TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial
Maria ROTH ...............................................................................................................................2
EU Social Agenda contribution to strengthening families, fighting against child poverty
and promoting child well-being
Agata DADDATO ......................................................................................................................5
Promoting Child Welfare in the Romanian-Serbian Cross-border Region. Practical
Aspects and Good Practice Models
Loreni BACIU, Olivera PASIC.................................................................................................. 11
Child poverty in Bulgaria
Dani KOLEVA ...........................................................................................................................22
School performance of adolescents in relation with perceived parenting behavior and
perceived family SES
Ana MUNTEAN, Mihai-Bogdan IOVU, Maria ROTH .............................................................28
The Effects of All-Day Schools on Disadvantaged Youth. Results of a Longitudinal Study
in Germany
Bettina ARNOLDT, Natalie FISCHER, Christine STEINER ....................................................40
Child Poverty and Parental Authority in Canadian Society
Gabriela IVAN...........................................................................................................................47
Poverty, children, and the large families
Zsuzsa Kormosn Debreceni ....................................................................................................53
Relative poverty among Romanian children: a descriptive analysis in the European
context.
Andreea BIRNEANU .................................................................................................................59
The Quality of Life of Children
Brindusa Antonia GRIGORAS ..................................................................................................66
The role of parents and poverty impact upon the educational process of school children
Raluca PREDA..........................................................................................................................73
Instructions for Authors .........................................................................................................77
Advertising...............................................................................................................................80

EDITORIAL.
CHILD POVERTY UNDER SCRUTINY

Prof. PhD. Maria Roth

Chief of Social Work School
Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania
mroth@socasis.ubbcluj.ro
In Europe welfare society has gone a long
way, but still many issues are left uncovered.
One of these is child poverty, which leaves behind many children and youth. They need our
compassion, interest and actions. In 2008, the
at-risk-of-poverty rate in EU-27 for children
aged between 0 and 17 years was 20%. One
child in five is living in poverty, which means
that for each 100 children, 20 live in poverty.
2010 was the European Year against Poverty
and Social Exclusion. Several conferences
were held, and articles were written to mark
and campaign for reducing child poverty. Eurochild, a large European organization ran a
powerful End Child Poverty campaign.
Their petition, signed by some 14,000 people
during the year, asked political leaders in Europe to act urgently in the interest of children
living in poverty.
The conference organized in rebro, in Sweden, in November1 has offered to participants
a comprehensive picture of the poverty related issues: its extent in EU and other European countries, definition and measurement,
as well as programs to fight poverty. Having
the chance to participate to this conference I
was impressed by the comprehensive picture
the conference gave on the groups of children
most exposed and the problems they have
1
Brighter futures. Building effective partnerships to
end child poverty Organised by Eurochild, 3-5 November,
2010

to face in Europe, including marginalization,

exploitation, stressful development, discrimination, powerlessness, lack of perspectives
for the future, school failure and absenteeism,
homelessness, child labor, etc.).
The mostly I was impressed by the presentation put on stage by child participants themselves. Coming from different European
countries, they explained that they want us to
act in order to make changes in social policies
and practices that impact on childrens lives.
Ambassadors for the Eurochild campaign in
their own countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Portugal, and Wales, UK) during 2010, they represented organizations that
work with and for children at risk of poverty
and promote childrens participation. The
group of child delegates present in the rebro
Conference tested us, researchers and child
advocates, and I am afraid we failed. They
wanted to teach us a lesson on the difference of talking and acting, so they built up a
performance-based assessments2, by placing
a pair begging adolescents (a girl, and a boy,
approx 16-17), staying very silent and peaceful at the entrance of the castle, that hosted
the event. It was a freezing, windy and dark
2
performance-based assessments requires to: a)
specify the skill or knowledge-set to be evaluated, b) develops an exercise or task that will demonstrate a), and c)
have a scoring rubric to measure and interpret results (R.
J. , 1995. Sound Performance Assessments in the Guidance Context. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from: eric.ed.gov)

evening, when the participants were rushing

to the reception, hoping to have a relaxing
evening, nice meetings and a good Swedish
diner, included in the price of the Conference. Being in a hurry, they hardly looked at
the youngsters staying silently and waiting
for charity. I am not sure what others were
thinking, but the thoughts crossing my mind
were: how can this happen in this rich country? I am sure there are adequate services for
them. They might be addicts, I will not give
money to them, it would not be a professional
act. I knew better then to show pity. What
would others think if I choose to show pity?
Giving money would encourage them to look
for cheap money and not appeal to services.
These are clichs so often used to excuse our
lack of disposition to be there for children and
youth. Next day, at the ending, we saw each
other on the screen, passing by with quick
steps, merrily talking to each other, heads
turned in another direction, not asking any
question, convinced probably that our community of professionals fulfills its duties otherwise. But the child delegates did not agree
with us. They expected us to interact with the
teenagers, ask them why they are in the street
in wintertime, in the evening. As protectors
of childrens wellbeing and rights, we could
have act, at least ask them questions about
what made them behave as they did, but we
fall in the trap of so many other adults to pass
by without making a difference, not intervening, waiting for others to do it. We did what
society so often does with children and youth
in need. We allowed ourselves to believe that
there is no need to interfere, hoping that this
kind of attitude will make the problem disappear (perhaps that those youngsters will heel
or go home to loving families).
I understood my lesson, and decided to spread
the word about the need to act to reduce child
poverty. Waiting for chances of better practices, for the moment, my contribution was to
prepare a collection of articles intended to increase awareness of readers about child poverty. Some of the selected articles (DAddato
and that of Baciu and Pasic) discuss trans-

national and comparative European issues.

Other articles discuss the national policies
and strategies, as well as their outcomes, so
as it is reflected in the national evolution of
data (as did Koleva for Bulgaria, Grigoras
and Birneanu for Romania, and Kormos, for
Hungary).
In her article, A. DAddato, Eurochild policy
officer, clearly warn policy makers that social economic situation is clearly deteriorating and insecurity is growing as a result of
the economic crisis which took hold across
much of Europe and government responses.
Action is needed from us as individuals, as
well as from us, as professionals. We want to
raise the motivation of readers to contribute
with their expertise, competences, time and
energies to reduce poverty and its influence
on children.
L. Baciu and O. Pasic bring a comparative
perspective in this issue. They discuss poverty in in the South Eastern European area (Romania and Serbia), where in spite of asserting
the rights of children and promoting social
policies dedicated to ensuring the welfare of
children, a significant percentage of children
still live in poverty, being deprived of access
to services and resources needed in order to
develop their potential.
D. Koleva puts child poverty in the context of
the human rights and the CRC, and explains
its consequences. Child poverty and social
exclusion are a denial of childrens fundamental human rights, which can affect their development today and undermine the realization
of their full potential in future. She discusses
the objectives and strategies of reducing child
poverty in Bulgaria form the point of view of
children themselves, for whom declarations
are not sufficient, they need applicable policies, to reduce the odds they are facing. A.
Birneanu is looking at the influence of European policies and the measures that give the
opportunity to compare the quality of life of
childrens and their families. In her article B.
Grigoras compares European and Romanian

indicators of poverty. The presented data indicate the urgent need for interventions in favor of children affected by poverty.
Apart from the policy perspectives we were
looking for articles that linked poverty to education, as it is a powerful means for the young
generation to come out of the cycle of poverty.
Romanian researchers, Muntean, Roth and
Iovu, look at different school success profiles
of lower and higher social-financial situation.
They conclude that different school profile of
risks and strength for children from poor families need specific modalities of support from
professionals, and interventions. Arnoldt,
Fisher and Steiner practically continue this
analysis, by showing the positive effects of
after school programs on schooling of children to families with low social economic
levels. Three articles (of Kormo, of Ivan and
Baciu & Pasic) discuss the necessary measures that social services can make to change
the life course of children and their families.
Kormos is opting for Local Alliances for
Families, meaning partnerships between all
significant social services and volunteer contributors to help poor families, and especially
their children to thrive and break the cycle
of poverty. The paper of G. Ivan analyzes

how child poverty impacts parents ability to

exercise their parental role and the dilemmas
around the interference of child care services
in poor, mostly immigrant Canadian families to assimilate Canadian norms of parenting. DAddato and Koleva make us aware of
the importance of early education services
for helping mothers raise their children, as
a non invasive form of improving parenting
and early child development. Preda closes
this series of articles by showing the links
between poor housing, poverty and schooling
of children.
This issue of the Journal Todays children
are tomorrows parents is aimed to spread
the idea that child poverty affects childrens
rights, creates sufferance, frustrations and
trauma difficult to heal. It also endangers the
future of those children, and of our common
societies. We identified some ways to make
a difference but there are many other ways
to help reducing poverty. It depends on our
capability to demonstrate solidarity. In order
to break the circle of poverty, children should
come first. Helping them reduce consequences of poverty can break can make a change
for a new generation to come.

EU SOCIAL AGENDA CONTRIBUTION

TO STRENGTHENING FAMILIES,
FIGHTING AGAINST CHILD POVERTY
AND PROMOTING CHILD WELLBEING

Agata DADDATO
Eurochild policy officer
agata.daddato@eurochild.org
Abstract
Eurochild is an international network of
over 90 childrens organisations working
across Europe to improve the quality of life
of children and young people. Eurochild is
one of the largest advocacy organisations
on childrens issues at European Union (EU)
level whose work is underpinned by the 1989
United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (UNCRC). Eurochild campaigns
for the realisation of childrens rights across
Europe. We focus particularly on those
children at risk of poverty, social exclusion
and marginalisation. Poverty prevents
children and young people from achieving
their full potential and autonomy, adversely
affecting their health, inhibiting their personal
development, education and their general
well-being. This contribution focuses on the
child poverty situation in Europe and how the
fight against child poverty and the promotion
of child well-being can be addressed. It will
then look at the added value of EU action and
at the opportunities presented by the Europe
2020 strategy as well as the potential risk
factors.

Keywords: child poverty; risk of poverty;

EU Policies; support services; child-rights
approach
Rezumat
Eurochild este o reea internaional de
peste 90 de organizaii care lucreaz n toat
Europa cu scopul mbuntirii calitii vieii
copiilor i a tinerilor. Eurochild este una
dintre cele mai largi organizaii militante (de
advocacy) n domeniul drepturilor copiilor
la nivelul Uniunii Europene (UE), avnd
ca fundament Convenia Naiunilor Unite
privind Drepturile Copiilor (United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child UNCRC). Eurochild organizeaz campanii
pentru implementarea drepturilor copiilor
n toate rile Europei. Ne concentrm
atenia n special asupra copiilor aflai n
srcie, excluziune social i marginalizare.
Srcia este o piedic n realizarea deplin
a potenialului i autonomiei copiilor si
tinerilor, avnd efecte negative asupra
sntii lor, inhibnd dezvoltarea lor
personal, educaia i bunstarea general.
Acest articol se centreaz asupra srciei

copiilor n Europa i asupra modului n care

se poate aciona pentru reducerea srciei
i promovarea bunstrii. De asemenea, el
discut valoarea adugat a aciunilor UE,
precum i oportunitile i factorii de risc
potenial pe care-i creeaz strategia Europa
2020.
Cuvinte cheie: srcia copiilor; risc de
srcie; politici europene; servicii de sprijin;
punctul de vedere al drepturilor copiilor.
1. Child poverty in Europe the situation
In 2007, the latest official data we have from
Eurostat on relative poverty rates across the
EU, 16% of the population was living at risk
of poverty but 20% of children under the
age of 18. That is one in five children living
at risk of poverty. Children are among the
groups most exposed to poverty.
Due to specific situations or characteristics,
some children face greater risk of poverty
(Eurochild, 2010a):

Children in lone-parent households

=> 1 in 3 children living in lone-parent
households are at risk of poverty (Source:
Eurostat);

Children in large families => 1 in 4

children living in families with 3 or more
dependent children are at risk of poverty
(Source: Eurostat);

Children living in households where

nobody works => 1 in 10 children in the EU
live in jobless households (Source: Eurostat);

Children with parents born outside

the EU => 1 in 3 children with parents born
outside the EU are at risk of poverty (EU-15
data) (Source: Lelkes O., Platt L. & Ward T.
(2009), page 95);

Young people who drop out of school

early => 15% of young people (aged 18-24)
in the EU have no more than a secondary education and are not in education or training
(Source: Eurostat).
The situation is clearly deteriorating and
insecurity is growing as a result of the economic crisis which took hold across much of
Europe and government responses. We know

from our members that families and children

are being disproportionally hit by the effects
of the crisis and the austerity measures taken
by several Member States in the face of soaring public debt (Eurochild, forthcoming in
2011).
Vital support services from families and children are threatened by cuts, whilst protection
tends to be ring-fenced. Strained local authorities are pulling resources precisely from
the sectors that will save money in the longterm and make most difference. Dealing with
problems resulting from family breakdown,
abuse or neglect are much more costly.
It is essential that governments at all levels
recognize this challenge and ensure that budget cuts do not compromise the well-being of
families and children. Investment in prevention and early intervention services is a major
concern. It means reach out to families before problems arise, provide support that is
non-judgmental and empowering (DAddato
A., 2010), enable families to find their own
routes out of poverty and social exclusion. It
means a long-term investment in accompaniment and support, through family centres,
childrens centres, out-reach work - including health visitors, parent advisors attached
to schools, parents supporting other parents,
and community schools. This requires a longterm vision as well as funding.
2. A child-rights approach to address child
poverty and improve childrens quality of
life
Eurochild believes a chid-rights approach is
the most effective way of tackling child poverty and promoting child well-being in the
long-term (Eurochild, 2007). Children must
be recognized as citizens in their own right.
All EU Member States have ratified the UNCRC, which should be seen as the foundation
for all policies affecting children and young
people. The promotion of childrens rights is
now embedded in the Lisbon Treaty and the
Europe 2020 strategy is the first opportunity to take account of this new development,

mainstream child rights into EU policies and

get a systematic, comprehensive approach to
childrens rights as a political priority.
There must be a recognition of childrens own
right to grow up in an environment that nurtures their full potential. It means supporting
the family as carrying the principal responsibility for the child, but it also acknowledges
the importance of a whole host of other services centered around the child (Eurochild,
2010b). This includes:

Promoting early childhood services

that are focused on the childs development and needs, rather than being conceived as a parking place
for children of parents who work
(DAddato A., 2008);

Ensuring that free, high-quality education is provided to all children and

that schools provide the best possible
learning environment for children,
harnessing childrens potential, supporting childrens growing autonomy,
giving children the confidence and
skills to develop and express their
own views and opinions;

Ensuring adequate play spaces and

safe communities with a range of
non-formal learning opportunities
including access to leisure, civic, cultural and sporting activities;

Promoting a joined-up thinking and

an integrated approach to childrens
well-being across different policy areas, enhancing coordination between
and within ministries as well as at
local and regional level, and bridging gaps between the measures taken
at national and international level,
namely with regard to the use of EU
structural funds.

