Context:
The aim of the Changing the Way We Care initiative in Moldova (hereafter CTWWC) is to contribute to the completion of the deinstitutionalization process of children in institutions and to strengthen families and family-like services so that children can enjoy a safe and nurturing environment. In the Republic of Moldova, the CTWWC initiative is implemented in partnership with three civil society organizations that play a key role in the implementation of child protection reform at the national level: Keystone Moldova, CCF Moldova, and Partnerships for Every Child. As part of this collaboration, CCF Moldova has produced a comparative analysis report on the feasibility of merging the two forms of alternative family-based services, namely Professional Parental Assistance(PPA) and Family-Type Children's Homes (FTCH).
Introduction:
Based on the standards and recommendations of national and international mechanisms, the right of every child to grow up in a protective family environment is a priority, as enshrined in international law (Art. 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild (1989), UN Guidelines for Alternative Care of Children (2009)), and national legislation (Law No. 338 /1994 on the Rights of the Child, Family Code No. 1316 /2000,Law No. 140/2013 on special protection of children at risk and children separated from their parents, Law No. 123/2010 on social services, etc.). According to the overwhelming opinion of the interviewees (policy makers, experts, service staff and people with lived experience in institutions, and families), alternative care for children, especially those under 3 years of age, should be provided in the family, an action that would allow alignment with the international standard set out in the UN Guidelines, Chap. II, B, p. 21.
In recent years, considerable efforts have been made to reform the institutional childcare system and to create and develop an integrated system of social services with afocus on alternative family-based childcare services through the implementation ofpolicies in this area (National Strategy and Action Plan for the Reform of the ResidentialChildcare System for 2007-2012, approved by Government Decision No. 784/2007; ChildProtection Strategy for 2014-2020, approved by Government Decision No. 434/2014). Thereform of the childcare system remains an objective for the next political cycle, and theNational Programme for Child Protection for 2022-2026, and the Action Plan clearly statethe priority of diversifying and expanding family-based alternative care services.
This report analyses the existing family-type social services: Professional Parental Assistance (hereafter PPA) and Family-Type Children's Homes (hereafter FTCH). These two social services have co-existed in the country's social protection system for about 20 years. Although in the beginning there were a number of aspects that differentiated the two services, in recent years many similarities and unifying aspects have been identified, especially with regard to minimum quality standards.
The many similarities mentioned above have led to frequent transformations of Family- Type Children's Homes into PPAs (as children 'left' the system and parent-educators wanted to reduce their workload) and conversely, when a child over the age of three was placed in the family of a Professional Parental Assistant by mutual agreement, the PPA was transformed into a FTCH.
The experts who participated in the qualitative study noted that both services have advantages and disadvantages. However, neither can 'cover' all the needs of children in the institutional care system who need to be reintegrated or to be placed in family- based alternative care.
In order to identify the conditions for increasing the effectiveness of alternative family- based care services, the present study was initiated, which will either prove the feasibility of merging PPA and FTCH or provide strong arguments for maintaining the current situation.
It is important to emphasize the relevance of this issue in 2023, in the light of the action plan of the National Programme, which calls for the development of guidelines, tools, and instructions that, in the case of a merger of PPA and FTCH, would become a "new" family-type service, thus avoiding duplication and streamlining the work of family-type alternative care.
The main purpose of the study is to identify the rationale for combining the two PPA/ FTCH family care services in terms of the quality of child care and the best interests of children.
Goal and Objectives of the Study:
The goal of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the regulatory framework of alternative family services and to develop recommendations on the possibility and feasibility of combining the social services "Professional Parental Assistance" and "Family-Type Children’s Home" or keeping these two services in the system.
The study had the following objectives:
- Analysis of the legal framework, existing national data, and studies on family-type foster care services targeted in the research;
- Analysis of the regulatory framework on the financing of family-type foster care services (PPA and FTCH) at the national level;
- Identification of difficulties in financing family-type foster care services PPA and FTCH; and
- Analysis of quantitative data on PPA and FTCH family-type foster care services at the national level, based on the CER 103 Statistical Report, to understand the coverage area and need.
This report contains the analysis of the regulatory framework for PPA and FTCH services, the CER-103 reports, (https://social.gov.md/informatie-de-interes-public/rapoarte/) and the opinions gathered in discussions with child protection professionals and providers of these two types of services.
Chapter I is an analysis of the main characteristics of the PPA and FTCH services, in particular information on the organization and functioning of the PPA and FTCH services, the salaries of professional parental assistants and parent educators, and the allowances for children placed in PPA and FTCH.
Chapter II reflects the views on the appropriateness of merging PPA and FTCH services or maintaining the current situation from the perspective of: (1) representatives of central public authorities, (2) heads of Territorial Social Assistance Structure (hereafter TSAS), (3) service managers, (4) professional parental assistants/parent educators, (5) civil society, (6) children/beneficiaries of PPA and FTCH foster care services.
Chapter III presents the conclusions with reference to the organization and functioning of the PPA and FTCH services, as well as recommendations on whether or not to merge Professional Parenting Assistance and Family-Type Children's Home social services.
Also see:
