FAMILY TYPE HOMES

IN THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

UNICEF - MOLDOVA 2002

SURVEY TEAM:

Coordinator: Domnica Gînu – UNICEF National Consultant

Marcela ŢÎRDEA – Lecturer, ASEMAntonina COMERZAN – Expert, Government of the Republic of MoldovaOlga GURANDA – Expert, Ministry of Education, Republic of Moldova

Consultants: Larisa LAZĂRESCU-SPETEŢCHI – UNICEF Program CoordinatorAurora TOEA – UNICEF International Consultant

Andrei ŞONŢU – Computerized Data Processing

2

CONTENTSGLOSSARY...........................................................................................................................4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................5INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................7CHAPTER I. SURVEY METHODOLOGY.....................................................................8CHAPTER II. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY TYPE INSTITUTIONS.................................................................................................................10FTH Family Types..............................................................................................................10

Parent-educators.............................................................................................................13Characteristic Features of Children in FTHs...............................................................17Causes for Being Deprived of Parental Care................................................................20Health Status of Children in FTHs................................................................................21Education of Children in FTHs.....................................................................................22

CHAPTER III. LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE CHILDREN IN FAMILY TYPE HOMES...............................................................................................................................24

Physical Conditions of Family Type Homes.................................................................24Incomes and Consumption in Family Type Homes.....................................................26

CHAPTER IV. SOCIAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO FAMILY TYPE HOMES...29Allowances.......................................................................................................................29Community Services.......................................................................................................30Humanitarian Aid...........................................................................................................30

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................32CHAPTER VI. PROPOSALS...........................................................................................33

3

GLOSSARY

FTHs – Family Type Homes

Child in difficulty – a child who is orphaned, abandoned, abused, deprived of parental care, a child with developmental deficiencies, etc.

Parent-educator – mother or father who benefit from financial support for the children in their care and who represent the children’s interests in all instances.

Allowance – amount of money granted to a family to cover expenses for the care and education of children in FTHs.

Maintenance allowance – amount of money granted to parent-educators to cover the costs of educational and maintenance services for children in FTHs.

Neglect – lack of attention, care, love, material provision for the child (food, clothing, etc.).

Inadequate access to education – limited or no access to educational services.

Single parent families – families with a single parent.

Residential area – the area where the FTH is located (rural / urban).

Social services – goods or social services made available by the community in order to satisfy social needs.

Expenses – financial means spent to support the operation of FTHs.

Incomes – totality of goods and financial inputs to FTHs.

NGOs – Non-governmental organizations.

USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Family Type Homes are an alternative form of child care and education providing protection to children deprived of their family environment.

The report on the Situation of Children in Family Type Homes (FTHs) contains a description of the conditions for the maintenance and education of children, data on the children in FTHs and parent-educators, an analysis of the income and main types of expenses, and it includes recommendations for the future improvement and development of this form of protection.

The survey was conducted in the interval August – October 2001 by an interdisciplinary team and it included a number 27 Family Type Homes.

Following an analysis of the care and education offered to children in FTHs, the survey team found that families where both parents are present and that live in the rural area (66.67%) can provide higher quality material conditions, a better psychological climate and improved care and education to their children.

Similarly, parents who work in the private and industrial sectors (28%) can provide higher quality care and maintenance to their children than other categories.

Single parent families where the parent-educator is a single mother, are in a difficult material situation, and they are facing multiple problems related to the care, education and socialization of their children. These families can only survive on allowances, and they depend mainly on humanitarian aid and facilities provided by the community. Interpersonal relations in single parent FTHs are tense.

When Family Type Homes were established, there was no testing of parental abilities, and parents were not offered any instruction or special training for the care and education provided to children in difficulty. Parents indicated that they were in need of experience exchanges and training.

Survey data indicated that the amount granted as child maintenance allowance is the essential prerequisite for facilitating the protection and care of other children in FTHs.

Parent-educators stated that FTHs would work more effectively if they could collaborate and communicate in an organized manner, as part of an NGO that could promote their interests.

Survey findings indicate that the contribution of the government and the community to the social and professional integration of children in FTHs is insignificant (9.84% of the children).

The children benefiting from care and education in FTHs are aged between 2 and 32 years.

For most of the children in FTHs (76.5% of all children) these institutions are the second form of social protection, while for 20.77% they are the third, and these children carry the burden of the psychological and physical traumas they had been exposed to in those institutions.

5

The main cause for the placement of children in FTHs was that the children had been deprived of parental care. In most cases, children were abandoned by their parents (44.26%).

Survey data indicate that the placement of children into a new living environment, in different conditions, may affect their personality. When children are integrated into FTHs, they evince difficulties in communication, in relating to family members, which they translate into passive or aggressive attitudes, or isolation from the members of the family providing care.

According to the data collected, only 21.31% of the children in FTHs continue to be in touch with their biological families or relatives. In the parent-educators’ opinion, 91.26% of the children have no chance of being reintegrated into their biological families, and they claim that actually no measures are undertaken to support the children’s return to their families.

Most of the children reared and educated in FTHs are suffering from health conditions. 40.87% of the children are in need of two or more types of treatment.

Children in FTHs are not provided with free health care services, and the treatments they need would presuppose considerable expenses that cannot be borne by these families. Parent-educators adopt an indifferent attitude towards the health status of the children in their care, with the exception of acute cases that may threaten survival.

School-age children – 96.17%, go to school in the local educational institutions. Preschool-age children are not included into educational programs corresponding to their age.

Survey data reveal that the annual income per family member in FTHs is low, and it fails to cover the expenses involved in child rearing and education. This circumstance can hardly support the development of this form of protection for children in difficulty.

Families in the rural area are characterized by higher living standards. The highest income levels result from own activities, therefore the quality of care and education made available to the children is determined by the personal effort of the parent-educators. Most of a family’s income – 54.08% – is spent on food. Child allowances are very low as compared to the amounts needed for the children’s rearing and education.

Families that also own an individual farm (a plot of land, poultry or farm animals) as well as means of transport are better off and provide higher quality maintenance and care to their children.

The findings of the survey demonstrate that Family Type Homes – as a form of protection for children in difficulty – have not been developed and extended because of the indifferent and inadequate attitude of the communities and the central and local public authorities towards the problems facing children in difficulty.

6

INTRODUCTION

Article 20 in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says: a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.