3. How can the EU agenda contribute to

fight child poverty and promote child wellbeing?
The local authorities are certainly at the frontline of ensuring children and families have

access to the high quality of services and a

healthy environment. But the policy framework at national level also matters a great
deal employment, taxation, access to education, training of professionals working with
and for children play a crucial role.
What is the role of the EU? Whilst the EU has
no legal competence, the leadership it sets in
the social policy arena is an important driver
of policy reforms at national, regional and local level. Over the last 10 years of the Open
Method of Coordination on Social Protection
and Social Inclusion (Social OMC) which
is the mechanism through which EU Member
States and the European Commission have
been cooperating in the field of social policy
since 2000 (Eurochild, 2009) , all Member
States recognize child poverty as an issue and
many have identified it as a particular policy priority. The Social OMC has provided
a framework for benchmarking and mutual
learning, but also allowing convergence of
policy principles and achieving considerable
consensus on the best policy responses. We
need now to move forward with this agenda.
We stand at a cross-road. The financial and
economic crisis and the social consequences
of it have generated a consensus that economic and employment goals cannot be
pursued to the neglect of social and environmental goals. The entry into force of the
Lisbon Treaty introduces a transversal social
clause requiring that all EU policies and activities take into account their impact on social inclusion. The social pillar of the new
Europe 2020 agenda provides an important
opportunity to adopt a systematic, coherent
and comprehensive EU approach to tackling
child poverty and child well-being as a key
political priority for the Union. In the Europe
2020 strategy, a headline target on poverty
reduction was approved. The poverty target
consisting in lowering the number of people
in the EU who are at risk of poverty and/or
materially deprived and/or living in jobless
households puts poverty and social inclusion among the core objectives of the Union.

The strengthening of the social dimension of

the EU, and in particular the delivery of the
poverty target will depend significantly on
the proposed flagship initiative, the European Platform Against Poverty (Eurochild,
2010c; European Commission, 2010). With
these ingredients, the European Commission
can surely be very ambitious in its agenda for
the EU coordination in the social field.
In the frame of Europe 2020, this is how Eurochild envisages the development of EU
level work on child poverty: that the European Platform Against Poverty will create a
space for Member States to report regularly
back on their strategies for tackling child
poverty and we will have a clear, transparent system for comparing outcomes for children across Member States using a broad
range of child well-being indicators. Child
poverty and well-being has been repeatedly
recognized as a top political priority by EU
leaders. Most recently a Declaration calling
for the EU to give particular priority to child
poverty and well-being, especially in this period of economic crisis, was signed by the EU
Trio Presidency (Spain, Belgium and Hungary) at the Belgian Presidency conference on
2-3rd September 20103. Eurochild with the
Belgian Presidency of the EU are calling
for a Recommendation on child poverty and
well-being, which will formalize the existing policy consensus on what works to tackle
child poverty and provide a framework for
monitoring mechanisms to measure progress
across the EU27 and follow-up action (Belgian Presidency of the EU, 2010). We hope
this call will be heard and acted upon by the
Social Protection Committee (SPC) and the
forthcoming Hungarian and Polish Presidencies of the EU.
On 16 November 2010 in the intergovernmental group LEurope de lenfance led by
the Belgian Presidency of the EU, Member
States adopted a Declaration calling for coun3
The signed declaration by the Trio Presidencies
is available at Eurochild website: http://www.eurochild.
org/fileadmin/Events/2010/09%20BE%20Presidency%20
Child%20Poverty/Signed%20Declaration.pdf.

tries to keep their commitment to the Barcelona targets on child care (or adopt more
ambitious targets where they have already
been achieved), and to develop and monitor quality criteria such as staff-child ratios,
pedagogical approach, accessibility, affordability. At the same time, a European Commission Communication on early years and
education is expected in early February 2011,
which will include guidelines on accessibility (in its broadest sense, i.e. inclusivity), affordability (including the discussion on universal vs. targeted services), and pedagogical
approach. This process should culminate in
Council Conclusions. This will launch a EU
process of Member State involvement in setting standards, agreeing policy objectives and
exchange of good practices.
A European Commission Communication on
a EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child is
also expected to be launched early in 2012,
which will hopefully set a framework for EU
policies and actions that bring added value
and support Member States action to promote and protect childrens rights (Eurochild,
2010d). By doing this the EU can have a direct effect on the quality of life of every child
in Europe.
To conclude, we believe that action at EU
level has been paramount to gather consensus
on the need to prioritise the fight against child
poverty and promote child well-being as well
as driving reforms at national, regional and
local level. However, follow-up action is crucial for a breakthrough in the fight against
child poverty.
4. Concluding remarks
Child poverty needs to be a Number 1 priority across the EU. Poverty in childhood can
have lifelong consequences. It is therefore a
huge cost to society in the long-term. Especially during this period of economic crisis,
politicians need to think long-term and boost
investment in children in particular in education including early years services, health,
housing, culture and leisure, social services.

Brighter futures for many children in Europe

are under threat. Decisions taken by governments across the EU in response to the crisis, risk jeopardizing millions of childrens
quality of life and their overall life chances.
In this era of austerity measures it is more important than ever that organisations committed to childrens rights and welfare work in
partnership and promote a common message.
As an outcome of Eurochilds Annual Conference Brighter futures - Building effective
partnerships to end child poverty (rebro Sweden, 3-5 November 2010), recommendations to the three main groups of actors were
formulated4.

The European Union needs to adopt

a comprehensive and ambitious EU
strategy on the rights of the child,
and a Recommendation on child poverty and well-being. The EU policy
framework to fight child poverty must
promote a multi-dimensional approach based on a clear understanding
of childrens rights.
Member States have to protect and
even increase budgets for children
and families. Member States should
strengthen cooperation and exchange
at an EU level on child poverty and
well-being. National action to address
child poverty and social exclusion
must support partnership and cooperation with different stakeholders.
Eurochild and its members will work
on raising awareness of the UNCRC
and its influence on decision-making
among policy makers, practitioners,
parents and children. Our work on the
UNCRC creates a uniting force that
brings together stakeholders across
all sectors and professions. Eurochild
has an obligation to ensure the voices
and concerns of children and young
people themselves are heard and taken into account.

4
The full version of the Concluding Statements is
available at Eurochild website: http://www.eurochild.org/
fileadmin/Events/2010/11%20AC%20Orebro/Eurochild_-_Annual_Conference_-_Brighter_Futures_through_effective_
Partnerships_-_Concluding_Statements_-_November_2010.
pdf.

References
Belgian Presidency of the European Union
(2010), Call for a Recommendation on Child
Poverty and Well-being, Background paper to the EU Presidency Conference: Child
Poverty and Child Well-Being, Belgium, 2-3
September 2010;
DAddato, A. (2008), Reconciling a childs
best interest with labour market needs, Eurochilds contribution to the peer review Return
of women to the labour market, Germany, 1718 November 2008;
DAddato, A. (2010), Promoting prevention
and early intervention, Eurochilds contribution to the peer review The Federal Foundation Mother and Child for pregnant women in
emergency situations, Germany, 21-22 January 2010;
Eurochild (2007), A child-rights approach to
child poverty, Discussion paper;
Eurochild (2009), Open Method of Coordination on Social Inclusion and Social Protection
A Renewed OMC for the post-2010 Lisbon
strategy, Policy briefing n. 1;
Eurochild (2010a), Facts & Figures on Child
Poverty, available at: www.endchildpoverty.
eu;
Eurochild (2010b), Eurochilds Policy Position on Family Policies, Policy position;
Eurochild (2010c), Europe 2020 & the European Platform Against Poverty Where will
action against child poverty & social exclusion fit within the next EU 10-year strategy?,
Policy briefing n. 7;
Eurochild (2010d), Eurochilds proposal for
the development of the EUs strategy on the
rights of the child, Policy position;
Eurochild (2011), Impact of the economic and
financial crisis on children and young people
in Europe: some evidence, Position paper,

forthcoming;
European Commission Communication
(2010), The European Platform against
Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European
framework for social and territorial cohesion, SEC(2010)1564 & accompanying Staff
Working Paper, COM(2010)758, available
at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langI
d=en&catId=89&newsId=959&furtherNews
=yes

10

Lelkes, O., Platt, L., & Ward, T. (2009), Vulnerable Groups: The Situation of People with
Migrant Backgrounds. In Terry Ward, Orsolya
Lelkes, Holly Sutherland and Istvn Gyrgy
Tth (Eds.), European Inequalities Social
Inclusion and Income Distribution in the European Union, Budapest: TRKI Social Research Institute Inc, available at: http://www.
tarki.hu/en/publications/EI/.

PROMOTING CHILD WELFARE IN THE

ROMANIAN-SERBIAN CROSS-BORDER
REGION. PRACTICAL ASPECTS AND
GOOD PRACTICE MODELS

Loreni Baciu, PhD

Assistent, Social Work School,
West University of Timisoara,
Romania
loreni.baciu@yahoo.com
Abstract
The approaches to promoting and defending
childrens rights have known an impressive
evolution in the last century, both globally and
at European level. But in this era of asserting
the rights of children and promoting social
policies dedicated to ensuring the welfare of
children, a significant percentage of children
still live in poverty, being deprived of access
to services and resources needed in order
to develop their potential. In addition to
general policies and programs undertaken
by governments and public authorities in
order to address the problem of poverty
among children, there is need for a series of
concrete and appropriate measures, whose
effectiveness can be measured and monitored.
The contribution that NGOs can bring to this
field, through their initiated and supported
projects and programs, is also a substantial
one. The present article explores a number
of similarities and differences regarding
the challenges faced by the efforts to foster
childrens welfare, in the Romanian-Serbian
cross-border region. The most important are
related to the socio-economic status of their

Olivera Pasic
Psihologist
Serbia, Vojvodina Region
Health Research Center Ada
oljapasic@gmail.com
families and their lack of access to community
resources and services. In spite of the reform
efforts of the last decade made in Romania
and Serbia, the specialists in child protection
still face a series of great challenges in
promoting child welfare. In the second part
of the article, a few project-based models
of intervention are presented. The projects
were implemented by two NGOs active in the
field of child protection. The main conclusion
of the article would be that, many times, in
order to solve a social problem, there is need
not necessarily for more resources, but for a
better planning and a more efficient use of
them.
Keywords: promoting child welfare; poverty;
Romanian-Serbian cross-border region;
models of intervention; non-governmental
organizations.
Rezumat
Demersurile pentru promovarea i aprarea
drepturilor copilului au cunoscut o evoluie
impresionant n ultimul secol, att la nivel
mondial, ct i la nivel european. ns, n
aceast epoc a afirmrii drepturilor copilului

