THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL CARE SYSTEM IN ROMANIA.
Social services in Romania have developed modifications over time at the level of their classification as well as at the legislative level. Between 2000 and 2001 the basis of the decentralization of the social care public system have been established and the first quality standards emerged to regulate the way in which the specific services will function. In 2003 the GO no.68/2003 regarding the social services comes into force and regulates the way the social services providers are accredited.
The social services can be delivered by public entities (General Directorates for Social Care and Child Protection under the supervision of the County Councils, Social Care Public Services of the Local Councils) as well as by private entities.
The accreditation of the social services public and private providers appeared as a necessity to ensure a minimum level of mandatory quality standards in the field of social care. According to the Electronic Single Registry of social services--Ministry of Work, Family and Social Protection, in 2011 there were 2703 accredited public and private providers of social services. From this number, 1385 (51% from the accredited providers) were private providers belonging to the social economy (inclusive CARP, foundations, religious establishments).
The following table presents the main categories of social services provided by the public and private sector (as they are defined by the GO no.68/2003 regarding the social services, with its following additions and modifications) as well as the most requested categories of services by the beneficiaries:
Percentage of public or private Total Private Public providers which offers at Providers present different categories % of services form total number of respondents / category of services Recovery and rehabilitation 43 30 13 Support and assistance for 74 57 17 children and family in difficulty Informal extracurricular education 41 30 11 for children and adults Assistance and support for the elderly 99 38 61 Assistance and support for 93 29 64 all the categories of beneficiaries in need Support and orientation for 30 20 10 integration, readapting and professional reeducation Socio-medical care for the 34 18 16 persons in need Social mediation 53 22 31 Institutionalized counseling--centers 38 23 15 for counselling and information Information about rights 79 28 51 and obligations Measures and urgent actions 57 18 39 to reduce the effects of chrysies situations Source: Prometheus Survey, November-December 2012
The following are over the most common institutionalized forms of providing the social services at the nation level:
Total Beneficiary type Private Public Home care 67 25 42 Day care Centre 52 35 17 Permanent care Centre 13 7 6 Social care Centers 14 11 3 for family and child Centre for recovery 18 11 7 and rehabilitation Maternal Centre 6 1 5 Family type House 19 14 5 Respire Centre 2 1 1 Protected housing 7 4 3 Reintegration Centre 3 3 0 Community social care 69 17 52 Other form 9 5 4 Information and counselling 10 6 4 Source: Prometheus Survey, November-December 2012
2. The Objective of the Research in Identifying the Role of the EU Funds in the Evolution/Development of the Social Services in Romania
The impact of the policies and regulations of the EU regarding the provision of the social services has been rising over the last years. The European Commission gives a greater importance to the social services.
Due to the disparities between the member states regarding the organization and functioning of the social care system, the level of financing, the level of the social payments, the legislative framework, the role of the public authorities and local partners in developing the social services, in applying the European directives, each member state of the EU starts from their own system of social care existing in place.
The methodology of the research intends to identify the objectives/activities/proposed results after the intervention of the structural funds, to define the indicators, to compare and analyze the operational programs which financed the social initiatives, to set the percentage of accomplishment of the indicators at the moment of the monitoring, to present the conclusions and the recommendations, to identify the future management actions.
According to the study of the Foundation for the Development of Civil Society in partnership with the National Preparatory Centre in Statistics, between November 2012 and May 2013, in the framework of the project called "Prometheus--Promoting social economy in Romania through research, education and professional training at European standards", financed by the European Social Fund through the Operational Program for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, the European Union funds have the greatest percentage in the total budget of the organizations as shown in Table 1 and 2.
As an example, the operations financed by EU, until the end of 2013, included 515,775 employees (from which 42,007 freelancers), 243,365 unemployed (from which 87,359 in long-term unemployment) and 450,502 inactive persons (from which 209,465 inactive persons in some forms of education or training).
The research of the Lisbon Treaty and its implication on Romania identifies the following problems and recommendations: Gender equality is insufficient tackled; Reducing the geographic discrepancies regarding the income levels and the access to health services; Improving the living conditions for the Roma minority especially by ensuring the access to education and training programs; Developing new ways of analytical, not narrative evaluations; Encouraging the correlation between the social exclusion and the 2011 European Year of Volunteering; Holistic tackle of the social inclusion: access to labor market, society participation, access to social care services needs to be improved.
The fact that between 2007 and 2013, the development of social services, fight against discrimination and social exclusion did not represented a priority for financing, only from the perspective of occupation and ensuring access to education, explains the low rate of accessing the European funding by the public and private social services providers.
As a result of identified disparities, the European Commission adopted the Europe 2020 Strategy that represents the EU Strategy of economic growth for the next ten years.
Following this line, the Ministry for Work, Family, Social Care and the Elderly adopts the Strategy for social inclusion and poverty reduction and an action plan that can allow Romania to mark notable progress in fighting against poverty and promoting social inclusion.
To acquire the targets assigned for Romania in the context of the Lisbon Strategy, the Romanian Strategy adopts a set of measures and key interventions.
The target at the level of the EU-28 is reducing with 20 million the number of persons in poverty or social exclusion risk between 2008 and 2020. The Romanian Government committed to contribute to the achievement of this target by reducing with 580,000 the number of persons exposed to the risk of relative poverty, from 4.99 million persons in 2008 to 4.41 million persons in 2020.