Family Type Homes – an alternative form of care and education for children, offers this type of protection to children deprived of their family environment.

FTHs have been established in order to facilitate the development and social integration of children in difficulty. This model for child care and education has become an alternative for residential care.

In the Republic of Moldova, FTHs were established by virtue of a decision issued by the Council of Ministers of the SSRM in 1989, but this was not followed by the establishment of an appropriate legislative and normative framework or the formulation of standards for care and education.

FTHs have not been evaluated or monitored during the years of their operation, and the only solutions provided to the child-rearing and educational problems parent-educators have been confronted with have been limited to episodic actions.

The study on the Situation of Children in Family Type Homes was conducted at the request of the Government of the Republic of Moldova, and its purpose was to study and analyze the care and education provided to children in FTHs, as well as to formulate recommendations for the improvement and development of this form of protection for children in difficulty.

The study was conducted between August – October 2001 by an interdisciplinary team and it included a number of 27 Family Type Homes.

The report contains a description of the conditions for care and education available to children, data on the children in FTHs and parent-educators, an analysis of the financial inputs and main categories of expenses, a description of the problems confronting FTHs, and it also includes recommendations for the future, grouped by administrative levels, which are meant to stimulate the improvement and development of this form of protection.

7

CHAPTER I. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The survey on Family Type Homes was conducted based on a methodology including a complex set of research methods and techniques, which allowed the team to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.

In conducting the study, the team was guided by the principle of interdisciplinarity. The team included specialists in psychology, pedagogy, sociology and in the protection of the rights of the child.

Purpose of the Survey: To evaluate Family Type Homes as a form of protection and care for children in difficulty.

Specific Objectives:

To evaluate living and educational conditions available to children in Family Type Homes;

To evaluate parental skills of parent-educators;

To define the possibilities for improved operation of Family Type Homes;

To formulate proposals for the improved operation of Family Type Homes.

Object of the Survey: Family Type Homes as a form of protection for children in difficulty.

Subjects of the Survey: The subjects of the survey were children protected in Family Type Homes, as well as parent-educators who have these children in their care.

Research Methods and Techniques:

Questionnaires

Observation

Conversation

Interviews

Analysis of relevant legislation

Questionnaires Two questionnaires were applied for collecting quantitative information:

- questionnaire for children placed in FTHs- evaluation questionnaire for Family Type Homes as a form of protection for

children in difficulty.

The Children’s Questionnaire included a set of questions meant to determine the children’s legal status, the reasons why they were deprived of parental care, their health status and access to educational services, the institutions where they were protected before being placed in FTHs (Annex 1).

The FTH Questionnaire concentrated on collecting data on parent-educators, the members and the structure of the family, the reasons why the children were taken in care, the welfare level in FTHs (Annex 2).

8

Survey Population

The survey questionnaire was applied to a number of 183 children who were provided with care and education in FTHs during the entire duration of their operation, and their gender distribution was the following: 54.1% - girls and 45.9% - boys.

The survey included all Family Type Homes – 27 FTHs (Annex 3) which were operating on the territory of the Republic of Moldova in the year 2001, when the study was undertaken.

9

CHAPTER II. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY TYPE HOMES

Family Types in FTHs

Family Type Homes were established in the years 1989-1990, as a form of social protection for children in difficulty. The breakdown by residential area is the following: 66.67% are located in villages, and 33.33% are located in towns.

According to the survey data, most Family Type Homes were established in the year 1990 – 40.7% of the total number of institutions, the latest being opened on 23 April 1996. (Fig. 1)

Figure 1. Years when FTHs were established

According to the regulations in force, when a Family Type Institution was established, it had to accept no less than five children. The number of children was established by the FTH Rules of Procedure and it was meant to ensure the effective use of the financial means made available by the government.

A number of 143 children were placed in FTHs in the year when they were first established, and the families were subsequently completed up to the stipulated number, and sometimes even more (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Numbers of children included in FTHs upon their establishment

10

According to the results of the survey, when FTHs were established, the structure of the families that took children in their care was the following:

- 2/3 of the families reared and educated their own children (Table 1); - 11.11% of the families had adopted children;- 22.23% of the families had no children.

Table 1. Age of own children (year - 2001)No. Age Children (%)1. over 18 years 47.062. 15 – 18 years 20.593. 11 – 14 years 23.534. 6 – 10 years 5.885. under 5 years 2.94

The data in the table indicate that most of the families involved have their own children that have already come of age and are in the stage of self-fulfillment.

If we compare the number of children enrolled in the Family Type Homes evaluated when they were established (143), and the number of children at the time the study was conducted (183), we find that in the interval 1989 - 2001 a number of 40 children were enrolled in Family Type Homes.

The data show that the status of FTH families is the following: - in 85.2% of the FTHs both parents are present;- 14.8% of the FTHs are single parent families (mother-educators).

Upon the establishment of FTHs, 7.4% of the mother-educators were single mothers, and during their operation, 7.4% of the fathers in the FTH families passed away.

The findings indicate that all the families in the present survey are many-member families (Table 2). The table below shows that 92.6% of the FTHs have more than 6 children in their care.

Table 2. Family membership according to the number of childrenNo. Number of children Families (%)1. 4 children 3.72. 5 children 3.73. 6 - 10 children 74.14. 12 - 22 children 18.5

11

These findings demonstrate that Family Type Institutions – as a form of protection for children in difficulty, have not been developed and extended because of the indifferent and inadequate attitude of the communities and the central and local public authorities towards the problems facing children in difficulty.

Following an analysis of the conditions for care and education available to children in FTHs, the work team found that the families where both parents are present and live in the rural area (66.67% of all FTHs) can provide higher quality material conditions, a better psychological climate and improved conditions for care and education to most children (77.78%).

Most of the Family Type Homes located in the urban area (33.33% of all FTHs) are facing desperate material circumstances. The buildings where these FTHs are located are in bad need of capital repairs, and they need decent sanitary and hygienic conditions to be provided to them.

Single parent families, with single mother-educators, are living in difficult material circumstances, and have multiple and severe problems to face concerning the care, education and socialization of their children. These families can only survive due to the child allowances, and they rely to a great extent on humanitarian aid and facilities provided by the community. Interpersonal relations in FTHs are very tense. The physical living conditions, i.e. the housing, furniture, household appliances, crockery, and overall maintenance are in a deplorable state, which makes the maintenance, care and education of the children a difficult problem.