11

i a promovrii politicilor sociale dedicate

asigurrii bunstrii acestuia exist nc un
procent semnificativ de copii care triesc la
limita srciei, fiind lipsii de acces la servicii
i resurse necesare valorificrii potenialului
de care dispun. Pentru a rspunde problemei
srciei n rndul copiilor este nevoie ca, pe
lng politicile i programele asumate de ctre
guverne i autoriti publice, s se ia o serie de
msuri concrete i adaptate, a cror eficien
poate fi msurat i monitorizat. Aportul
pe care organizaiile neguvernamentale l
pot aduce n acest domeniu, prin proiectele
i programele iniiate i susinute, este de
asemenea unul substanial. Articolul de fa
exploreaz o serie de similitudini i diferene
n provocrile cu care se confrunt demersul
de promovare a bunstrii copilului, la
nivelul regiunii transfrontaliere RomniaSerbia. n pofida eforturilor de reform
realizate n ultimul deceniu n Romnia i
Serbia, specialitii din domeniul proteciei
copilului nc se confrunt cu o serie de
considerabile provocri n promovarea
bunstrii copilului. Cele mai importante
sunt legate de statutul socio-economic al
familiilor lor i lipsa lor de acces la resurse
i servicii comunitare. n finalul articolului
sunt prezentate cteva modele de intervenie,
implementate pe baz de proiect, de ctre
dou organizaii neguvernamentale din
domeniul proteciei copilului. concluzie a
acestui articol ar fi aceea c, de multe ori,
pentru a rezolva o problem social, este
nevoie nu neaprat de mai multe resurse, ct
de o mai bun planificare i o utilizare mai
eficient a acestora.
Cuvinte cheie: promovarea bunstrii
copilului; srcie; regiunea transfrontalier
Romnia-Serbia; modele de intervenie;
organizaii neguvernamentale.
Introduction. The evolution of the
perspectives on the child, with focus on the
status
One of the most fundamental initiatives of the
European Council was to establish a comprehensive EU strategy to effectively promote
and safeguard the rights of the child in the

12

European Unions internal and external policies and to support Member States efforts in
this field. The EU Strategy on the Rights of
the Child is structured around seven specific
objectives (EC, 2006):
Capitalizing on existing activities
while addressing urgent needs
Identifying priorities for future
EU action
Mainstreaming childrens rights
in EU actions
Establishing efficient coordination and consultation mechanisms
Enhancing capacity and expertise
on childrens rights
Communicating more effectively
on childrens rights
Promoting the rights of the child
in external relations
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
and its Two Optional Protocols constitute a
basis for the EUs policy on childrens rights.
On November 20th 2009, it was celebrated the
20th Anniversary of the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child Childrens Rights
are Human Rights5. The 10th Anniversary of
the Optional Protocols to the Convention was
celebrated by the EU on May 25th 2010.
The first goal of the UN Millennium Development Goals is to Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. The UN Summit on the
Millennium Development Goals (held on
20-22 September 2010) concluded with the
adoption of a global action plan to achieve
the eight anti-poverty goals by their 2015 target date and the announcement of major new
commitments for womens and childrens
health and other initiatives against poverty,
hunger and disease.
In the next 5 years a total of more than 40 billion USD will be invested in the implementation of the Global Strategy for Womens and
Childrens Health. This strategy is dedicated
to saving the lives of more than 16 million
women and children, preventing 33 million
unwanted pregnancies, protecting 120 mil5
1 ec.europa.eu/external_relations/human_rights/
child/2009_20th_anniversary_un_crc_update.pdf

lions of children from pneumonia and 88 million children from stunting, advancing the
control of deadly diseases such as malaria and
HIV/AIDS, and ensuring access for women
and children to quality facilities and skilled
health workers6.
We can basically say the first decade of the
Third Millennium has been a golden age in
the Childrens Rights affirmation movement
for the entire world, but especially for the European Union7.
Things look far better now than 140 years
ago, when, the only argument one could invoke in the defense of the abused child was
that the child is an animal and he/she has the
right to be protected against cruel treatment8.
Important progress has been registered in
strengthening the policy framework regarding childrens rights and the future steps that
have to be taken in order to value these efforts
are those to ensure a correct and adequate implementation of the policy, adapted to the national, regional and local contexts, keeping in
mind that the wonder recipe can never be a
general one, but a specific solution, that keeps
track of all the characteristics of the population its targeting.
6
The official web-page of the UN Summit on the
Millennium Development Goals http://www.un.org/en/mdg/
summit2010/
7
Most recent policy documents include:
Communication Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of
the Child (2006), EU Guidelines on the Rights of the Child
(2007), EU Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts,
Communication A Special Place for Children in EU
External Action (2008), Council Conclusions on children in
development and humanitarian settings (2008), Commission
Staff Working Document on combating child labor (2010),
and the Council conclusions on child labor (2010).
8
In 1874, when Etta Wheeler, a friendly visitor (a
forerunner of the current social worker) looked for support
from different organizations in New York, USA, in order to report the repeated abuse of the foster family on the little Mary
Ellen McCormack, who was 9 years old at that time, the only
support she got was from SPCA The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (that existed since 1866). The
organization took the case and managed to win the trial, Mary
Ellen being placed to another foster family, while her former
foster family was convicted for the abusive behavior against
the child. These events seem to accelerate the founding of
the SPCC - The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (in 1975) and the later progress registered by the Childrens Rights Movement. Source: Gelles, R.J. and Schwartz,
I. (1999) Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 95110

1. Romanian-Serbian cross-border region.

General characteristics9
The Romanian-Serbian cross-border region
includes three Romanian counties (Timis,
Caras-Severin and Mehedinti) and five Serbian districts (Severno-Banatski, SrednjeBanatski, Juzno-Banatski, Branicevski and
Borski).
Timis County is located in the Western part of
Romania, at the Serbian and Hungarian borders. It has a surface of 8.696,7 square km
that represents 3.65% of the countrys total
area, being the largest county in Romania.
Total population: 659,299. Timis County has
2 municipal towns - Timisoara and Lugoj, 8
towns - Snnicolau-Mare, Jimbolia, Buzia,
Fget, Deta, Ciacova, Reca i Gtaia and 86
communes. Situated in the South-Western
part of Romania, Caras-Severin county borders the Republic of Serbia for 70 km in the
west side and in the south-west is bordered
by Danube for 64 km. In Caras-Severin the
industry represents an important part of the
national economy and it is concentrated in
countys municipal towns and cities. Total
population: 331,876. Mehedinti County is
situated in the South-Western part of Romania, on the left shore of Danube and, at South,
it borders Bulgaria and Serbia. The county
comprises 2 municipal cities (Drobeta-Turnu
Severin and Orsova), 3 cities (Baia de Aram,
Strehaia and Vnju Mare) and 61 communes.
Total population: 303,069.
The Severno-Banatski (North Banat) district
expands in the northern parts of the Republic of
Serbia. It encompasses the municipalities of:
Kanjiza, Senta, Ada, Coka, Novi Knezevac,
and Kikinda. It has a population of 179,783.
Seat of the District is in the city of Kikinda.
The Srednje-Banatski (Central Banat) district
expands in the northeastern parts of Serbia. It
encompasses the municipalities of: Novi Bec9
The source of the information used in this part of
the article: the official web-site of the Romania-Republic of
Serbia IPA Cross-border Cooperation Programme - www.
romania-serbia.net. The main goal of the programme is to
increase the overall competitiveness of the economy in the
Romania-Serbia border area and to improve the quality of life
for the border communities in both countries.

13

ej, Nova Crnja, Zitiste, Secanj and Zrenjanin.

It has a population of 202, 286. Seat of the
District is in the city of Zrenjanin. Economy
of Zrenjanin is diverse: industry, agriculture,
forestry, building industry, and transport.
The Juzno-Banatski (South Banat) district
expands in the eastern parts of Serbia. It
encompasses the following municipalities:
Plandiste, Opovo, Kovacica, Alibunar, Vrsac, Bela Crkva, Pancevo, and Kovin. It has a
population of 310,862. Seat of the District is
in Pancevo. The Branicevski district expands
in the north-east of Sebia. It encompasses the
municipalities of: Veliko Gradiste, Pozarevac, Golubac, Malo Crnice, Zabari, Petrovac,
Kucevo, and Zagubica. It has a population of
197,194. Seat of the District is in the city of
Pozarevac, a famous cross-roads, with numerous communications running through it
still today.
The Borski district expands in the eastern
parts of Serbia. It encompasses the municipalities of: Bor, Kladovo, Majdanpek and Negotin. It has a population of 140,367. Seat of
the District is in the city of Bor, remarkable
by its historic and cultural heritage.
Even if the two countries are separated only
by the Danube river and have a somewhat
similar history (they have both underwent a
long period of Socialism after the World War
II), the characteristics of their population and
culture are quite different. The Timis county
and Vojvodina province, though, show some
similar specificities, related to multi-ethnic
cohabitation (Mitchell, Kicoev, 1997; Tomislav, 2009; The Economist, 2010), that reflect
upon the general status of the population.
2. Characteristics regarding poverty and
child welfare in Western Region (Timis
county) and Severno-Banatski district
(Vojvodina province)
An article from 2003 (Popescu, 2003) shows
a poverty rate among Romanian children
higher both than the poverty rate in adults and
in the total population.

Poverty rate in children, compared with

adults and the total population in Romania,
2002
Children
(0-16 yrs)
Under the level of extreme poverty
Under the level of severe poverty
Under the poverty level

Total
population

7%

Adults
(over 16
yrs)
4%

13%

8%

9%

33%

26%

27%

5%

Source: Popescu, 2003: 3, apud. CASPIS,

2002
Also, another observation emphasized by the
same article concerns the fact that the number
of children in a family is the most important
predictor for the poverty risk, each new child
in a family, over the second, increases considerably the chances for that family to become
poor. In fact, in 2002, 60% of the Romanian
families with 3 or more children were living
under the rate of poverty (Popescu, 2003, p.
4).
The Joint Memorandum on Social Inclusion
(Romanian Government, 2005, p. 14) from
2005 shows a poverty rate of 29,9% in Romanian children under 15 years.
The National Report regarding social inclusion in Romania (MWFSP, 2008, p. 53),
shows a substantial decrease in absolute poverty rate, in the first decade of the millennium:
from 35,9% in 2000, to 5,7% in 2008.
According to European Joint Report on Social
Protection and Social Inclusion 2008, even
if, in Romania, the Social protection expenditure (Esspros), as percent of the GDP, has
increased between 2000 - 2006, from 13,2%
to 14%, the Social protection expenditure for
Family and children, as percent from the total benefits has decreased from 10% to 8,9%
(EC, 2009, p. 263). Compared to the situation
of Bulgaria, Hungary or Greece, Romania had
in 2006 the smallest percent of the GDP spent
on social protection (Bulgaria spent 15%,
Hungary - 22,3% and Greece 31,1%).
The same report shows for 2007 a 25% rate

14

of risk-of-poverty among Romanian children

under 17 years, 30 to 50% higher than in other
age categories (17% for the age group 18-64
and 19% for the age group 65+). The estimation, for the same year, of Romanian children
living in jobless households was of 10%,
lower than in Bulgaria (12,8%) and Hungary
(13,9%), but higher than in Greece (8,7%).
Even if the estimation made by experts from
UNICEF and World Bank in 2008 about the
absolute poverty rate in Romania, for 2009,
indicated an absolute poverty rate of 7,4%
(Crai et al, 2009), at the end of 2010, the Romanian Government reported a slightly different situation: the preliminary Report regarding social inclusion in Romania in 2009
announces an absolute poverty rate of 4,4%
(MWFSP, 2010a, p. 2), the smallest Romania
has known in the last decade.
The segment of population that was most affected by absolute poverty in 2009, was the
segment with ages between 0 19 years (with
an average rate of 6.36) and the least affected
was the segment with ages between 60 64
years (2,2%) (MWFSP, 2010a, p. 32).
The West Region of Romania (where Timis
county is situated) is reported as having one
of the lowest absolute poverty rates in 2009
(MWFSP, 2010a, p. 21), compared with the
other counties in fact the rate of 3,2 situates
it on the second position at a national level
(after Bucharest, with a rate of 0,5). West
Region is, thus, hosting 6,6% from the entire
poor Romanian population.
The most recent Quarterly Bulletin of the
Romanian Ministry of Work, Family and Social Protection reports 6.886 children that are
beneficiaries of the special protection system,
in the Western Region. This represents 10,5%
from the total population of children that are
beneficiaries of the special protection system
(MWFSP, 2010b), at the national level, while
the region hosts just 8,95% of the countrys
population10 and 8,64% of the total national
10
The official web-site page of the Agency for
Regional Development Western Region - www.adrvest.ro/

population under 20 years old (INS, 2009).