The key interventions for fighting the poverty and promoting the social inclusion are focusing on occupation, social transfers, social services, education, health, housing, social participation, area policies, strengthening the institutional capacity to reduce poverty and promote social inclusion.
To the achievement of the objectives in the field of social inclusion will bring a significant contribution the funds allocated to Romania between 2014 and 2020 through the operational programs, especially the Human Resources Operational Program and The Regional Operational Program, taking into account the investment in the educational and professional training infrastructure, in the rural and urban area.
The Regional Operational Program will receive 763.45 million euros to develop the social and health services infrastructure through the 8th Priority Axe--"Development of the social and health services infrastructure".
The Operational Program for Human Resources established 6 priority axes, which correspond to 13 investment priorities:
- PA 1 Jobs for young people initiative
[check] Total allocated amount-230.693.510 Euros
- PA 2 Improving the young people from NEETs category situation
[check] Total allocated amount:
** 408.572.233 Euros for less developed regions
** 18.701.987 Euros for Bucuresti-Ilfov Region
[check] Total allocated amount:
** 1.270.959.911 Euros for less developed regions
** 24.853.622 Euros for Bucuresti-Ilfov Region
- PA 4 Social Inclusion and fight against poverty
[check] Total allocated amount:
** 1.047.023.965 Euros for less developed regions
** 63.168.893 Euros for Bucuresti-Ilfov Region
- PA 5 Local development placed under community responsibility
[check] Total allocated amount:
** 206.392.106 Euros for less developed regions
** 5.586.112 Euros for Bucuresti-Ilfov Region
- PA 6 Education and competences
[check] Total allocated amount:
** 1.393.631.965 Euros for less developed regions
** 85.004.079 Euros for Bucuresti-Ilfov Region
The National Program for Rural Development 2014-2020
- Sub-measure 6.2. Support to set nonagricultural activities in the rural space
[check] Allocated amount: maximum 70.000 euros/project, 100% financing from the EU
- Sub-measure 6.4. Investments to create and develop nonagricultural activities
[check] Allocated amount: maximum 200.000 euros/project, up to 90% financing from the EU
***European Commission (2014), The Programming Period 2014-2020. Guidance document on monitoring and evaluation European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund. Concepts and Recommendations, Evaluation and European Semester, The Evaluation Unit of the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, March
***Romania (2010), The nonprofit sector--profile, tendencies, challenges, FDSC, Bucharest, 134-136.
***The National Strategy for social inclusion and fight against poverty for 2015-2020 Barbulescu, I. G., Iancu, A., Ion, O. A., and Toderas, N. (2010), The Lisbon Treaty: Impact on Romanian institutions and policies, Strategy and Policy Studies (SPOS), http://www. ier.ro/sites/default/files/pdf/SPOS_1_site.pdf
Caselli, F., Esquivel, G., and F. Lefort (1996), "Reopening the Convergence Debate: A New Look at Cross Country Growth Empirics," Journal of Economic Growth 1(3): 143 -173.
Dima, Gabriela, and Barna, Cristina (2013), "Social Services in Romania. The role of the social economy actors," at https://www.ies.org.ro/library/files/raport_serviciile_sociale_in_romania._rolul_actorilor_economiei_sociale.pdf
Zaman, Gheorghe, and Georgescu, George (2014), "Absorption of structural and cohesion funds in Romania: The account of 2007-2013 period and lessons learnt for the current financial period," MPRA Papers.
JANINA MIRELA GABROVEANU (VLADOI) firstname.lastname@example.org Bucharest University of Economic Studies
Table 1 Percentage of public funding in the total income of the private providers of social services, by type and development region between 2010 and 2011 Region Contracts with Operational Subsidies from local public programs--EU local public authorities authorities 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 Total 16 17 12 12 13 14 North-East 11 13 16 16 16 14 South-East 13 12 11 10 4 4 South 20 20 0 0 9 9 South-West 0 0 35 43 0 0 West 10 10 16 17 7 6 North-West 14 14 7 6 14 16 Center 18 21 12 11 20 22 BI 32 31 16 22 3 3 Region Subsidies from Payments of 2% from personal Other the national services from income tax budget CJAS 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 Total 14 14 3 2 19 18 22 22 North-East 12 13 8 7 13 13 24 25 South-East 9 14 0 0 27 27 36 34 South 16 16 8 8 16 11 25 31 South-West 10 5 0 0 26 22 29 30 West 8 8 0 0 14 15 44 44 North-West 32 30 2 3 19 18 12 14 Center 10 11 2 1 26 24 11 10 BI 3 3 0 0 6 5 40 36 Source: Prometheus Survey, November-December 2012 Table 2 Percentage of the organizations from the total number of private social services providers that had applied for funding from the EU between 2008 and 2011 Organizations that applied as beneficiaries between 2008 and 2011 TOTAL OPHRD OPRD OPACD SOP NPRD OTHER DID NOT ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS APPLIED 13 3 1 0 1 5 77 Organizations that applied as partners between 2008 and 2011 TOTAL 12 1 1 0 0 3 78 Source: Prometheus Survey, November-December 2012
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Gabroveanu, Janina Mirela "Vladoi"|
|Publication:||Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||FAMILY ENVIRONMENT AND ITS ROLE IN THE EMERGENCE OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.|
|Next Article:||REMEDIES AGAINST GENERAL AND SPECIAL DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS.|