2 by each control region 3. 3 focus discussions – 1 by each target region

Children placed in foster care

In-depth interviews 15 talks during in-depth interviews – 3 by each target region and 2 by each control region

Educational representatives Focus discussions 2 focus discussions

Medical doctors In-depth interviews 6 in-depth interviews – 1 by each region except Sofia


Relevant institutions and experts: 1. State authorities and NGO experts (Social Assistance, Child protection agency, NGO experts) 2. Child protection experts (RDSA and CPD) 3. Social assistance experts (district/municipality)

Focus discussions In-depth interviews Review of national documents

1. 1 focus discussion 2. 12 in-depth interviews with child protection experts – 2 by each region except Sofia 3. 12 in-depth interviews with social assistance experts – 2 by each region except Sofia 4. Desk research

Other relevant institutions: 1. Ministry of labour and social policy 2. Social workers 3. Local authorities 4. Donors 5. International partners 6. Etc.

Desk review of documents related to the Foster Care project

Desk research

Children left foster families Official statistics Desk research

Biological parents Official statistics Desk research

Public opinion Sample quantitative survey National representative sample of 1200 respondents


XXII. Appendix 12 Detailed information about data limitations

During the fieldwork the evaluation team met several difficulties. They all had different nature in dependence of the data gathering tool and stakeholders to which they were related. The applied procedures on the purpose to manage with these difficulties were also highly varied according to the mentioned circumstances.

1. Desk reviews

According to the desk reviewers, the project documentation was not systematized and consistent. Hence, it took a lot of time to make a clear picture of the project organization, implementation and results. Another shortcoming concerns the manner of summarizing the conversation with respondents which was not unified at all. Though the project documentation provided was not sufficient to have a clear and complete picture of the project management and the role of each partner, finally the more gaps were cleared during the meetings with UNICEF representatives. In the process of approaching relevant reports, policy documents, administrative data of SACP and data from the field researches, the evaluation team came across to a lack of data base on foster care at national level. A draft letter was submitted at the Agency for Social Assistance and although there was no answer a detailed annex of this letter was considered as groundwork on the system of FC indicators in order to be maintained from the state institutions. Upon the desk research of the project expenses and budget frame, there was a lack of data for completed similar projects (topic and size) addressed through comparison with the planned budget and indicators set in the newly launch "Priemi me" project. Also, there was a lack of detailed information on the expenses of partner organizations. The evaluation team managed with it by requiring an additional data from the UNICEF team about different types of contracts signed between UNICEF and the partner organizations and later the received information was addressed by comparisons on per capita basis. In the process of researching the official statistics in order to make a comparison with the official data about foster care, the evaluation team in cooperation with UNICEF prepared a letter which was sent to SACP but still there is no answer. Until now, the data bases used for such comparison cover only the nine regions where the UNICEF project has been active and these data sets were provided by the UNICEF team.

2. In-depth interviews

There were all sorts of difficulties that occurred at the time of the in-depth interviews with respect of the individual characteristics of the respondents themselves. There was a case of a busy agenda of a general practitioner (GP), so the interview took place while there were some patients waiting. The interviewee didn't seem to understand the reason for the interview. To his mind foster children were no different than any other patient and they were responsibility of the social workers above all. The reasons why of the interview were explained and the interviewer put emphasis on the crucial questions, skipping warm up queries. During the fieldwork another situation related with a biological mother of a child put in foster care appeared. It was not convenient to go to the mother's place so the interview was conducted in the Complex for social services of Samaritans. Another biological parent had some difficulties with the Bulgarian language and for the interviewer it was not easy to communicate with that person. It cost more efforts and took longer time to finish the conversation. Also there were biological parents that felt very sad and shy in the beginning of the interview. Some of them partook in conversation on sporadic basis. The interviewers had to use a psychological approach to “break the ice” and to calm down the respondents. In the evaluation process a several interviews with experts of RDSP were conducted. Once there was a limitation concerning the rationale for an expert’s selection. The present expert in RDSP was reluctant to meet the representative of the evaluation team for an interview, claiming he/she couldn't be of a much use to the research goal. The reason was that official had worked on this position since only a couple of weeks. The evaluation team made a decision to approach the person who occupied the position previously. The new-selected person had worked for RDSP until one month before the interview. He/she had witnessed the development of FC in the


region since its appearance and was better grounded in the details of the service. In another region, there was a necessity of interruption of the interview with one of the experts but it was continued in the next day. In one of the target regions there was a logistic difficulty – no public transport between some of the villages was available. The problem was solved after the timely support of a representative of the local NGO, implementing the UNICEF project.

3. Focus discussions

The evaluation team relied on the collaboration of the 3 NGOs implementing the project by regions for organizing the FGD and contacting the respondents. The NGOs were capable and flexible enough to ensure the best conditions for the discussions’ preparation. The organization and the following realization of the focus discussions have passed without serious difficulties, the atmosphere was conducive to share, the respondents were fully engaged and finally very detailed information and useful comments was provided. The only exception was the focus discussion with educational representatives (school and kindergarten teachers who had at least one foster child in their classes). Some of the respondents didn't come to the meeting and those who came were very reserved at the beginning. They were mostly talking about the difficulties they experienced while they had a foster child in their class but they all agreed about their subsequent progress. In spite of the problems before the discussion, later it took its normal course and produced responsive information.