In other aspects regarding poverty and child
poverty, Timis county is not doing badly,
compared to other counties: it has one of the
lowest rates of unemployment in the country (around 4,4% in 2009-2010, being on the
second place, after Bucharest) (INS, 2010), a
low number of beneficiaries of Complementary family allowance in 2010 (on the fifth
place from 42 counties) (MWFSP, 2010c)
and a low number of beneficiaries of Support
allowance for single-parent families in 2010
(on the 11th place from 42 counties).
One of the most striking differences about the
situation of Timis county, compared to the
general welfare status of its population is the
high number of Maintenance allowances paid
for the children in family placement, which is
one of the highest in the country (2.137), putting Timis on the second place in 42 counties
(MWFSP, 2010c). This observation is consistent with the high number of children placed
in the special protection system, mentioned
above.
According to The World Bank, Serbia is a
middle-income country with great potential
for rapid economic development, due to its
natural resources and fertile and arable agricultural land (WB, 2010). After the tense period the country has crosses after the 1990s,
starting with 2001, the macroeconomic stability of the country has been restored and the
incomes have risen strongly, with a GDP per
capita increasing from about 2.000 USD in
2002 to just over 5.800 USD in 2009 (WB,
2010).
In 2009, influenced by the global financial
crisis, the Serbian economy went into recession and currently it shows modest signs of
recovery. More than 400.000 jobs were lost
since the crisis started. Unemployment rate,
which was decreasing steadily prior to the
crisis, has raised from 14% in April 2008 to
20% in April 2010 (WB, 2010).
index.php?page=domain&did=48

15

The UNICEF report about The state of children in Serbia 2006 shows over 155.000
children in Serbia were poor and that an additional 155.000 were at risk of falling below the poverty line (UNICEF, 2007). These
children suffered material, social and cultural
deprivation and were limited in the achieving their rights to education, healthcare, equal
development and protection. Analysis of data
from rural and urban areas, from households
of different sizes and structures revealed significant disparities within the country. The
largest percentage of children who were under the average risk of poverty were children
from large families; children living in rural
areas, especially in Southeast and Western
Serbia; children belonging to certain minority
groups, particularly Roma; refugee children.
67% of Roma children living in Roma settlements were poor and practically all indicators
pointed to their unacceptable deprivation and
multidimensional discrimination. Research
presented in the Report shows that these children more often suffer from illness and stunting as a result of malnutrition and hunger
four times as many Roma children are stunted compared to the national average. The
same report shows that, in Serbia 2006, only
33% of children attended pre-school institutions, but this percentage is drastically lower
among Roma children just 6% among the
20% poorest. 6% of children living under the
poverty line did not go to primary school and
only 13% of Roma children completed their
primary education.
In 2008, the poverty rate in Serbia was 6,1%.
Compared to 2007, the poverty rate raised
with 0.2 percentage points. At SevernoBanatski district level, between 2003 and
2007, the percentage of beneficiaries of social assistance increased from 3% level to
5%. The percentage of poor population in
Vojvodina province was 8,7%. (WB, 2010)
The percentage of poor population, in 2002,
according to the type of regions in the country was of 14.2% in rural areas.

16

The largest number of population that qualifies as poor in Serbia consists in children
under 13 years and population aged 65+.
Compared to the 2007, the profile of poverty
has not changed in the Serbian Republic. The
largest increase in the percentage of poor in
comparison to 2007, has been recorded in
households headed by unemployed (from
10.3% to 19.3%). In 2010, the unemployment
rate was 20,9% in Vojvodina province (Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2010, p.
2).
Expenditures from the budget for social protection and security of family and children
is very small: in 2003 it represented 2.7% of
the total state budget, while in 2004 it was
reduced to 2.4%. Between 2005 2010, it
maintained a the rate of 2,5%, in spite of the
obvious increase in poverty (from 6,1% in
2008 to 8,8% in 2010) (WB, 2010).
3. Common challenges and joint efforts
in promoting child welfare SerbianRomanian collaborations and publicprivate partnerships
In spite of the reform efforts of the last decade
made in Romania and Serbia, the specialists
in child protection still face a series of great
challenges in promoting child welfare.
The most important are related to the socioeconomic status of their families and their
lack of access to community resources and
services. Research has shown that the most
dramatic effects of poverty among children
include (Popescu, 2003, p. 3):
an increase in parental abandonment;
an increase in the rate of underweight
children, with the risk of future physical development to be adversely affected;
health degradation;
delayed physical development, due to
unbalanced nutrition and poor health;
intellectual development delayed due
to inadequate living conditions, insufficient stimulation of family, school
non-participation etc.
lack of education, school drop-out;

exposure to abuse and neglect;

increasing juvenile delinquency or
begging practice.

One of the main reasons for which people

belonging to disadvantaged categories keep
finding themselves trapped in a permanent
cycle of poverty is their lack of access to a
permanent income that can provide them with
a reasonable living standard. In most cases,
this happens because, somewhere during their
educational path, because of objective or subjective reasons, they gave up school, thus, being unable to complete an education. Without
a school degree, their access to successful
professional insertion becomes increasingly
difficult (if not impossible), most of them
ending in becoming dependent on financial
aid from the local welfare system. Not having resources to provide their children with
an adequate access to education/training nor
having a mentality that encourages educational attainment in them, their children will also
find themselves repeating the same choices
of their parents, thus thickening the crowd of
those relying on welfare support.
The main challenge for non-government organizations should be to identify measures that
would contribute to the inclusion of the poor
in the process of economic growth; not as the
beneficiaries of better welfare programs, but
rather as persons who have access to employment and higher incomes. Fostering cooperation and improving NGOs capacity within
the community (and wider) in order to gain
better efficiency in implementing program
tasks are very important social elements, that
the Government institutions should not lose
sight of. At the same time, it is important
to establish adequate cooperation between
public and private institutions, in order to increase the impact of their joint efforts among
the beneficiaries of the programs.
Around the EU Accession (2007), Romania
has undergone major transformations, in order to be prepared to assume a truly European
identity. Most of these adaptations consisted

in transformations of the legal framework

from various fields. Social Work activity was
no exception to that. Major Laws (e.q. Child
Protection Law, Adoption Law) have been
changed around the period of accession, in
order to suite better the European policies.
Standards, Norms, Quality indicators appeared and had to be implemented and respected. So, the practice was left behind and
had to catch up with the legal framework.
Now, looking behind, one would be surprised
to see how major was the change brought by
EU accession of Romania, to the field of social work.
Most of the evolution was also stimulated by
NGOs participating in the provision of social services. The comparative advantage of
the non-government organizations is in their
readiness to observe problems and potentials
from the beneficiaries perspective, as well
as flexibility and the ability to adjust the programs to certain specifics. Such programs may
be financed by the State, private companies in
local communities, municipalities or foreign
donors, and should be implemented in cooperation with public institutions (UNDP, 2005,
p. 23).
Serbia is currently crossing a very similar
situation, of adaptation and improvement of
the legal framework in child protection legislation and services. This task requires a multidisciplinary attitude, and therefore a close
cooperation between NGOs and public institutions is of great importance. To simply
recognize relevant organizations and representatives is not enough. It is also important
to take steps towards creating and sustaining
a reliable partnership, that involves specific
responsibilities for each of the partners involved. Sadly, in Severno-Banatski district,
the cooperation between the civil sector and
local authorities is based almost exclusively
on giving symbolic donations, which are in
return distributed among the final beneficiaries by the NGOs and this is where the cooperation ends. According to our knowledge,
Serbian NGOs have a common problem:

17

they stay uninformed about other NGOs and

their work, they lack information, lack the
capacity to organize themselves as a network
and this situation causes their interests to be
pushed into background. There is an urgent
need to improve the possibilities of the Serbian local civil society organizations to access
European financing, to improve cooperation
of NGOs between each other and at the same
time the cooperation of NGOs with local authorities.
In the following part, we chose to present two
project based models of intervention with
socio-economic disadvantaged children in
the Romanian-Serbian cross-border area. The
projects were implemented by two NGOs
working in child protection (one from Romania and another one from Serbia), in collaboration with public institutions from Romania
and Serbia, and financed through a cross-border cooperation programme.
The two main project partners were Bethany
Social Services Foundation and Association
of Citizens Duga. Bethany Social Services Foundation is a not for profit Romanian
NGO, founded in 1994, in Timisoara, Timis
county. Its mission is to improve the quality
of life for disadvantaged individuals, groups
or communities, especially children and families, by delivering social services and promoting professional social-work practices.
In order to achieve this mission, the NGO
develops social services and actions regarding: child abandonment prevention; life skills
development for disadvantaged groups (like
young parents, people with special needs,
youth leaving the placement centers); foster
care services for abandoned children; volunteering programs for the community.
Association of citizens Duga, seated in
Ada, Severno-Banatski district of Serbia, was
founded in 2001. Formal organisation and
registration of the Association was a logical
continuation of the activities and initiative of
a volunteer group, enthusistic to give a hand
to those who need it most, the focus being on

18

children from socially disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable groups. The goal
of the Association is to help disadvantaged
children and family to overcome, by school
and professional insertion, the difficult socioeconomic situation they find themselves in.
The first joint project, developed by the two
partners was implemented between 20072008. Short description of the project:
Title: Come on over!
Problems and needs addressed in the project: inefficient social insertion in mainstream
community of two types of vulnerable categories youngsters from placement centers and ethnic minority groups; insufficient
knowledge and experience among Serbian
representatives of organizations and institutions about the methods and techniques of developing independent life skills in youngsters
from placement centers; insufficient knowledge and experience between Romanian representatives of organizations in dealing with
discriminated ethnic minority groups.
Target groups:
Representatives of institutions and
NGOs from Romania and Serbia that
delivered child protection services and/
or promoted minorities rights.
Poor communities in Timis county and
Severno-Banatski district, who experienced problems in accessing resources
and services needed in order to overcome their problems.
Beneficiaries:
institutionalized children from Timis
county and Severno-Banatski district;
Rroma communities from Timis county
and Severno-Banatski district.
Aim of the project: To establish a long-lasting
partnership between social services providers
from Romania and Serbia, in order for them
to improve their professional experience, thus
leading to increasing the quality of the social
services offered to their beneficiaries.

Activities implemented through the project: joint work-shops between Serbian and
Romanian representatives of (public and private) social services providers that work with
ethnic minorities and communities affected
by poverty; trainings addressed to Serbian
and Romanian representatives of (public and
private) social services providers that work
with youngsters that are about to leave the
placement centres; study visits on both sides
of the border; direct services addressed by
each of the partners to communities affected
by poverty, on their side of the border (the
services addressed were designed based on
an evaluation of the local needs, that each of
the team implemented and consisted in: individual information services about rights and
responsibilities, group-work sessions, and legal assistance in order to obtain birth registration certificates for the babies and IDs for the
adults and to access legal rights).
Results of the project: 100 representatives
of NGOs and governmental institutions from
both countries were involved in project activities, participating in work-shop activities,
training sessions or study visits; 180 vulnerable beneficiaries received direct services;
20 births registered and 80 families received
assistance in accessing their legal rights; the
work-shop conclusions and training material was published in three languages, under
the form of a Theoretical and Practice Guide
on Developing Independent Life Skills in
Youngsters and Promoting Minorities Rights
and distributed to 300 stakeholders in both
countries.
Project partners:
NGOs: Bethany Social Services Foundation
(Romania), Association of citizens Duga
(Serbia), Clementina Association (Romania),
Association Pomoc Deci (Serbia).
Public institutions: The Local Social Work
and Child Protection Department from Timis
County (Romania) and The Poverty Reduction Committe Municipality of Ada (Serbia).

Main project donors: Neighborhood programme Romania-Serbia 2005 (Ministry of

Development, Public Works and Housing
Romania, Ministry of Finance Serbia)
Why the project was considered innovative: it was based on two types of partnerships
(public-private and Serbian-Romanian); the
design of the activities (especially the workshops and trainings) involved a high degree
of complementarity between the participants
from the two countries (both Romanian and
Serbian participants had something to gain
from the exchanges); it involved provision
of direct services addressed to the vulnerable
groups; the project results were valued by
publishing a Guide, that allowed dissemination to a wide number of stakeholders.
The second joint project was focused more on
the direct beneficiaries (children from vulnerable categories) and tried to use a more fun
and attractive approach, in order stimulate the
childrens involvement in project activities.
The project was implemented between 2008
and 2009. Short description of the project:
Title: Friends by Nature
Problems/needs the project addressed: developing, in children from disadvantaged categories, a taste for tolerance, fellowship,
responsibility, team-work, school/educational
activities and environment protection.
Target-groups:
disadvantaged children from elementary and secondary schools from Timis
county and Severno-Banatski district;
teachers from elementary and secondary schools from Timis county and
Severno-Banatski district.
Final beneficiaries:
disadvantaged children from elementary and secondary schools from Timis
county and Severno-Banatski district;
poor communities from Timis county
and Severno-Banatski district.
Aim of project: stimulating and developing

19

(in an attractive manner), among children

from disadvantaged categories, the awareness about environmental issues, the importance of a healthy life style and the respect
for the nature and environment, as a way to
understanding and valuing diversity, cooperation and social responsibility.
Activities implemented through the
project:
- environment protection educational/
debate sessions dedicated to disadvantaged children from elementary and
secondary schools from Timis county
and Severno-Banatski district, in order
to increase their knowledge about environment, ecology, human rights and
responsibilities concerned on ecology
and its preservation, pollution materials, learning about team work , tolerance, good communication and partnership;
- an environment protection action, implemented at a large scale, under the
form of a contest: during the educational sessions, the students were asked to
get involved in gathering and recycling
different materials. The materials were
deposited in their schools. At the end
of the action, all the materials collected
have been sold and, from the money
raised in this way, the project team
bought trees. The trees were planted
in the schools gardens/parks, with the
students help. The school that managed
to plant the most trees won the prize of
the contest;
- based on the participation at the volunteer action, children from each school
were selected to participate in two thematic joint camps (one in Romania and
one in Serbia).
Results of the project: 20 schools from poor
communities in Timis county and SevernoBanatski district participated in the project;
400 disadvantaged school children from
Romania and Serbia attended environment
protection educational/debate sessions; more
than 200 disadvantaged school children volunteered for the environment protection action; the two winning schools (one from Ser-