12

Parent-educators

Parent-educators are the persons who organized an FTH based on their own family, while assuming responsibility for the children placed with them for care and education.

Survey results indicate that the reasons for establishing FTHs were very diverse, being specific to each and every family (Table 3). The data in the table below reflect the great variety of reasons for taking in children in difficulty for care and education. A share of 82% of the families decided to organize FTHs based on two or several reasons.

Table 3. Reasons for deciding to establish FTHsNo. Reason Parents (%)1. Love for children 782. No personal children 303. In response to the call of the local public authorities 264. Religious beliefs 115. After watching the TV show “Those Sadder Than Ourselves” 156. Children of relatives (after parents died) 77. Parent-educators were orphans themselves and were raised in

residential institutions7

8 Parent-educators were raised by single parents 49. Their own children wanted to have brothers / sisters 4

FTHs were granted government support in different forms at their establishment: - 70% of the FTHs received material support; - 56% were granted economic and social facilities;- 26% were offered stimulation and moral encouragement.

According to the survey data, the age of parent-educators (at the time the study was conducted) was between 38 and 64 for mothers and between 40 and 69 for fathers, the average age per selection being of 46.9 years – for mothers and 48.7 years – for fathers (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Age of parent-educators.

13

The data reflecting the average age of parents per selection indicate that FTHs can be developed and extended as a form of social protection for children in difficulty based on the existing parents.

Figure 4. Education of parent-educators.

According to the data on the parents’ education (Fig. 4), they appear to have very different educational backgrounds, which however does not have an impact on the quality of services they provide. In the development of this form of protection, the parents’ education cannot be taken as a basic criterion.

The survey data also reveal the domains where parent-educators are employed (Table 4).

Table 4. Domains where parent-educators are employedNo. Domains of employment Mother

(%)Father

(%)1. Education 40 182. Health care 8 53. Agriculture 24 454. Constructions - 95. Trade 12 -6. Transport - 97. Public administration - 58. Service sector 8 59 Industry 8

Looking at the data on the domains of employment and the professional training of the parent-educators, we find that most of them come from education and agriculture.

The data reveal that parent-educators consider Family Type Homes as their place of employment, as their job. This was the case for 76% of the mothers and 25% of the fathers.

Mothers in FTHs are employed in health centers - 4% of the cases; educational institutions - 12% of the cases; and factories/companies - 8% of the cases.Fathers in FTHs are employed in 56% of the cases, and in 19% they are unemployed).

14

For the services provided, parent-educators receive a maintenance allowance, which was set at 151.13 lei beginning with 1 April 2001.

In FTHs where the parents work in the private and industrial sectors, which accounts for 28% of the cases, care and maintenance conditions for children are higher in quality (they have bathrooms and toilets, good physical living conditions, adequate material resources, parent involvement in the children’s education, etc.).

The survey has found that difficult situations are specific for families that consider FTHs as their employment, as well as in single parent families.

According to survey data, 44% of the fathers do not hold a permanent job, which makes it difficult to rear and educate the children in their care and complicates their training as well as their social and professional integration.

The evaluation of the indicator – willingness to take other children in care, indicates that 56% of the parent-educators would be willing to take on other children, while 44% of the FTHs would not, the latter being the families that are well-off, the argument they invoke being that they mean to raise grandchildren as well.

The study has defined the conditions that would encourage parent-educators to take on other children (Table 5).

Table 5. Conditions that would encourage the taking in of new childrenNo. Conditions FTHs (%)1. Higher allowance levels 1002. Tax facilities 26.673. Supplementary pedagogical assistance 33.334. Improved housing conditions 53.335. Community support 66.676. Government support (financial and moral) 33.337. Payment of allowances by agreed deadlines 13.338. Higher maintenance allowances for parent-

educators13.33

9. Technical assistance 6.66%

According to survey data, the essential condition that would stimulate people to accept more children in their care would be a higher child maintenance allowance – a condition that may be secured by the concerted efforts of central and local institutions.

If this condition were met, this would contribute to the development and expansion of Family Type Homes as a form of protection for children in difficulty.

15

Survey results indicate that, when FTIs were being established, parent-educators were not selected based on an evaluation of their parental skills, and they did not benefit from any instruction or special training in rearing and educating children in difficulty (and this is true in 96% of the FTIs). The unique criterion for selection was the parent-educators’ desire to educate and care for children in difficulty.

Parent-educators indicated as the main condition for the improved operation of Family Type Homes the acquisition of the following types of knowledge:

- pedagogical - 100%; - psychological - 72%; - health care - 80%; - legislation - 64%.

The study conducted in the FTHs revealed the problems they were facing in the rearing and education of their children, which generated obstacles for the development of this form of protection (Table 6).

Table 6. Problems FTHs are confronted withNo. Problems FTHs (%)1. Financial means 962. Health care 933. Legislative 814. Bureaucracy 785. Education 74

Parent-educators say that in order to solve their problems they need: community support - 81%; moral support from the Government and public bodies - 78%; speedier solutions given to administrative problems - 78%.

An analysis of the data reveals that 100% of the FTHs stated they would operate more effectively if they could collaborate and communicate in an organized manner. Parent-educators indicated in 96% of the cases that they needed experience exchanges and training (thematic seminar on various topics). 41% of the FTHs stated that the good operation of FTHs – a form of protection for children in difficulty – would be significantly improved by the establishment of an NGO that could promote their interests and would help them solve their daily problems.

When analyzing the contribution of the Government and the community to the social and professional integration of the children in FTHs, parent-educators stated that the state contributed to the establishment of the FTHs in only 6.01% of the cases, and the community was involved in the process in only 3.83% of the cases.

FTHs are confronted with a wide range of problems, but parent-educators look at the future of the children in their care with optimism in about 80% of the cases, considering that their children are ready to lead an independent life and will permanently remain members of their families.

In 2.73% of the cases, parent-educators stated that the children would have a good future, relying on the potential support of the government and the community. In 17.27% of the cases, parent-educators stated that it was difficult to say what kind of future lay ahead of the children in their care. The latter category includes families with limited parental skills, who are indifferent to the children in their care.

