Leaving State Residential Care in Bucharest: what supports and hinders the transition

1
Leaving State Residential Care in Bucharest
what supports and hinders the transition

• Roxana Anghel

8th International Looking After Children
Conference9th July 2008, Keble College Oxford
2

• Context
• Post-communist country accelerated transition
  now a EU member
• Childcare policy is based on the UN CRC the
  Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the
  Child Act 2004 - focused on widening the role of
  the state to protecting the rights of all
  children
• Childcare system radically reformed - rights
  family and community responsibility prevention
  of separation family-type care significant cuts
  of numbers in residential care, and of classical
  residential units.
• Substantial and coherent framework to support
  practice yet greatest challenge minimise the
  gap between policy and practice
• Main problems
• Untrained, insufficient, unstable workforce
• Lack of adequate funding to make benefits
  mentioned in legislation also available in
  practice
• Lack of information as many benefits are offered
  on request

3

• Care Leavers
• 25,000 children in residential care mainly
  teenagers and young people
• Discharge age 18 to 26
• Annually - estimated 5000 care leavers
• Prioritised in policy and legislation since 2001
• Current main benefits
• 2 additional years of care in Centres for
  Developing Independent Living Skills
• Priority for housing facilitation of employment
  through protected contracts and incentives to
  employers free access to health care if on
  social benefits positive discrimination in
  education lump sum at leaving care
• Short-term support after care mainly from NGOs
  and some from the LAs

4

• Longitudinal study (2002-2004)
• Under-researched topic
• Case study of the care leaving process
• Experiences of and views on preparation while in
  care
• Early outcomes following discharge
• Semi-structured interviews with 28 young people
  living in state residential care in 9 placement
  centres in Bucharest 17 (61) followed up 8-9
  months later of whom 13 left care
• Age at first interview 17 to 24
• Single semi-structured interviews with 18
  stakeholders from the statutory and NGO sectors
  looking at their perception of role, working
  context, and interaction with the young people

5

• What prevented the young people from feeling
• prepared for discharge?
• No preparation in centres tension and lack of
  trust between the care staff and the young people
  
• Young people complained of
• They act as if we are already gone
• One plan fits all
• Residential care staff complained of
• Young people's undesirable dependence on state
  support due to imbalance between rights and
  responsibilities, and the problem of lack of
  problems
• Young peoples Ive got the right demanding
  attitude, and lack of cooperation
• Lack of method of working within the new rights
  framework
• Sense of pressure and perception of unfairness
  experienced by both

6

• Low qualifications 75 technological and
  apprenticeship level only 3.5 (n1) higher
  education 14 no qualifications
• Inadequate financial and employment experience
• Very limited independent living skills
• No leaving care plan - no assessment no adequate
  information
• Experience of stigma in society
• Discouraging factors
• Strong leaving peers and personal history
  behind (32)
• Feeling unprepared
• Fear of unknown, change, being alone (18)
• Worry about leaving the NGOs predicting
  homelessness

7

• What helped the young people feel prepared?
• (Only 8 young people (29) felt entirely ready to
  leave)
• Alternative sources of preparation (acquaintances
  in the community, some family, peers)
• NGO input in formative education extra
  curricular training courses
• Available destination, formally or informally,
  although not always seen as a good alternative
• Destination 57 to temporary NGO and LA
  supported accom. 14 rent 25 dont know as
  refused LA offer 3.5 abroad
• Generally good health
• Encouraging factors
• Strong motivation to leave care culture,
  identity, label (36)
• Interpreting leaving care as first step towards
  normalisation opportunity freedom exciting
  adventure / challenge
• Sense of self-efficacy, resilience
• Care leaving accepted as inevitable event

8

• What supported the transition 8-9 months later?
• (for 13 young people)
• Available accommodation no one homeless only 2
  living independently
• Best accommodation offering degree of
  independence, non-intrusive support, feeling
  ordinary, feeling of progress in becoming an
  adult
• Informal support towards employment however
  only half were employed
• Support peers (69) they give me brotherly
  support, even maternalwe help each other,
  mature friends in community (53), themselves
  (46), and family (46)

9

• What hindered the transition?
• Accommodation characterised by care-type
  conditions, disrespect, lack of support according
  to needs, feeling of stagnation of personal
  development
• Job inaccessibility less likely to be offered
  the job when applied for directly
• Job exhibitions for care leavers organised by the
  National Authority for Labour only between 2
  to 30 invited employers attended in 2007 only
  half the young people present were offered jobs
  not trusted unskilled.
• Multiple simultaneous transitions
• Second care leaving from NGOs

10

• Recommendations
• Intensive attention given to staff training,
  support and recruitment
• Substantial cultural change in residential care
  based on
• Respect, encouragement, high expectations, and
  praise
• Preparation focused on responsibilities,
  experiential learning, and clarity of boundaries
• Courses offering qualifications relevant to the
  current employment market
• Assessment of and work with strengths and
  liabilities - enhancing resilience and
  self-efficacy facilitating detachment from care
• Identity collective to individual
  protective factor less dramatic change when
  leaving care
• Bridging the gap between the society and the
  young people
• Evaluation of practice