20

bia and one from Romania) were rewarded

with materials and equipments needed for
teaching activities; 2 joint camps (7 days
each) have been organized with a total of 80
children. During the camps, the participants
developed cross-border friendships, learned
and excercised environment protection oriented behavior and developed their knowledge about each others country.
Project partners:
NGOs: Bethany Social Services Foundation
(Romania), Association of citizens Duga
(Serbia).
Public institutions: The Timis County School
Inspectorate (Romania), Poverty Reduction
Committe Municipality of Ada (Serbia).
Why the project was innovative: it used a
playful and interactive approach in order
to make children understand serious subjects like human and cultural diversity, nondiscriminative behavior, the importance of
team-work and responsibility towards the
environment; it combined theory and practice
in direct activities implemented with the beneficiaries; it made the traditional school activities look more interesting and attractive to
children that are often confronted with school
drop-out problems.
Main project donors: Neighborhood programme Romania-Serbia 2006 (Ministry of
Development, Public Works and Housing
Romania, Ministry of Finance Serbia)
These are just a couple of examples about
how NGOs can contribute, through their
activities and programs, to public ends like
reducing poverty, preventing school drop-out
or increasing social cohesion.
Conclusions
The main conclusion of the article would be
that, many times, in order to solve a social
problem, there is need not necessarily for
more resources, but for a better planning and
a more efficient use of them, taking into con-

sideration also the opportunities offered by

the public-private collaboration and the characteristics of the targeted population.
References:
Commision of the European Communities
(2009), Joint Report on Social Protection and
Social Inclusion 2008, Country Fiches - Romania, Belgium: Brussels;

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei i

Proteciei Sociale (2010a), Raport privind
incluziunea social n Romnia n anul
2008 consideraii preliminare, Romnia:
Bucureti;
MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei i
Proteciei Sociale (2010b), Buletin statistic n
domeniul muncii i proteciei sociale, trim. 3,
Seciunea Protecia drepturilor copilului;

Crai, E., Grigoras, V., Pauna, C., Pop, L.,

Stanculescu, M. (2009), Romnia O evaluare rapid a impactului crizei economice asupra srciei. Nota comuna a Unicef si Bancii
Mondiale, 2009;

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei i

Proteciei Sociale (2010c), Buletin statistic n
domeniul muncii i proteciei sociale, trim. 3,
Seciunea Asisten social;

European Commission (2006), Towards an

EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, COM
367, Brussels;

Popescu, R. (2003), Promovarea incluziunii

sociale a copiilor n societatea romneasc,
Revista Calitatea Vieii, nr. 3-4, p. 1-23;

Government of the Republic of Serbia (2010),

Quarterly newsletter on social inclusion and
poverty reduction, no. 3;

The Economist (2010), Vanishing Vojvodina.

Demographic changes are killing off a oncecosmopolitan province of Serbia, May 18th
2010, on-line edition http://www.economist.
com/node/16155218;

Guvernul Romniei i Comisia European Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG (2005), Memorandumul Comun n domeniul incluziunii sociale Romania, p. 14;
Institutul Naional de statistic (2009), Anuarul statistic al Romniei 2008;

Tomislav, Z. (2009), Relatiile interetnice si

identitatea voievodineana, Europe - Journal
for Literature, Art, Culture and Transition
Europe - Journal for Literature, Art, Culture
and Transition, Issue 3, p. 37-45;

Institutul Naional de statistic (2010), Buletin statistic lunar judeean, judeul Timi;

UNDP (2005), Poverty Reduction in Serbia

The role of civil society, Beograd: United
Nations Development Programme;

Mitchell, B., Kicoev, S. (1997), A brief population history of Vojvodina 1638-1718, Geographica Pannonica, No 1, p. 18-21;

UNICEF Belgrade (2007), The state of children in Serbia 2006 with focus on poor and
excluded children, Belgrade: UNICEF;

MWFSP - Ministerul Muncii, Familiei i

Proteciei Sociale (2009), Raport privind activitatea de incluziune social n anul 2008,
Romania: Bucureti;

The World Bank (2010), Country brief 2010.

Serbia, World Bank official web-site.

21

CHILD POVERTY IN BULGARIA

Dani Koleva
Policy Director,
National Network for Children-Bulgaria
dani.koleva@nmd.bg
Abstract
Child poverty and social exclusion are a
denial of childrens fundamental human rights,
which can affect their development today
and undermine the realization of their full
potential in future. Viewed through the lens of
childrens rights, child poverty is understood
as multi-dimensional, encompassing not only
income deprivation, but also other forms
of deprivation and loss of dignity lack of
access to appropriate housing, education,
health services, and a more general lack
of opportunity in society. Reducing child
poverty and setting up conditions for social
inclusion of children is a key objective of
the Bulgarian National Child Strategy 2008
2018.11 However, despite the ambitious
objectives and targets and the measures
outlined in the written documents, theres still
a poor track record of their implementation.
Theres no specification of the resources
available to implement measures and exactly
which Ministries or agencies are responsible
for delivering them.
Keywords: social exclusion; National
child strategy; implementation of social
policies; EU-SILK data; early childhood
interventions.

22

reprezint negarea drepturilor umane

fundamentale ale copiilor, ceea ce le poate
afecta dezvoltarea de azi i le poate submina
realizarea deplin n viitor a potenialului de
care dispun. Vzut prin prisma drepturilor
copilului, srcia este neleas din punct de
vedere multidimensional, cuprinznd nu doar
deprivarea de venituri ci i alte forme de
deprivare i pierdere a demnitii pierderea
accesului la locuin adecvat, educaie,
servicii de sntate, i la nivel general, lipsa
de oportuniti n societate. Dimensiunile
dezavantujului social
i a deprivrii
sunt interrelaionate i interdependente
astfel, dac copilul locuiete ntr-un spaiu
supraaglomerat, localizat ntr-o arie srac,
acestea pot contribui la o stare de sntate mai
precar, la absenteism colar, i pot submina
ansele n via ale copilului. Dimpotriv,
accesul la un venit familial suficient, ngrijiri
adecvate, locuin decent i sntate de
calitate, vor avea un impact pozitiv n viaa
copilului, imediat i n viitor12.
Cuvinte cheie: excluziune social; strategie
naional pentru copii; implementarea
politicilor sociale; baza de date EU-SILK;
intervenie timpurie.

Rezumat
Srcia i excluziunea social a copilului

Introduction
Viewed through the lens of childrens rights,
child poverty is understood as multi-dimen-

11
Specific charter of the streamlined National Strategy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion since
2006.

12
Eurochild. A child rights approach to child poverty.
Discussion paper, 2007

sional, encompassing not only income deprivation, but also other forms of deprivation and
loss of dignity lack of access to appropriate housing, education, health services, and a
more general lack of opportunity in society.
The dimensions of disadvantage and deprivation are interrelated and interdependent for
example, if a child is living in overcrowded
accommodation, located in a poor environment, this may contribute to poor health,
low educational attainment and undermine
life chances. Conversely, access to sufficient
family income, supportive care, decent housing, and good quality health care, will have
a positive impact on a childs life, both now
and into the future. 13

of the Crisis Monitoring Survey carried out

by World Bank and Open Society Institute in
Feb/March 201016 shows that the economic
crisis has further hit the most vulnerable and
the poor.
The data in fig. 2 show that every third family in Bulgaria with two or more children
up to 6 years old is poor. 54 % of the poor
households have children. It shows the unevenly distributed impact of the crisis across
ethnic groups. Poor households reported reducing essential expenditure as lighting, heat
and water; necessary clothing and food due
to economic hardship. Government has also
reduced investments in health almost 20 %
stopped buying regular medicines and 10 %
dont visit the doctor after falling ill.

The situation in facts and figures

326 157 children in Bulgaria live at risk of
poverty according to the EU-SILC 2008 data.
This represents 26 % as compared with 21.4
% for the total population and is one of the
highest in Europe. A national child-at-risk
of poverty rate identifies the proportion of
children living under the national poverty
risk threshold in a given country. It is essential to complement this information with the
national poverty risk gap/relative median atrisk-of-poverty gap14, which indicates how
poor the poor children are that is the depth
of child poverty risk. The poverty risk gap for
children varies from 13 % in Finland and 15
% in France to 40 % in Romania and 44 % in
Bulgaria.15
Given that EU-SILK data is collected through
households, it should be noted that information is still missing on the most vulnerable
groups, namely on children in alternative
care, street children, separated children and
migrant children. It is crucial that research
is undertaken and data on these groups collected in order to be able to address correctly
their specific needs. The preliminary results
13
Eurochild, A child rights approach to child poverty:
Discussion paper, 2007
14
Measures the distance between the median equivalised income of people living below the poverty risk threshold
and the value of that poverty risk threshold and is expressed
as a percentage of the threshold.
15
Hugh Frazer, Eric Marlier and Ides Nicaise, A social
inclusion roadmap for Europe 2020, 2010

Fig. 1. Crisis Monitoring Survey carried out

by World Bank and Open Society Institute in
Feb/March 2010. http://www.econ.bg/analysis/article182488/vliyanieto_na_krizata_
16
http://www.econ.bg/analysis/article182488/
vliyanieto_na_krizata_vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya

23

vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya

of children at risk of poverty in 2008.

However, despite the ambitious objectives
and targets and the measures outlined in the
written documents, theres still a poor track
record of their implementation. Theres no
specification of the resources available to implement measures and exactly which Ministries or agencies are responsible for delivering
them. This issue becomes even more acute
in a period when economic decline means
that resources are likely to become scarcer
and expenditure cut-backs. Given the interdependent nature of the problem, child poverty and well-being must be addressed across
a range of policy areas. Such an integrated
approach requires formal arrangements to coordinate the efforts of all actors horizontally
(across different government departments)
and vertically (between different levels of
governance). If no such mechanisms are put
in place, policies are likely to be fragmented
and less efficient and there is a danger that the
impact of policies on children is ignored or
under-valued.18

Fig.2 Crisis Monitoring Survey carried out

by World Bank and Open Society Institute
in Feb/March 2010. http://www.econ.bg/
analysis/article182488/vliyanieto_na_krizata_vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya
Government actions
Reducing child poverty and setting up conditions for social inclusion of children is a key
objective of the National Child Strategy 2008
2018. Another positive development is the
inclusion of a quantified target for the reduction of child poverty in the National Action
Plan/inclusion. 17 The quantified target to be
achieved by 2020 is a reduction with 78 000
children which is 30 % of the general national
target and approximately 24 % of the number
17
Specific charter of the streamlined National Strategy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion since
2006.

24

The newly established at the Council of Ministers National Council for Social Inclusion
which consists of various government and
non-governmental stakeholders is a step in
the right direction to ensure integrated horizontal approach however mechanisms to
ensure vertical co-ordination should be also
strengthened.
Early childhood education and care offers
enormous opportunities for societies to reduce poverty, inequality and disadvantage.
Educational disadvantage is strongly associated with home background and becomes
measurable even before formal schooling
begins: three-year-old children of more educated parents, for example, often have double
the vocabulary of children from poorer, less
educated homes and are significantly more
likely to achieve higher qualifications by the
age of 15. A significant body of research supports the idea that offering good quality early
18
Frazer and Marlier: A social inclusion map for Europe 2020, 2010

education and care to all children tends to reduce disadvantages.

The National Child Strategy 2008-2018 envisages the development and introduction in
practice of early childhood standards. However, this is another area where theres no
clarity when and how this would be implemented.
Policy recommendations
The National Network for Children Bulgaria is an umbrella organization of 73 nongovernmental organizations working with
children and families. The organization is a
member of Eurochild, an European network
of organizations and individuals working in
and across Europe to promote the rights and
welfare of children. We support the concluding statements of Eurochilds annual conference, held in rebro, Sweden from 3-5 November 2010:
Brighter futures for many children in Europe
are currently threatened. Decisions taken by
governments across the EU in response to
the crisis, risk jeopardizing millions of childrens quality of life and their overall life
chances. In this era of austerity measures it is
more important than ever that organizations
committed to childrens rights and welfare
work in partnership and promote a common
message.
Every child has equal rights, to all rights, as
defined in the UNCRC. Childrens rights are
indivisible and this understanding must underpin policies to fight child poverty. Policies
make a difference. Governments have a responsibility to support families to protect and
promote their childrens best interest, as well
as ensuring every child can access high quality education, health, housing, leisure, sports,
culture and arts. A child rights approach recognizes and nurtures childrens own agency
and evolving capacities. Involvement and
empowerment of children and families is
therefore a key component of successful policy and practice intervention.