16

Characteristic Features of Children in FTHs

The children protected in FTHs come from diverse social environments, each with their specific problems, most of these children (79.78%) having been protected and maintained in several social protection institutions. (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Where FTP children come from

Survey data reveal that children in FTHs have usually been through several social institutions (Table 7), that have affected their development. Residential institutions contributed to the development of habits that complicate the children’s inclusion in FTHs.

Table 7. Institutions where the child was enrolled before coming to the FTHNo. Type of Institution Children (%)1. Residential institution 38.82 Hospital 23.53. Biological family 26.234. Boarding school 26.785. Street 1.646. Guardian family 1.097. Other FTH 5.46

17

Survey data indicate that the placement of children into a new living environment, that offers them different conditions, may affect their personality. When children are integrated in FTIs, they evince difficulties in communication, in relating to family members, and translate these into passive or aggressive attitudes, or isolation from the members of the family providing care. In order to deal with these effects, various types of knowledge is required: to settle conflicts; to improve and reduce the adaptation period; to support and stimulate the development of children in difficulty.

For most of the children in FTHs (76.5%) this is their second form of social protection; for 20.77% it is the third, and for 2.73% it is the fourth such institution.

Children who have been through several institutions are facing more severe adaptation problems, they have difficulties in developing their personality and socializing within FTHs. Parent-educators told the survey team these children were more difficult to integrate in the family and community (school) environment, and communication with other members of these communities was also a problem for them.

Before being placed in FTHs, most of the children in these institutions (74.86%) had been exposed to several traumas, as follows: 10.95% of the children suffered two traumas; 6.57% suffered three traumas, while 2.92% - four. The most frequent form of trauma was physical neglect – present among 67.78% of the children (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Traumas suffered by children before their placement in FTHs

The results of the survey indicated that the age of the children in FTHs ranges between 2 and 32 years, a large number being 15-year olds – 10.38% of the children (Fig. 7). Most of the children in FTHs are between 13 – 21 years old. This indicator demonstrates that there are very few new placements in FTHs, and in about five years Family Type Homes will be self-dissolved.

Figure 2. Distribution of children by age

Most of the children in FTHs came to these families in 1989 – 19.67% children and 1990 – 27.85% children. Before 1989, Family Type Homes had accepted 8.75% of the total number of children.

18

Between 1991 – 2000, a share of 41.64% of total children was placed in FTHs, which demonstrates that in a full decade there were fewer children placed in FTHs than during the first two years (1989 - 1990) when FTHs were established.In the year 2001, the existing FTHs accepted a mere 1.64% of the total number of children currently there.

According to the survey findings, most of the children in FTHs – 76.5% – have brothers and sisters (Fig. 8) out of which:

81.35% of the children have brothers/sisters currently in the same FTH; 2.14% of the children have brothers/sisters living with their grandparents; 3.3% of the children have brothers/sisters living with their father; 7.14% of the children have brothers/sisters protected in other residential care

institutions; 1.18% of the children have brothers/sisters living with their mother; 4.18% of the children have brothers/sisters living in another FTH; 0.71% of the children have married brothers/sisters.

For 21.86% of the children, parent-educators do not hold data about their brothers/sisters, while 1.64% of the children have no brothers/sisters.

Figure 8. Number of brothers / sisters of children in FTHs

According to the findings of the survey, the biological families of the children protected in FTHs show the following picture:

parents living: the mother – 39.89% cases and the father – 27.87% cases; deceased: the mother – 27.32% cases and the father – 25.14%.

For most children, parent-educators do not have information about their biological parents.

In 2.19% of the cases, the biological parents of the children in FTHs who live together with their parents also have other children in their care. Out of the total number of parents who live separately, in 2.19% cases – the mother, and in 3.83% of the cases – the father, also rear and educate other children.

The survey results demonstrate that in most cases – 78.69%, children in FTHs do not have relations with their biological families or relatives, while in 21.31% of the cases,

19

where these children do keep in touch with their relatives, the relations are mainly episodic and of an emotional nature.

According to the study data, parent-educators stated that for 91.26% of the children they did not think a reintegration into their biological families was possible, while in 8.74% of the cases they thought they could have been reintegrated into their biological families if certain conditions were met.

Parent-educators claimed that no measures were undertaken to return children to their biological families (by the bodies of the local public administration, particularly by the inspectors responsible for the protection of children’s rights).

The survey data reveal that none of the children educated in FTHs were returned to their biological families by the age of 18.

Causes for Being Deprived of Parental Care

The placement of children in Family Type Homes was triggered by a whole set of causes, the primordial cause being the children’s being deprived of parental care. According to the information provided by parent-educators (none of them could produce a document certifying the situation of the children in their care), children can be deprived of parental care for a multiplicity of reasons, the most frequent one being that parents abandon their children – in 44.26% of the cases (Fig. 8).

Figure 9. Reasons why children are deprived of parental care

There are multiple reasons why children are deprived of parental care, the objective reasons for their placement in FTHs being the death of their parents (26.78%) and the health condition of their parents (6.56%).

The survey results demonstrate that most children come from morally degraded families, that do not foster education.

20

Health Status of Children in FTHs

Results show that the health status of the children in FTHs is determined by their access to health care services, as well as by their previous record: physical neglect in their biological families, physical and psychological traumas suffered, inadequate treatment during their development, etc.

A share of 57.4% of the total number of children in FTHs suffer from a disease (Table 8), out of which 10.47% are disabled children (in the total child population included in the survey, disabled children account for 6.01%). 11.47% of the children suffering from chronic diseases are affected by deficient sight or hearing, psychological imbalance, mental and physical infantilism, as well as consequences of any previous traumas they were exposed to (burns, abuses, natal and post-natal trauma, etc.).

Table 8. Health status of children in FTHsNo. Diseases by body systems Children (%)1. Central nervous system 15.312. Kidney system 11.473. Gastrointestinal system 8.754. Metabolic disorders 1.095. Mental retardation 8.756. Cardiovascular system 2.197. Respiratory system 6.568. Immune system 1.649. Tuberculosis 1.64

The survey results indicate that there is a need to provide a variety of health care services for sick children:

systematic drug treatment – 56.16% of the children; prophylactic treatment – 47.59% of the children; sanatorium treatment – 31.41% of the children; surgical treatment – 5.71% of the children.

40.87% of these children need two or several types of treatment.

The high rate of acute and chronic diseases is caused by the decreasing accessibility of health care services, generated by the limited financial means available to FTHs and the geographical location of health care institutions.

Children in FTHs do not benefit from free health care services, and the treatments require considerable expenses that cannot be covered by these families.

Parent-educators adopt an indifferent attitude towards the health status of the children in FTHs, with the exception of acute cases that may threaten their survival.

21

Education of Children in FTHs

Education is a domain of complex social activity requiring efforts from both the community and the family oriented towards providing quality education to the children.

According to the survey data, 95.08% of the total number of children benefit from education in the local schools. At the time the study was conducted, local schools provided schooling at the child’s home for medical reasons in 1.09% of the cases.

2.83% of the children in FTHs are of preschool age. They are not included into preschool educational institutions and they do not benefit from educational programs according to their age. Parent-educators limit the development and endanger the adaptation and socialization of children in that age group, given that they only offer them care, and not so much education.

According to the data available, 48.65% of the children have good and very good school performances (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. School performance of children

Good school performance is determined by the parents’ involvement in the children’s education, by the favourable conditions they create for education and instruction, and by the provision of the necessary teaching material and school supplies. Most parent-educators are interested in the success and fulfillment of the children’s cognitive potential.

The family environment has a beneficial influence on the adaptive capacity of children in FTHs. According to our data, 62.84% of the children can adapt to the new learning conditions and relational structure in a manner adequate to their age, for 28.42% of the children it is more difficult to get involved in new relationships and different social environments, and only 7.10% of the children have a low adaptive capacity, determined by the experience preceding their placement in a FTH.

The data indicate that children evince a sociable behaviour in 85.79% of the cases, 8.2% of the children are isolated and withdrawn, 3.83% of the children develop various conflicts with their colleagues and family members, while 1.09% of the children turn to vagrancy.

The conclusion we can draw from the above is that the family environment secures the adequate adaptation and socialization of most children, given the diversity of relations and roles they are engaged in by their family.

22

The children protected and educated in FTHs develop a variety of interests, that are further supported and developed by parent-educators through various activities:

- 42.62% of the children have artistic interests;- 9.29% of the children have economic interests;- 27.32% of the children are interested in literature;- 30.05% of the children demonstrate technical creativity;- 10.38% of the children are interested in sports.- 1.64% of the children take an interest in household activities.

Parent-educators claim that children develop a multitude of aspirations that cannot be achieved, that fail to correspond to the children’s development potential and the FTHs’ financial and social possibilities.

According to the survey data, children in FTHs can be grouped according to their educational levels as follows (Table 9):

Table 9. Education of children in FTHsNo. Education Children (%)1. Comprehensive school 57.372. Vocational school 22.953. Special school 2.194. Higher education 13.66

The study indicates that out of the total number of children over 18 years of age who meet the requirements for being admitted to higher education institutions, a share of 27.51% have been enrolled in this type of institutions.

In 82.4% of the cases, children with good and very good results in secondary education have been sent to higher education institutions by their parent-educators, but they benefited from facilities at admission only in 14.66% of the cases.

23

CHAPTER III. LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE CHILDREN IN FAMILY TYPE HOMES

Physical Conditions of Family Type Homes

FTHs were established based on the physical conditions available to the families involved: furnished dwelling, sufficient floor space, decent maintenance, etc.

The findings of the survey indicate that FTHs operate in the following physical conditions:- apartments in apartment buildings – 22% of the FTHs;- old houses – 52% of the FTHs;- new houses – 26% of the FTHs.

The floor space available to FTHs ranges between 4m2 and 20 m2 per family member (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Floor space available per family member (m2)

The data shown in the figure indicate that most FTHs lack sufficient floor space to provide adequate care and education to their children. Floor space is not an indicator for the quality of the services supplied, but it is important for ensuring adequate conditions for the maintenance and education of children. Floor space is organized in various ways in different situations, but it appears to be best used in FTHs that have 6 – 10 m 2 of floor space available.

According to survey data, 37% of the FTHs are provided with bathrooms and toilets inside the dwelling, 22% of which are apartments and 15% are houses; for 78% of the FTHs, the toilets are located in the courtyard. 70% of the FTHs have their own bathroom, which is absent in the other 30%.

Most of the families cultivate the land around their houses (59% of the families), and the land available to them ranges between 200 and 15,000 sq. m, which makes for a higher quality maintenance of the children. In 81% of the cases, the FTHs also have orchards, on areas ranging between 100 and 10,000 sq. m. The presence of fruit trees is typical in villages.

Survey results confirm that FTHs do not care about providing adequate conditions for the children to play (44% of the cases). Green areas used as playgrounds are present in 56% of the families, with surfaces ranging between 30 and 2,000 sq.m..

24

The welfare of FTHs is also determined by the plot of land held by the family (85% of the families own some land, ranging between 400 and 150.000 sq.m.), the means of transport owned by the FTH - 78% (Table 10), and what they can produce in the household, based mainly on animals and poultry:

- 59% of the cases - cow;- 45 % of the cases – sheep and goats;- 52% of the cases - swine;- 78% of the cases - poultry.

Table 10. Means of transport in FTHsNo. Means of transport FTH (%)1. Car 47,612. Cart 23,813. Tractor 9,524. Motorcycle 9,525. Truck 4,766. Minibus 4,76

The families that own an auxiliary farm (a plot of land, poultry and farm animals) as well as means of transport are better off and provide higher quality maintenance and care to their children.

25

Incomes and Consumption in Family Type Homes

The analysis of the income and consumption levels in FTHs (between 1999-2001) was meant to identify financial and material inputs and determine their structure. The analysis was based on the data provided by parent-educators. Records of incomes and expenditures made by FTHs could not be used, given that they were non-existent.

The analysis revealed that the average global income of FTHs in 2001 increased by 14.2% as compared to the 1999 level, and by 17.41% as compared to the 2000 level (Figure 12).

FTH incomes were higher in 2001 because the Committee for Adoptions of the Republic of Moldova decided to grant a one-time grant of 500 lei to support children in preparing for going to school.

Figure 12. Average annual global income in FTHs

According to survey data, the average annual income per FTH family member in 1999*

ranged between 875 and 3784 lei. In 2000, the range was 906 - 4048 lei, while in 2001 it was 814 - 4190 lei (Table 11)*.