4. Quantitative sample surveys

The most important difficulties of the quantitative surveys came from problems related to the address registers. To be more precise, there were no difficulties with the public opinion survey because it was conducted regularly among the adult population in the country, its methodology was already made up and stable. The problems have occurred during the implementation of the foster families’ sample. The main difficulty was the lack of complete lists of the foster families in the selected regions. To make a representative sample a complete address register is needed, but for the foster families there is no such a register nor at a national, neither at a regional level. Hence, these were requested from the regional institutions (ASA, CPD). As it turned out the foster parents’ register was not available or if in some region it was, the data set was confidential. The evaluation team asked ASP to support the sample procedure by sending an official letter to the regional managers of the Child protection departments (or other responsible official) and ASP did so. The following step was these officials to make a systematic sample of the requested number of foster families themselves. They all were instructed exactly how to do that by the evaluation team. In one of the target regions the regional manager insisted on receiving a second more detailed letter from ASP not by e-mail, but by post. This procedure took much more time than was calculated at the beginning of the evaluation process. The second official letter was sent and finally the sample was produced at the expense of a significant delay with the fieldwork.

XXIII. Appendix 13 Entry and Exit of institutions by June 2011

Entry and Exit of Institutions

Type of Institution

HPMSCC HCPC HMRCY/ HCYPIUI TOTAL

Number of children in the institutions on 30.06.2011

1995 2513 820 5328

Difference between left and newcomers in the period 01.01– 30.06.11

47 287 12 346

Net share of children left in the period 01.01. – 30.06.11

2,36% 11,42% 1,46% 6,49%

Newly placed in the period 01.01– 30.06.11

1129 402 20 1551

Number of children left in the period 01.01– 30.06.11

1176 689 32 1897

Share of children left of all children placed in the period 01.01– 30.06.11

58,95% 27,42% 3,90% 35,60%

Of which:

share of the

deinsti-tutionaliz

ed

share of the total number of children

within the institution

share of the

deinsti-tutionalize

d



share of the

deinsti-tutionalize

d



share of the

deinsti-tutionalize

d



• in foster families 82 6,97% 4,11% 49 7,11% 1,95% 5 15,63% 0,61% 136 7,17% 2,55%

• placed in relatives' families and kinship care

23 1,96% 1,15% 24 3,48% 0,96% 0 0,00% 0,00% 47 2,48%

0,88%

• reintegrated in the family 284 24,15% 14,24% 153 22,21% 6,09% 4 12,50% 0,49% 441 23,25% 8,28%

• transferred to another institution

77 6,55% 3,86% 67 9,72% 2,67% 5 15,63% 0,61% 149 7,85%

2,80%

• left due to coming of age 0 0,00% 0,00% 76 11,03% 3,02% 3 9,38% 0,37% 79 4,16% 1,48%


• deceased 37 3,15% 1,85% 0 0,00% 0,00% 7 21,88% 0,85% 44 2,32% 0,83%

• others 307 26,11% 15,39% 216 31,35% 8,60% 5 15,63% 0,61% 528 27,83% 9,91%

• share of children adopted by institutions 77,38% 21,99% 0,63% 100,00%

• share of children placed in foster families by institutions 60,29% 36,03% 3,68% 100,00%

• share of children placed in relatives' families and kinship care by institutions 48,94% 51,06% 0,00% 100,00%

• share of children reintegrated in the family by institutions 64,40% 34,69% 0,91% 100,00%

• share of children transferred to another institution by institutions 51,68% 44,97% 3,36% 100,00%

• share of children left due to coming of age by institutions 0,00% 96,20% 3,80% 100,00%

• share of the deceased by institutions 84,09% 0,00% 15,91% 100,00%

• share of others 58,14% 40,91% 0,95% 100,00%

Source: SACP, 2012


XXIV. Appendix 14 Issued licences and number of services

Year 2008

2009 2010 2011 2008-2011 about 31.12.2011

Number of licenses 95 126 115 74 410 307

Total number of services 119 177 144 106 440 411

Types of service Share

information, counselling, training and support centres (for children with development disorders, with antisocial behaviour, (potential) school dropouts, with communication problems at preschool and school age, as well as the families of such children; children from institutions, e.g. HCPC, the "social-pedagogical boarding schools", schools for SEN children; delinquent children, homeless or unattended children and children with disabilities)

24 23 19 9 75 17,0%

child social rehabilitation and integration centres (under 18-year-olds with intellectual and physical disabilities, in disadvantaged position, with deviant behaviour, school dropouts)

21 33 38 21 113 25,7%

social support centres (for at-risk children and their families; prevention of abandonment, violence prevention, child victims of violence, delinquency prevention, children with antisocial behaviour, dropout prevention; early school leavers; reintegration, training, counselling and support for future foster families, foster families, prospective adopters and adoptive parents)

16 27 18 22 83 18,9%

day child care centres (for children with physical or mental disabilities, disadvantaged children; one of the centres will also provide weekly care;)

12 13 13 6 44 10,0%

Centre for family-type placement (for children from specialised institutions, children at risk of institutionalisation, street children, school leavers, etc.)

9 18 10 11 48 10,9%

Mobile child centre (for children/youngsters deprived of parental care, with disabilities, juvenile delinquents)

7 8 18 5 38 8,6%

Social assistant for children, e.g. with disabilities 7 5 7 3 22 5,0%

foster care 4 10 4 12 30 6,8%

Centre for street children 1 10 1 12 2,7%

Crisis centre for children, e.g. victims of violence or trafficking 2 6 3 4 15 3,4%

Source: SACP, 2011 the data includes information for the most widespread social services for children throughout the country

Evaluation of the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model ... · 5 Project “Expansion of the...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the project “Expansion of Foster Care Model ... · 5 Project “Expansion of the...