Recommendations to the EU
1. Organizations working for the rights and
welfare of children recognize the importance
of the European Union as a key driver of reform within Member States. Entry into force
of the Lisbon Treaty is an important step
forward as it makes protection of childrens
rights a specific objective of the EU. It is crucial the EU respect this obligation and now
adopts a comprehensive and ambitious EU
strategy on the rights of the child ensuring
all relevant EU policy and programs reflect
the principles enshrined in the UNCRC, and
supporting EU member states in their efforts
to apply the UNCRC at national level.
2. The introduction of commitment to lifting
20 million people out of poverty over the next
10 years in the Europe2020 strategy is welcomed. However, the seeds of poverty and
social exclusion are sown in childhood, and
a specific priority is necessary to address inequalities faced by children from their youngest years. The EU should pressure member
states to adopt specific targets to reduce child
poverty and provide policy guidance through
the adoption of a Recommendation on child
poverty and well-being. In particular we acknowledge the value and importance of crosscountry comparisons and benchmarking tools
to monitor and push for progress.
3. The EU policy framework to fight child
poverty must promote a multi-dimensional
approach based on a clear understanding
of childrens rights. It is important to demonstrate evidence that child poverty cannot
be tackled through a focus on labour market
activation alone. Many parents cannot work
and across the EU in-work poverty is growing. A child rights approach protects and promotes childrens best interest regardless of
their parents employment situation. A common framework against child poverty should
focus on families access to adequate income
(including but not limited to access to the
labour market), as well as childrens access
to high quality services. The importance of
listening to and empowering children in all

25

types of policy intervention must be emphasized.

Recommendations to the Member States
4. In times of fiscal consolidation and public
spending cuts, it is crucial that budgets targeting on children and families are protected and increased. Investment in universal,
high quality education, early years, family
support and health promotion (among other
services) provide the bedrock of a more equal
society and will save costs in the future. Universal services must be coupled with targeted
interventions for the most vulnerable ensuring a strong safety net for all children. Governments can and should strive to improve
service efficiency and impact, but never at the
cost of undermining their ability to deliver a
quality service to all. Governments must invest in training and capacity building of professionals working with and for children and
families.
5. Member states should strengthen cooperation and exchange at an EU level on child
poverty and well-being and lend their support to the Trio Presidency declaration calling
for a Commission Recommendation in 2011.
In setting their Europe 2020 targets, member
states should adopt a specific target on the reduction of child poverty. Targets must be accompanied by realistic, achievable national,
regional and local strategies to fight child
poverty and social exclusion.
6. National action to address child poverty
and social exclusion must support partnership and cooperation with different stakeholders. Coordination across different levels
of governance and across different departments is essential. Involvement of civil society, practitioners, parents and children and
young people themselves in policy and practice design, implementation and monitoring
ensures better accountability, engagement
and commitment and ultimately better policies and outcomes for children.

Recommendations to Eurochild & its

members
7. Childrens rights are still poorly understood and applied in policy making across
the EU. The Eurochild network can raise
awareness of the UNCRC and its influence
on decision-making among policy makers,
practitioners, parents and children. The fight
against child poverty and social exclusion
cannot be separated from childrens rights. It
is important to show how recognition of children as subjects of rights changes policy design and implementation and produces better
outcomes for children.
8. Focusing Eurochilds work on the UNCRC
creates a uniting force that brings together
stakeholders across all sectors and professions. The conference has demonstrated with
many interesting good practice examples
how working together makes a difference to
childrens lives. The Eurochild network aims
to provide a platform for all organisations and
individuals committed to the rights and welfare of children and young people in Europe.
This diversity is its strength.
9. Eurochild has an obligation to ensure the
voices and concerns of children and young
people themselves are heard and taken into
account. This conference as previous Eurochild events has demonstrated the creativity, insights and energy brought by children
and young people to the debate. We also
heard how different projects successfully empower and involve children to find the best
long-term solutions to poverty and social exclusion. Childrens participation must be an
integral part of our work and our efforts to
promote childrens well-being and inclusion.
References
Review of Bulgarian legislation, policies and
practices regarding the rights of the child, National Network for Children - Bulgaria, June
2010, http://nmd.bg/en/campaign/reports/
Frazer, H., Marlier, E. and Nicaise, I. (2010),
A social inclusion roadmap for Europe 2020;

26

Preliminary results of the Crisis Monitoring

Survey, World Bank and Open Society Institute, Feb/March 2010, http://www.econ.bg/
analysis/article182488/vliyanieto_na_krizata_vurhu_domakinstvata_v_bulgariya;
Eurochild (2007), A child rights approach to
child poverty: Discussion paper;

Eurochild (forthcoming in 2011), Brighter

Futures Building Effective Partnerships To
End Child Poverty, Conference report;
Billson A. and Markova G. (2007), But you
should see their families: preventing child
abandonment and promoting social inclusion
in countries in transition in Social Work and
Social Science Review Volume 12, Nr 3.

A review of the 2008-2010 National strategy

reports on social protection and social inclusion, Eurochild, http://www.eurochild.org/
fileadmin/user_upload/files/NAP_2008__2010/Country_Fiches.pdf;

27

FAMILY SUBJECTIVE POVERTY

AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR
ADOLESCENTS SCHOOL BEHAVIOUR
AND PERFORMANCE

Prof. Ana Muntean, PhD.,

Prof. PhD. Maria Roth,

West University of Timioara,

Babe-Bolyai University, School of

School of Sociology and Psychology

anamuntean@socio.uvt.ro

Sociology and Social Work

mroth@socasis.ubbcluj.ro

Mihai-Bogdan Iovu, PhD.,

Fulbright researcher,
Rutgers State University of New Jersey,
School of Social Work
iovu_mbogdan@yahoo.com
Abstract
Objective: Poverty is widely recognized as
one of the most powerful risk factors related
to education. The current study looks on
how children perceive their social economic
status, their family support in terms of
education and on how these are tied to school
behaviour and performance. Method: The
data are based on the national survey aiming
to identify the most prevalent social factors
of school success. The Romanian version of
the School Success Profile (SSP-Ro)19 was
19

28

The data were collected within the project: Social

applied to 2608 teenagers, aged between

12-18 years. Results: Children perceiving a
low level of financial resources (subjective
poverty) have access to a less supportive
academic home environment, perceive
less parental educational support and also
perceive low expectations from their parents.
The regression model comparing students
with fewer resources and those with high
Diagnostic of School Performance Through the School
Success Social Scale and the Projecting of Intervention
Methods Tested Through Research (SSSS), coordinated by
Babe-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca and funded by NCPM
through a PN2 scheme (Project #91-063)

resources showed that demographic variables

significantly contribute more to the Grades
factor for the first group of children. The other
two outcome factors, School engagement and
Trouble avoidance seem to be a function
of both demographic and family support
variables, but especially for high SES group
of children. Due to some methodological
constraints, future research is needed in this
area. Conclusion: There are different schoolsuccess profiles for children, depending on
their perceptions of family resources. Schools,
teachers and community all can be important
buffers for the risk factors associated with
children living in low SES families.
Keywords: adolescents; family support;
school success; social economic status (SES);
subjective poverty.
Rezumat
Srcia este recunoscut ca fiind unul din
factorii de risc cei mai importani n educaie.
Studiul de fa analizeaz modul n care copiii
i percep statusul socio-economic, suportul
parental n termeni de educaie i maniera n
care aceti factori relaioneaz cu succesul
lor colar. Metoda: Datele se bazeaz pe un
studiu naional ce i propune identificarea
factorilor sociali ai succesului colar.
Versiunea romneasc a School Success Profile
(SSP-Ro)20 a fost aplicat unui numr de 2608
copii cu vrsta ntre 12-18 ani. Rezultate:
Copiii ce percep un nivel sczut al resurselor
financiare (srcie subiectiv) beneficiaz
de un mediu academic mai puin favorizant
n familiile lor de origine. De asemena au
un suport parental sczut i ateptri reduse
din partea prinilor referitoare la educaie.
Analiza de regresie ce compar copiii cu un
nivel al srciei subiective ridicat i crescut
arat c variabilele demografice au puterea
explicativ cea mai mare n cazul Notelor,
dar pentru cei cu resurse financiare ridicate.
Celelelate variabile dependente Angajarea
colar i Evitarea problemelor reprezint o
funcie att a indicatorilor demografici ct i
20
Proiect nr. 91063 Diagnosticul social al performanei
colare prin Scala Social a Succesului colar i proiectarea
unor metode de intervenie validate prin cercetare, coordonat
de Universitatea Babe-Bolyai Cluj Napoca i finanat de
CNMP prin programul PN2

a celor familiali, dar n special pentru cei cu

un nivel sczut al srciei. Studii ulterioare
trebuiesc derulate n nelegerea mai bun a
mecanismelor intrinseci implicate n aceste
relaii. Concluzii: Exist profile sociale
diferite pentru copii cu resurse financiare
diferite. colile, profesorii i comunitatea
reprezint factori importani n controlarea
factorilor de risc ce acioneaz n familiile cu
un status socio-economic sczut.
Cuvinte-cheie: adolesceni; support familial;
success colar; status socio-economic;
srcie subiectiv.
Introduction
Since World War II education has been increasingly viewed as an important means
for equalizing income and social disparity
among people. Success in school increasingly determines later success in adult life,
including likelihood of attending college, career opportunities, and income potential (Lee,
Burkam, 2002). Meanwhile, the disposition
to make use of the school as a resource and
the predisposition to succeed in it depend on
the risk factors related to parenting and social
economic status of families. Among these,
poverty is widely recognized as one of the
most powerful risk factors related to education (Zorn, Noga, 2004). Poverty negatively
impacts school success, school achievement,
and social- emotional functioning with more
detrimental effects occurring in the presence
of persistent poverty (Huffman, Mehlinger,
Kerivan, 2000). Students living in low-income families under perform at all educational levels - the lower the familys income, the
poor children will do on ability measures and
achievement scores and the less likely that
child is to finish high school (Duncan et al.,
1994), a greater risk for early departure from
school, retention, and referral to special education (McLoyd, 1998; Lee, Burkam, 2002;
Gershoff, 2003) and in all aspects - lower
SES children have math and reading deficits
almost three times larger than higher SES
children (McLoyd, 1998).
Within the poor families parent-child interac-

29

tions have some specificity due to the socioeconomic stress of parents which make them
less available towards their children. As Ann
Masten (2001) mentioned, the effects of the
economic crisis on adolescents are mediated
by effects on the mood and interaction of parents. The parents are more authoritarian and
prone to criticize, punish and physically discipline the child in an inconsistent way. Within the research literature, the disturbances in
parenting within poor families, especially the
criticism of the parents towards the child, are
often linked with depression, anxiety, behavioral problems and poor school grades among
children (Luthar, Latendresse, 2005). Children coming from poor families display more
socio-emotional troubles, behavioral difficulties and have less school success (Seccombe,
2002). Based on a meta-analysis of the existing researches in the field of child poverty,
Peter Fonagy (2004: 53), found the prevalence of mild intellectual deficiency among
children living within families under socioeconomic pressure as high as 10%, comparing with 2-3% among children living within
middle class families. Domestic violence,
child abuse, pregnancy in adolescence and
marginalization are other phenomena, which
are accompanying poverty (Licher, 1997).
Schools, teachers and community can be important buffers for the risk factors faced by
children living within poor families (Seccombe, 2002). For youth, teachers may play
a critical role in providing this type of social
support. (Seccombe, 2002, pp.388). The
school is the most important platform for promoting a wide strategy against child poverty
(Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., 2003). Building-up
the resilience of children living in poor families can be the turning point within the educational strategy.
Focus of the current analysis
The context where living can theoretically affect the child life and subsequently his abilities to perform adequately while at school
(Chapman, 2003). In planning future interventions it is important to rely on subjects

30

own perceptions of the reality and look for

connections he/she might not be aware of
contributing to the current situation. Therefore, this analysis is looking on how children
perceive their social economic situation, their
parental support and their school success, and
test some statistical relations between indexes
built on these perceptions. We shall look at the
extent of the self perception of adolescents as
poor. We are also looking the perceptions of
adolescents on their parents involvement in
their schooling and statistically test relations
between indexes of poverty, parenting and
demographic factors.
Our research is based on the teenagers impressions of the familys poverty and their experiences with social benefits, and not on specific objective criteria of poverty. Probably
our measures exclude some of the children
living in poor families, who are not aware of
their social situation or do not report it, or are
very well shielded by the care of their families. These children wont be included within
our sample.
Methods
Source of data
The data analyzed here are collected through
the self reports of children, based on the answers given to SSP questionnaire. SSP reflects an eco-systemic vision (Bowen, Rose,
Bowen, 2005) and helps to investigate the
risk and protective factors for children of
school age. The research done with SSP, in
a national sample of 2608 students, aged 1114 years old, within schools in 11 counties of
the country has given a relevant image about
the subjective poverty of childrens families,
as it is perceived and reported by the child.
The data were gathered as part of the Social
Diagnosis of School Performance using the
School Success Profile (SSP-Ro) and the Design of Research Based Intervention Methods
study (SSSS). SSP reflects the ecological and
interaction approaches regarding human behavior. The main objective of the project is to
identify and to evaluate effective techniques
of influencing the social aspects of school

success. 27 dimensions of the social and individual factors were used in this process (table

1), the majority of them having a good internal validity (Hrgu, Dmean, Roth, 2009).