Table 11. Average annual income per family member

No. Average annual income per family member

FTH (%)1999 2000 2001

1. Under 1000 lei 8 8 42. 1001 – 1500 lei 32 20 83. 1501 – 2000 lei 16 24 284. 2001 – 2500 lei 16 20 205. 2501 – 3000 lei 24 16 206. 3001 – 3500 lei 0 4 127. 3501 – 4000 lei 4 4 48. 4001 – 42000 lei 0 4 4

* According to the data made available by the Department for Statistical and Sociological Survey, the average income per capita in the Republic of Moldova in 1999 was 1600.8 lei, in 2000 – 2229.6 lei and in 2001 – 2892 lei.* The average annual income per FTI family member was calculated according to the data provided by parent-educators and the Republican Children’s Fund.

26

The data indicate modest annual income levels per family member in FTHs, that are insufficient to cover all expenses related to the care and education of children. This can hardly further the development of this form of protection for children in difficulty.

An analysis of the distribution of incomes by residential areas - rural/urban - found that the annual income per family member in the urban areas amounts to 2670 lei, while in the rural areas it is of 2188 lei.

Families in the rural area enjoy better living standards, which is due to the auxiliary farm they have, but which was not included by parent-educators among their income sources. These auxiliary activities provide FTHs with various produce of an appropriate quality and in sufficient quantities.

Survey findings have revealed the following income structure of FTHs:- monthly maintenance and care allowances for children in FTHs;- unique annual allowances;- maintenance allowance of parent-educators;- salaries;- income from own activities/business;- humanitarian aid.

The survey found that the highest income levels result from the FTHs own activities, which demonstrates that the quality of care and education is largely determined by the efforts made by parent-educators (Figure 13, Table 12).

Figure 13. Types of income in FTHs (%)

27

Table 12. Types of income in FTHs (%)

No. Types of income Years1999 2000 2001

1. Monthly maintenance allowances for children

29% 25% 20%

2. Annual allowances 5% 5% 13%3. Maintenance allowance for parent-educators 8% 8% 7%4. Salaries 11% 14% 15%5. Own activities 43% 43% 38%6. Humanitarian aid 4% 5% 7%

Total 100% 100% 100%

The types of expenses identified in FTHs (1999 - 2001) show that they are constant in structure (Table 13).

Table 13. Structure of expenses in FTHsNo. Types of expenses (%)1. Food 54.082. Clothes, shoes 14.023. Soft inventory (bedclothes, furniture, quilts, etc.) 1.294. Personal care products 6.255. Household inventory (crockery and cutlery, washing

machine, television, etc.)4.05

6. Utilities 9.357. Health care services 5.378. Educational services 5.159. Other 0.44

The results of the study demonstrate that FTHs do not keep records of their incomes and expenditures, but all parent-educators claim that allowances fall much below the maintenance and educational needs of their children.

28

Most of the income available to FTIs - 54,08% - is spent on food. About 11% of the total income of FTIs is spent on educational and health care services. Expenses for education are limited to the purchasing of the most elementary school supplies, while expenses for health care services are only made in case of emergency (acute diseases, traumas, etc.).

CHAPTER IV. SOCIAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO FAMILY TYPE HOMES

Social benefits (granted in cash) are meant to cover the basic needs of FTHs. FTHs are granted the following types of social benefits:

benefits meant to cover consumption: personalized care and maintenance allowances for the children, unique annual allowances, maintenance allowances granted to parent-educators;

benefits offered by the community (educational, for the maintenance of the FTHs, etc.).

AllowancesAllowances are an instrument of social protection meant to cover the expenses related to the maintenance and care of children in difficulty.

The legislation in force provides for the following types of allowances that can be granted to Family Type Homes:

a) monthly allowances for the maintenance and care of children;b) unique annual allowances;c) maintenance allowances granted to parent-educators.

a) monthly allowances for the maintenance and care of children

According to Government Decision no. 42 of 25.01.1999 on amending Decision of the Government of the Republic of Moldova no. 198 of 16.04.1993, children who are orphaned or deprived of parental care, and are protected in Family Type Homes, shall benefit from a personalized monthly allowance amounting to 90 lei.

Allowances are granted irrespective of the pensions and other social benefits that the children may be getting, up to the age of 18. The necessary financial means are allocated from the local budgets.

Family Type Homes have been granted various amounts in allowances, according to the number of children in their care and to their age. On the average, FTHs received 5225 lei in 1999, 4339 lei in 2000, and 4109 lei in 2001 in allowance money.

The Government offered allowances for the care and maintenance of children in FTHs as follows: 108,483 lei in 2000; 102,723 lei in 2001.

b) unique annual allowances Unique annual allowances are granted at the beginning of the school year and are

meant to cover the expenses involved in sending children to school. The unique annual allowances amount to 180 lei and they are allocated from the Government’s Reserve Fund to each school-age child.

In 2001, a supplementary unique allowance of 500 lei was offered to each child enrolled in education (a total number of 102 children) at the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. This social benefit was offered by the Committee for Adoption of the Republic of Moldova and it amounted to 51,000 lei.

29

c) maintenance allowances granted to parent-educators According to Government Decision no. 291 of 25.05.1993 on the salaries of the personnel working in the public education system based on a unique tariff network, parent-educators in Family Type Homes benefit from a monthly maintenance allowance corresponding to salary category 10, which amounts to 151.13 lei beginning with 1 April 2001. For each child taken in care above the number of five, and for each child under the age of three, parent-educators receive a supplementary monthly payment amounting to 0.5 of the minimum national salary.

Community ServicesThe social services provided by the community are meant to support this form of social protection for children, by covering expenses related to the maintenance and servicing of the buildings, heating, electricity, as well as other household expenses. The financial means necessary to cover these expenses shall be disbursed by the local public authorities upon the presentation of receipts or other financial documents.

According to item 29 of the Regulations on the operation of Family Type Homes, local public authorities are under the obligation to allocate plots of farmland to them, according to the number of children in their care, as well as to undertake priority measures to ensure technical means, seeds, fodder and farm animals to FTHs, also granting facilities for developing auxiliary farming activities, according to the sources available.

The survey results that in most cases families are not granted any of the services provided for in the regulations and rules of procedure of FTHs.

Humanitarian AidHumanitarian aid is a form of social protection that is granted occasionally by various charity organizations, natural persons or religious organizations. According to the survey data, in the interval 1999-2001, Family Type Homes benefited from humanitarian aid as follows: in 1999 – 26% of the families; in 2000 – 59% of the families; in 2001 – 70% of the families.