Table 1. Descriptive data on the SSP-Ro

Neighborhood support
Neighborhood youth behavior
Neighborhood safety
Learning climate
School satisfaction
Teacher support
School safety
Academic relevance
Academic rigor
School inclusion
Personal safety in school
Friend support
Peer-group acceptance
Friend behavior
Family togetherness
Parent support
Home academic environment
Parent education support
School behavior expectations
Social support use
Physical health
Self confidence
Optimism
Adjustment
School engagement
Trouble avoidance
Grades

Mean
3.65
6.95
7.10
5.86
4.74
5.05
36.90
29.71
29.49
13.46
34.41
12.94
20.07
23.10
8.97
12.60
6.40
4.69
26.98
5.25
22.52
13.33
37.48
14.86
7.27
28.89
11.11

Sample
Of the 2608 respondents who participated in
the SSSS survey, a restricted sample of 2465
(94.5%) with complete answers for the variables in the analysis was used for the present
study. As shown in table 2, the sample was
about evenly split between males and females.
The majority of the sample indicated that they
were Romanians, and the rest were members
of other significant minority groups (Hungarian and Roma). There were more high school
students in the sample than secondary school

Alpha
SD
Min. Max. Cronbach
2.43
0
7
0.829
1.85
0
9
0.658*
1.51
0
8
0.756*
2.16
0
8
0.777
2.18
0
7
0.797
2.60
0
8
0.834
7.52
24
48
0.928*
6.92
11
44
0.892
0.12
10
40
0.883
4.70
5
20
0.883*
4.17
13
39
0.831*
2.41
5
20
0.876
2.89
8
24
0.725
3.25
9
27
0.820
2.81
7
21
0.886
2.59
5
15
0.850
1.73
0
8
0.737*
1.59
0
6
0.742
5.63
11
46
0.910
2.35
0
8
0.802*
3.22
9
27
0.772
2.11
5
15
0.833
6.46
12
48
0.870
2.84
6
18
0.824*
1.42
3
11
0.675
3.54
11
33
0.802
2.19
3
15
0.615
Source: Hrgu, Dmean, Roth, 2009: 29
students. One third of them perceived their
family income as at least enough for a decent
living and about three quarters of them were
living in urban areas (in this analysis they are
the group with higher resources). The sample
reproduces the national distribution of children aged 10-19 according to gender and ethnicity, and not according to residency (INS,
2009).

31

Table 2. Sample Profile

Characteristic
Gender
Female
Male
Ethnicity
Romanian
Hungarian
Roma
School level
Secondary
High
Income perception
Little resources
Higher resources
Residency
Urban
Rural

Percentage (N)
55.5 (1362)
44.5 (1092)
89.0 (2161)
9.6 (234)
1.0 (25)
44.1 (1079)
55.9 (1367)
4.8 (118)
95.2 (2325)
74.4 (1834)
25.6 (631)

Measures
Six measures, including three independent
variables and three dependent variables were
used in order to examine the relationship
between family involvement and school behavior and performance of adolescents. Each
measure was built as a scale with multiple
indicators assessing the underlying conceptualization. In addition, three demographic
variables were coded as dummies and entered
into the regression analysis. Table 3 presents
descriptive data on the variables used in the
analysis.
Independent variables
Family involvement was measured by three
scales.

By home academic environment scale (qD4)

students report that they discuss their courses
or programs at school, their school-related
activities, current events and politics, and
their plans for the future with the adults who
live in their home. Responses (never=1, once
or twice=2, more than three times=3) were
summed to create an index ranging from 8 to
24, the higher numbers representing a better
academic environment provided by the family.
The second parent involvement scale was
focused on the parent educational support
(qD5). Students were asked if the adults in
their home encourage and support them in
their school work and activities, help them to
get the needed books or supplies, and offer
help with homework or special assignments.
Responses (never=1, once or twice=2, more
than three times=3) were summed to create
a scale with a range from 6 to 18, the higher
numbers representing a better support of parents in educational matters.
In the last scale (school behavior expectations (qD8)), youth report the manner in
which they perceive the adults in their home
as expecting them to do their school work, to
attend classes, and to follow certain school
rules. Responses, (1=not upset, 2=somewhat
upset, 3=very upset) were then summed into
an index ranging from 11 to 33, where higher
numbers represent higher parents expectations. The internal consistency reported by
Cronbach alpha for those three scales was
good (Hrgu, Dmean, Roth, 2009).

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Measures in the Analysis
(N=2465)
Measure

Range

Mean

SD
1

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Dependent variables
School Engagement
Trouble avoidance
Grades
Independent variables/family involvement
Home acc. environment
Educational parent support
Sch. behavior expectations
**

32

p<.01

Bivariate Correlations
2
3
4

4 to 12
11 to 33
3 to 15

9.01
15.12
11.22

1.28
3.52
2.12

-.13**
.13**

-.40**

8 to 24
6 to 18
11 to 33

17.87
13.27
27.13

3.21
3.23
5.42

.17**
.15**
.08**

.-17**
-14**
-.17**

.21**
.09**
.21**

.57**
.20**

.16**

Dependent variables
Three school behavior and performance scales
were used as dependent variables in the analysis: school engagement, trouble avoidance
and grades:
School engagement (qB9) was assessed by
four questions related to whether students
find school fun and exciting, look forward
to learning new things at school, and look
forward to going to school. Responses (not
at all=1, a little=2, a lot=3) were summed
to create an index ranging from 4 to 16, the
higher numbers representing better engagement.
Trouble avoidance (qB5) was assessed with
an index based on indicators of frequency of
problem behaviors in the last 30 days. Responses (never=1, once or twice=2, more
than twice=3) were summed to create an index ranging from 11 to 33, the lower numbers
representing better school behavior.
A composite grade index was used to assess
students perception of the kind of grades, the
number of 5s they received in the last semester, and their grade relative to other school
mates (qB1 and B4). Responses were summed
to create an index ranging from 3 to 15, the
higher scores representing better grades.
Demographic control variable
Three demographic variables were included
in the analyses to clarify the relationship between family involvement and the outcomes
variables. Gender, childrens educational level, and urban-rural residency have shown to
be related to various school outcomes. Self
evaluation of family income was used as a
proxy indicator of social economic status.
The demographic variables were entered as
dummy in the regression analyses. Male was
the reference category (1) for gender. For
the school level dummy variable, secondary school was the reference category. Urban
area was the reference category for residency
variable.

Data analysis
Two stages of data analysis were conducted
using SPSS 10.5. In the first stage, the comparison of means was used to determine if
there were significant mean differences on
the family involvement scales among students grouped by perceived poverty status.
A .05 level of statistical analysis was used to
define significant mean differences for t-test.
Multiple regressions were used in the second
stage to compare the relative contribution of
the independent variables to explain the variance of the three school outcome variables
(engagement, trouble avoidance, and grades).
This strategy is considered a more efficient
approach and potentially one with greater
explanatory validity than a simultaneous regression strategy that considers the unique
effect of each independent variable (Bowen,
Chapman, 1996). Four steps were used in the
regression analysis for each of the outcome
variables. Three demographic variables were
entered in the first block. The perceived home
academic environment variables were added
in the second step to determine their unique
contribution to the outcomes after controlling
the demographics. The third step evaluated
the unique contribution of the parent educational support by entering them in the second
block while withholding home academic environment variables. In the fourth step, the
full model was tested, including the simultaneous examination of all demographic and
family involvement variables. The contribution of individual predictors is discussed only
in the presentation of the full model. Unique
contributions of the parent involvement are
also discussed. A .05 level of statistical significance was used to evaluate the results of
the regression analysis.
Results
Stage 1 Analysis: Means Comparisons
Table 4 presents the results of the first stage
of analysis. Significant mean differences
were found for poverty status for each of the
family involvement variables. Patterns in
these differences indicate the profile of youth

33

who benefit more or less of family support

in education. It should be noticed that the
standard deviations of the measures tended to
be smaller than the means, suggesting little
variation within groups.
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and
t test for Measures of Family Involvement
by Perceived Poverty Status using
Independent Samples t-test
Variable
Home academic environment
Little resources
High resources
Educational parent support
Little resources
High resources
School behavior expectations
Little resources
High resources

SD

5.85
6.44

2.06
1.69

4.31
4.68

1.66
1.59

24.85
27.24

6.80
5.32

t
df
-3.08 125.19

p
10-3

-2.48 2438

.013

-.371 122.22

10-3

As table 4 shows, there were significant differences between those perceiving little financial resources and those reporting higher
resources in respect to the perception of the

home academic environment, of the educational parent support (p=.013), and of the
school behavior expectations (p=10-3).
As shown in figure 1, family involvement
in all its components measured by SSP-Ro
(home academic environment, educational
parent support and school behavior expectations) is lower for students with little resources, suggesting the potential risk they
pose to these adolescents in achieving school
success. The social profile that can be drawn
is that children perceiving a low level of financial resources (subjective poverty) have
access to a less supportive academic home
environment, perceive little parental educational support and also perceive low expectations from their parents (all the values are
below the samples mean). Greatest differences in relation with poverty can be seen in
childrens perception of their parents school
behavior expectations.

Figure 1. Childrens profile according to the perception of the income

90
80

27,24

70
60
27,13

50

High resources
Mean

40

Little resources

30
24,85
20
10

6,44
6,41
5,85

4,68
4,66
4,31

0
Home accademic environment

Educational parent support

Stage 2 Analysis: Multiple Regressions

Continuing from the previous results that had
shown lower average family support related
to education for students with (perceived)
little resources, the second stage of analysis
included multiple regressions to see if there
are differences in regression data between the
groups of children with perceived little resources and those with the higher perceived
SES. This way we try to reveal differences

34

School behavior expectation

in the way demographic factors interact with

subjective perceptions of adolescents related
to their parents involvement and support in
their education. School success was measured
by three indexes that correlate (see table 3), but
act somewhat differently in relation with the
other factors measured by SSP-Ro (Dmean,
Roth, Hrgu, 2010). Therefore we looked
at three regression analysis predicting school
outcomes (School Engagement, Trouble

Avoidance and Grades), separately along the

two groups created according to the perception of poverty. Results of the final step only
are shown in tables 5, 6, and 7.
School Engagement
Table 5 presents regression statistics for the
prediction of school engagement for children
with perceived little resources and for those
with higher resources. In the final step, where
all the variables were included into the regression equation, the combination is not significant for the first group, while for children
with better income perception the explanatory variance reaches 4.2% (F6, 2172=16.99,
p=10-18).
Table 5 Multiple Regression Predicting
School Engagement
Variable

Step 4/little resources Step 4/high resources

B
Beta
B
Beta

Demographics
Gender (1= male)
School level (1= ms)
Residency (1= urban)
Home academic environment
Educational parent support
School behavior expectations
R2
F
df

0.19
-0.22
-0.27
0.01

.07
-.08
-.10
.04

-0.08
-0.16
-0.33
0.03

-.03
-.06**
-.11***
.10***

0.09

.23

0.02

.07**

0.004

.02

0.01

.06**

.029
1.52
6, 101

.042
16.99***
6, 2172

p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

In the full model it is possible to evaluate the

unique contribution of individual measures to
the prediction equation. The b coefficient for
school level is -0.16. This means that, all other
variables being kept constant, teenagers from
high schools score, on average, 0.16 points
higher on school engagement scale than their
secondary school counterparts. Similarly, the
b coefficient for residency shows that if all
other variables are constant, children from rural score 0.33 point higher on school engagement than students from urban areas. The
greatest effect on school engagement belongs
to residency (=-.11) and home academic environment (=.10). The association was in
the expected direction meaning that children
with high level of subjective poverty are less

school engaged, and none of the used explanatory variables are significant for them.
Meanwhile, the better the home academic
environment is, the better the parent support
and school expectations are and the better the
level of school engagement is, but only for a
part of children. The effect of the three family
related factors is lower then expected in the
prediction of school engagement of adolescents. Looking at the two groups of children
according to perceived poverty, the added effect of home related factors is higher in those
who perceive themselves as poor.
Trouble Avoidance
Table 6 presents regression statistics for the
prediction of trouble avoidance variable. In
the final step, trouble avoidance was regressed
on demographics, and family involvement
variables. As shown in the table the entire set
of predictors did not have any significant effect for children with little resources, but explained 13% of the variance in the dependent
variable for children with higher resources
(F6, 2103=54.04, p=10-61).
Table 6 Multiple Regression Predicting
Trouble Avoidance
Variable

Step 4 /little resources Step 4/ high resources

B
Beta
B
Beta

Demographics
Gender (1 = male)
School level (1 = ms)
Residency (1 = urban)
Home academic environment
Educational
parent
support
School behavior expectations