On the average, a family was granted 1042 lei in 1999, 1743 lei in 2000 and 1986 lei in 2001. The data indicate a growing trend in the number of beneficiary families, as well as in the value of the cash aid.

Humanitarian aid has also been provided in the form of food, clothing, shoes and building material.

Since the establishment of Family Type Homes, humanitarian aid has been offered by the following institutions:

- Children’s Fund in Moldova – 56%; - Religious institutions - 48%; - Bodies of the central public administration – 44%; - Bodies of the local public administration - 41%; - Local NGOs - 37%; - Relatives - 30%; - Neighbours and friends - 11% ; - International NGOs - 11%;

30

- Ministry of Education - 7%; - Committee for Adoption of the Republic of Moldova - 4%;- The Social Fund - 4%.

Humanitarian aid at the establishment of FTHs was granted to all these families, and the amounts disbursed were considerable, this being a prerequisite for the spreading of this form of protection for children in difficulty. The organization that collected and distributed the funds for humanitarian aid to be granted to FTHs was the Children’s Fund in Moldova.

An analysis of the survey data reveals that the system of social protection does not include any public structure that national and international non-governmental organizations could approach in order to keep a record of the distribution of donations and humanitarian aid.

31

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS

Family Type Homes are an alternative form of care, education and training for life of children in difficulty, that facilitate efficient integration and ensure favourable conditions for the development of children.

The family environment in FTHs ensures the adequate adaptation and socialization of most children, due to the diversity of roles and relations it offers.

The protection of children in FTHs is not regulated by law, but by various decisions at a departmental level, which fail to reflect and to provide an adequate response to the situation of children, and makes assistance inequitable and dependent on the FTHs possibilities.

The regulations and the financing system of Family Type Homes have become obsolete and require urgent revision.

No criteria have been defined for the selection of families appropriate for the establishment of FTHs, and no standards for care and education of children in FTHs have been formulated so far.

The legal status of children in FTHs is unclear, the information available about these children is often superficial and incomplete.

Most of the children in FTHs are affected by various diseases requiring different types of treatment that the families cannot afford.

Parent-educators who established Family Type Homes did not benefit from initial and continuous training concerning the care and education to provide to children in difficulty.

Family Type Homes have not been monitored and evaluated during their operation.

The remuneration of the work performed by parent-educators is underestimated as compared to the value of the services provided.

Family Type Homes do not have the financial means available to cover education related expenses such as: textbooks, school supplies, repairs, contracts for vocational training, etc.

There is insufficient collaboration between the bodies of the local public administration and the Family Type Homes, and the former fail to support the initiative of parent-educators to take other children in their care.

The bodies responsible for the protection of the rights of the child have failed to undertake the necessary measures to reintegrate children in FTHs into their biological families.

The community has failed to offer spiritual and material support to Family Type Homes.

Parent-educators do not possess the necessary skills to keep appropriate records of their incomes and expenses, as it would be required in Family Type Homes.

Most parent-educators are concerned about their children’s survival more than about their development, education and socialization.

Single parent families are confronted with serious difficulties concerning the maintenance and education of their children.

32

Family Type Homes in rural areas can provide better educational and material conditions to their children than those in the rural areas.

CHAPTER VI. PROPOSALS

Family Type Homes need to be developed and extended as an efficient form of protection for children in difficulty.

The legislation regulating the operation of Family Type Homes needs to be amended.

It is necessary to define selection criteria for the families intending to establish FTHs, as well as standards of care and education for the children in these institutions.

Children have to be placed in FTHs according to the geographical location of their biological families, in order to allow them to keep in touch with their parents, and in order to promote cooperation with the children’s natural parents.

There is a need to conduct initial and regular evaluations of Family Type Homes (concerning the selection and employment of parent-educators, the living, educational and maintenance conditions offered to the children, etc.)

Initial and continuous training of parent-educators is necessary so that they are able to adequately meet the children’s needs.

The inspectors responsible for the protection of children’s rights need to receive training in the national legislation on the rights of the child in difficulty, including the support and development of Family Type Homes as an alternative form of protection to institutionalization.

Local public authorities need to assume more responsibility in providing solutions to the daily problems facing FTHs (education, health, public services, utilities, etc. ).

Individualized social services will have to be offered to children in FTHs in the following categories:

- Public health services allowing access to free health care services;

- Public education services allowing access to compulsory schooling;

- Social assistance services allowing the provision of decent living conditions;

- Information, consulting and accessibility services (information centers, legal aid).

Parent-educators and child protection bodies need to make sure that the social records of the children in FTHs contain information on the following: the children’s identity, the structure of their biological family; the children’s ethnic and cultural background; the circumstances of their birth and development; the social and economic characteristics of their biological family, including their living conditions, etc.

Family Type Homes have to be established mainly based on complete families, that are capable of providing good and hygienic living conditions and decent maintenance, whose material situation is adequate and who preferably live in the rural area or in houses.

33

AnnexesAnnex 1

QUESTIONNAIRE ON FAMILY TYPE HOMES (FTHs)

I. GENERAL DATA (ON THE FTH)

1.1 Date when FTH was established __________________________________________1.2 Number of children when FTH was established _____________________1.3 Address, telephone number ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

II. DATA ON PARENT EDUCATORS:

2.1. Mother (family name, first name, patronymic) _______________________________2.2. Date of birth __________________________________________________________2.3. Education 1. Incomplete secondary; 2. Secondary; 3. Special secondary; 4. Higher education2.4 Job, occupation ________________________________________________________2.5 Domain:

1. Agriculture2. Health care3. Education4. Trade5. Constructions6. Transport7. Public administration8. Services9. Private business10. Other __________________________

2.6. Father (name, first name, patronymic) ____________________________________2.7. Date of birth _________________________________________________________2.8. Education 1. Incomplete secondary; 2. Secondary; 3. Special secondary; 4. Higher education2.9. Job, position ________________________________________________2.10. Domain

1. Agriculture2. Health care3. Education4. Trade5. Constructions6. Transport7. Public administration8. Services9. Private business10. Other __________________________

III. FAMILY MEMBERS (GRANDMOTHERS, AUNTS, OTHER RELATIVES)3.1 No. of children protected in the family _____________________out of which:

34

< 5 years 6 – 10 years 11 – 14 years 15 – 18 years > 18 yearsOwn childrenAdoptedTaken in care

3.2. What were the reasons why you decided to take these children in your care and education?

1 Children of relatives2 Children of friends3 Religious beliefs4 No children in the family (cannot have children)5 Love for children6 Other reasons __________________________

3.3 Do you wish to take other children in your care?1. Yes 2.No

3.4 Indicate the conditions that would favour taking other children in your care:1. Higher allowance2. Tax facilities3. Pedagogical assistance4. Moral support from the government5. Community support6. Improving housing conditions7. Other

3.5 Have you benefited from special training before you took children in your care.1. Yes 2. No

3.6 What knowledge do you need to improve the operation of your home?_________________________________________________________________________

IV. DATA ON THE HOUSEHOLD4.1 Type of household

Type of house No. of rooms1. Apartment in a building2. Old house3. Modern house

4.2 Location of the toilet1. Inside the house2. In the yard

4.3. Do you have a bathroom?1. Yes 2. No

4.4 Do you have a garden?Area (sq. m.)

1. Fruit trees2. Green area (for

playing)3. Cultivated land

35

4.5 Do you own land (a plot, etc.) ____________________ ha

36

4.6 Do you have your own means of transport?1. Cart2. Tractor3. Motorcycle4. Car5. Truck6. Minibus7. Other

4.7 Do you have farm animals and poultry?

Species Number Species Number1. Cows 5. Horses2. Sheep 6. Goats3. Pigs 7. Other4. Poultry

4.8 What is the annual income of your family?Year Monthly

allowanceAnnual

allowance Maintenance

allowance Salaries Household

incomeHumanitarian

aid

1999 2000

2001

4.9 Breakdown of expenses by product types (%):

Types of expenses 1999 2000 2001Food products

Clothes, shoes

Soft inventory

Hygienic products

Other industrial products

Electricity and other utilities

Health care services and drugs

Education (textbooks, school supplies, contracts, etc.)Other

4.10 What problems are you confronted with?1. Economic2. Educational3. Health4. Social (from the community)5. Government and public bodies6. Legislation7. Bureaucracy8. Other _____________________________________

37

4.11 What kind of assistance do you need?1. Economic2. Educational3. Health care4. Social (from the community)5. Moral support from the government and public bodies6. Legislative7. Speedier solutions to administrative problems8. Other _____________________________________

4.12 Who offers you assistance?1. Local public administration2. Central public administration3. Relatives4. Neighbours, friends5. Religious institutions6. Local NGOs7. International NGOs8. Other ___________________________________________________

4.13 Do you need to communicate or collaborate with other Family Type Homes?1. Yes 2. No

4.14 What means of communication / collaboration would be appropriate for you?1. Exchange of experience2. Spending vacations together3. Spending holidays together4. Various clubs5. Friendship between children6. Establishment of an NGO7. Other ______________________________________________________

4.15. What was the government’s contribution to your home?1. Material support2. Moral stimulation and support3. Economic and social facilities4. Other

Date when filled in

Signature

38

Annex 2QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN

I. GENERAL DATA ON THE CHILD

1.1 Family name, first and patronymic name of the child_________________________1.2 Date of birth ______________________________1.3 Brothers / sisters _____________________1.4. Date of placement in the family __________________1.5. Where the child comes from

1. From a residential institution2. From the biological family3. From the child’s relatives4. From the new-born section5. Other

1.6 Describe the child’s past before being placed in your family1. _________________________________________2. _________________________________________3. _________________________________________

1.7 Causes for the child being deprived of parental care1. Economic problems in the family2. Parents’ health condition3. Alcoholic parents4. Loss of parental rights5. Criminal record6. Parents’ death7. Abandonment8. Other ____________________

1.8 Traumas undergone by the child1. Physical abuse2. Sexual abuse3. Psychological abuse4. Physical neglect5. Other

II. DATA ABOUT THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL PARENTS

2.1 Biological parents living Mother 1. Yes 2. NoFather 1. Yes 2. No

2.2 Biological parents living together1. Yes 2. No

2.3 There are other children in care with the family 1. with both parents______________________ 2. the mother separately _______________3. the father separately _________________

2.4 The child is in touch with parents, relatives1. Yes 2. No

2.5 Do you think it is possible for the child to return to his/her biological family?1. Yes 2. No

39

2.6 Conditions for the child’s return into his/her family____________________________________________________________________________

III. THE CHILD’S HEALTH CONDITION3.1 Child’s health condition:

1. Sickly child ____________________________2. Chronic diseases ________________________________3. Mental diseases _________________________________4. Physical deficiencies ____________________________5. Mental deficiencies ___________________________

3.2 Need for medical assistance1. Drug treatment2. Surgical treatment3. Sanatorium treatment4. Prophylactic treatment5. No assistance needed

3.3 Characterize the child’s intellectual development1. School performance: 1. Very good 2. Good 3. Satisfactory 4. Unsatisfactory2. Adaptive capacity: 1. Good 2. Average 3. Low3. Behaviour 1. Sociable 2. Conflicting 3. Isolated

IV. THE CHILD’S INSTRUCTION4.1 Indicate the school the child is enrolled in

Mainstream school Special school Vocational school Higher schoolClass -Course

4.2 The child’s interests1. Artistic2. Economic3. Literary4. Technical creativity5. Other

4.3 How do you see the child’s future?1. ___________________________________________________________2. ___________________________________________________________

4.4. Does the child benefit from any facilities in being admitted to a higher education institution?

1. Yes 2. No

4.5. Does the child benefit from any facilities concerning employment?1. Yes 2. No

4.6. Does the state contribute to the child’s socialization / integration?1. Yes 2. NoIf yes, say how: ____________________________________

4.7. Does the community contribute to the child’s socialization / integration?1. Yes 2. NoIf yes, say how: ____________________________________

4.8. Where did (will) the child go after having graduated school or having reached the age of maturity __________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS!

40

Annex 3LIST OF FAMILY TYPE HOMES

No. County Number of FTHs Number of children in FTHs

1. Chişinău 62. Orhei 63. Soroca 44. Cahul 45. Bălţi 36. Tighina 27. Ungheni 18. Lăpuşna 1

Total 27 183

41

42

6

2

6

4

1

1 1

3

4

Republic of Moldova

Geographical location of Family Type Institutions