2.16
-0.10
0.35
-0.07

.25*
-.01
-04
-.007

1.45
-1.55
-0.15
-0.07

.21***
-.22***
-.01
-.08***

-0.09

-.007

-0.009

-.009

-0.02

-.04

-0.08

.-13***

-0.18
.013
1.20
6, 93

R2
F
df

-0.16
.131
54.04***
6, 2103

p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Out of demographic variables, only gender

and school level are statistically significantly
involved into the equation. The b coefficient
for gender is 1.45. This means that, all other
variables being kept constant, male teenagers score, on average, 1.45 points higher on
trouble avoidance scale. Similarly, the b coefficient for childrens school level is -1.55

35

shows that if all other variables are constant,

children from high schools are less avoidant
in engaging in conflicts while at school, than
their secondary school counterparts. The
greatest effect on trouble avoidance belongs
to gender (=.21) and school level (=-.22).
The association was in the expected direction, meaning that females were more likely
to avoid trouble at school than males and
children in secondary school who were more
obedient than high school children. Similarly,
the higher the perception of parents expectations, the more trouble avoidant the children, when controlling for all other variables
(=.-13). The effect of the three home related
factors is contrary then expected in the prediction of trouble avoidance by adolescents.
There seem to be some differences according
to perceived poverty, in the sense that poorer
children seem to be even more resistant to
their parents educational support, and those
with better perceived SES are more resistant
to their parents school related expectations.
Grades
Table 7 presents the regressions statistics for
prediction of grades from the demographic
and parent involvement variables. In the final
step the full model could be tested. This time
it is significant both for children with low income perception and for children with high
income perception. The explanatory value is
17% for the first group and almost 10% for
the second group.
Table 7 Multiple Regression Predicting
Grades
Variable

Step 4 /little resources Step 4/high resources

B
Beta
B
Beta

Demographics
Gender (1 = male)
School level (1 = ms)
Residency (1 = urban)
Home academic environment
Educational parent support
School behavior expectations
R2
F
df

-1.36
-0.32
1.32
0.11

-.28**
-.06
.27**
.18

-0.63
0.37
0.47
0.09

-.15***
.08***
.09***
.17***

-0.04

-.05

-0.03

-.01**

0.02

.05

0.05

.15***

.170
4.80***
6, 105

.099
41.49***
6, 2209

p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

36

The indicators of family contributions show

approximately equal weight for the two categories of children according to the perceived
resources. The beta weight in the final model
is indicating the importance of demographic
variables, with a greater weight than the indicators of family background. In both cases,
girls and children from urban settings score
higher. Analyzing through the beta weight for
the two subsets of data it seems that these demographic variables are more important for
children with perceived low income.
Discussions and limits
In the first stage of the analysis, we have demonstrated significantly lower home academic
environment, educational parent support and
school behavior expectations for children
who perceive lower family resources. This is
in accordance with literature data, both at international level (Atkinson, 1987; Corcoran,
Chaudry, 1997; Ouellette, Briscoe, Tyson,
2004; Lichter, 1997; Wolf, 2009) and at national level (Hatos, 2008; Jigau, 2002; Miclea, 2005), but does not demonstrate causal
effects of parenting on school performance.
The regression analysis does show low effects of all three parenting indexes on school
engagement, trouble avoidance and grades
of surveyed children. This is in accordance
with other analysis based on the SSP data in
Romania (Haragus et al, 2010; Damean et al,
2010; David-Kacso, 2010) and the US (Richman, et al, 2004; Bowen et al. 2005). We
are aware that the explanatory power of the
model tested here was low and that it does
not give clear cut answers on the effect of
parenting on school performance of children.
In spite of these limits, we have shown differences in the effects of the variables tested
in this model as applied to the two groups of
children (with perceived lower and higher resources). Results indicate that demographic
variables and other individual factors contribute more to the factor grades, in the case
of children with more perceived resources
compared with those with a lower index of
subjective poverty. There are also differences

for the outcome indicators called school engagement and trouble avoidance indicating
that children who perceived themselves with
poorer resources are even more resistant to
their familys educational support, compared
to their counterparts. These results need thou
further research.
Conclusions
Childrens perception of less financial resources result in a lower reported average
profile of academic home environment, educational support from parents and parental
expectations than their counterparts.
Looking at the generally low weight of all
three indicators of parenting in or regression model for school success, it looks like
the differences in learning outcomes are less
mediated by parental factors than we expected according to the literature review, but by
other variables like individual characteristics
of children (Luthar and Latendresse, 2005),
or school education environment and teacher
support (Roth, et al, 2010, Hatos, 2008).
Concluding the findings, our results indicate
different school-success profiles for children,
depending on their perceptions of family resources.
References
Atkinson, A. B. (1987). On the Measurement
of Poverty. Econometrica, 55 (4), 749-764.
Bowen, G. L., & Chapman, M. V. (1996).
Poverty, neighborhood danger, social support,
and individual adaptation among atrisk youth in urban areas. Journal of Family
Issues, 17 (5), 641-666;
Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., Bowen, N.K.
(2005). The reliability and validity of the
School Success Profile. Philadelphia, PA:
Xlibris Corporation;
Chapman, M.V. (2003). Poverty level and
school performance: Contextual and selfreport measures to inform intervention. Children and Schools, 25 (1), 5-17;

Chilton, M. (2006). Developing a Measure of

Dignity for Stress-Related Health Outcomes
in Health and Human Rights. Rights-Based
Approaches to Health, 9 (2), 208-233;
Corcoran, M.E., Chaudry, A., (1997). The
Dynamics of Childhood Poverty. The Future
of Children, 7 (2), 40-54;
Dmean, D., Roth, M. Hrgu, T.P. (2010),
Social Dimensions of School Success in Romania: A Comparison with USA. The International Journal of Learning, 17 (8), 367380;
David-Kacso, A. (2010). The role of family
factors in school outcomes at different school
level, Studia 1, 57-70;
Duncan, G.J., Yeung, W.J., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Smith, J.R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Psychological Review, 63,
406-423;
Felner, R.D. (2000). Poverty in Childhood
and Adolescence, a Transactional-Ecological
Approach to Understanding and Enhancing
Resilience in Contexts of Disadvantage and
Developmental Risk, in D. Cicchetti, J. Rappaport, I. Sandler &R.P. Weissberg (editors),
The promotion of Wellness in Children and
Adolescents, Washington DC, CWLA Press;
Flinn, M.V, England, B.G. (1995). Childhood
Stress and Family Environment. Current
Anthropology, 36 (5), 854-866
Fonagy, P.(2004). Quelles preuves pour une
prevention fondee sur les preuves. In A.
Haddad, A. Guedeney (eds.) Sante mentale
du jeune enfant: prevenir et intervener, Eres,
49-69 ;
Gershoff, E. (2003). Low Income and the Development of Americas Kindergartners. Living at the Edge: Research Brief No. 4. New
York: National Center for Children in Poverty;

37

Hrgu, P., Dmean, D., Roth, M. (2009).

Proprieti psihometrice ale unui nou instrument de evaluare a performanelor colare:
Profilul Succesului colar. In Roth, Dmean,
Iovu (eds.) Succesul colar la intersecia factorilor sociali, Presa Universitar Clujean:
Cluj-Napoca;
Hrgu, P.T., Roth, M., Dmean, D. (2010).
The Measurement of the Social Dimensions
of School Success A Validity Study of the
Romanian Version of the School Success
Profile. Studia Sociologia, 1, 31-56;
Hatos, A. (2008). Impactul segregrii i
diferenierii asupra performanelor colare
ale elevilor din clasele 10-12. O analiz multinivel. (The Impact of segregation and differentiation of school performances in grades
10-12 ) Calitatea Vietii, XIX (12), 141158;
Huffman, L.C., Mehlinger, S.L., Kerivan,
A.S. (2000). Risk factors for academic and
behavioral problems at the beginning of
school. Paper commissioned by The Child
Mental Health Foundations and Agency
Network (FAN). Washington, DC: National
Institutes of Mental Health. Retrieved January 5, 2011 from: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/
childhp/goodstart.cfm;
INS (2009). Anuarul statistic Romania 2008
(Statistical Yearbook 2008). http://www.insse.
ro/cms/rw/pages/anuarstatistic2008.ro.do;
Ionescu,S., Jourdan-Ionescu, C. (2006), Psychopathologies et societe, traumatismes, eveniments et situations de vie, Vuibert, Paris
cedex 13 ;
Jigu, M. (ed.) (2002). nvmntul rural
din Romnia. Condiii, probleme i strategii
de dezvoltare. Bucureti: Editura MarLink;
Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T. (2002). Inequality
at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in Achievement as Children Begin
School. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute;

38

Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T. (2003). Dropping

out of High School: The Role of School Organization and Structure. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (2), 353-393;
Lichter, D.T., (1997), Poverty and Inequality
Among Children. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 121-145.
Luthar, S.S, Latendresse, S.J.(2005). Comparable risks at the socioeconomic status
extremes: Preadolescents perceptions of parenting. Development and Psychopathology,
17, 207-230;
Masten, A.S. (2001), Ordinary Magic, Resilience Processes in Development. American
Psychologist, 56 (3), 227-238;
McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204;
Miclea, M. (2005). Raport asupra strii
sistemului de nvmnt, Bucureti. Retrived on May 10, 2010 from http://www.edu.
ro/index.php/genericdocs/3590;
Moore, K.A., Redd, Z. (2002). Children in
poverty: Trends, consequences, and policy
options. Child Trends Research Brief. Washington, DC: Child Trends;
Ouellette, Ph. M., Briscoe, R., Tyson, Ch.
(2004). Parent-School and Community Partnerships in Childrens Mental Health: Networking Challenges, Dilemmas, and Solutions. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
13 (3), 295308;
Richman, J.M., Bowen, G.L., Woolley, M.E.
(2004). School failure: An eco-interactionaldevelopmental perspective. In M.W. Frasier
(Ed), Risk and resilience in childhood: An
ecological perspective (2nd edition). Washington, DC: NASW Press, 133-160;
Roth, M., Bowen, G., Hrgu, P. (2010)
Foreword for the special Issue on The Social

Ecology of School Success. Implications for

Policy and Practice. Studia 1, 3-10;
Seccombe, K. (2002). Beating the Odds
versus Changing the Odds: Poverty, Resilience, and Family Policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (2), 384-394;
Wolff, P. (2010). Population and social conditions. Statistics in focus, issue 46. Retrieved
on May 5, 2010 from the website: http://epp.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/
KS-SF-09-046/EN/KS-SF-09-046-EN.PDF;

Zorn, D., Noga, J. (2004). Family Poverty

and Its Implications for School Success: Issues Facing Cincinnatis Families. Executive
summary. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Evaluation Services Center. Retrieved
on January 5, 2011 from: http://www.uc.edu/
EvaluationServices/completed/Family%20
Poverty%20and%20School%20Success%20
June%209%20final%20version.pdf.

39

THE EFFECTS OF ALL-DAY SCHOOLS

ON DISADVANTAGED YOUTH.
RESULTS OF A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
IN GERMANY

Bettina Arnoldt
German Youth Institute, Munich
arnoldt@dji.de

Natalie Fischer
German Institute for International
Educational Research, Frankfurt a.M.
fischer@dipf.de

Christine Steiner
German Youth Institute, Munich
steiner@dji.de
Abstract
Germanys relatively poor performance in
the PISA-Study 2000 came unexpectedly
and set off an animated debate about the
educational system. One consequence of this
was the expansion of the so-called all-day
schools, by which the school achievement of
German pupils was supposed to improve and
especially disadvantaged children and youth
were to be supported. In order to accompany
the expansion scientifically, and to check
whether or not the expected targets were
met, a representative longitudinal study was
carried out. With the data now available from
all three data collection phases, conclusions

40

about the usefulness and effect of the all-day

schools can be drawn.
Keywords: social inequalities; unequal
chances; longitudinal research; all-day
schools; program evaluation.
Rezumat
Rezultatele relativ slabe ale Germaniei n
studiul PISA-200021 au surprins i au strnit
dezbateri aprinse cu privire la sistemul
educaional. O consecin a fost extinderea
programelor aa zise after school, care
ddeau sperana c rezultatele colare ale
elevilor germani se vor ameliora, mai ales n
21
(PISA)

Programme for International Student Assessment

cazul copiilor i a tinerilor dezavantajai, care

vor primi un sprijin prin aceste programe.
Pentru a asigura acompanierea tiinific a
programelor i pentru a putea urmri msura
n care obiectivele fixate sunt atinse a fost
iniiat un studiu longitudinal de evaluare,
pe un lot reprezentativ. Din datele colectate
pn acum, n trei faze, se pot trage concluzii
relevante cu privire la utilitatea i contribuia
programelor after school la evoluia colar
a elevilor.
Cuvinte cheie: inegaliti sociale; egalizarea
anselor; cercetare longitudinal; coli cu
program prelungit; evaluare de programe.
All-Day School Expansion in Germany
Typically, the school-day schedule in Germany is planned in such a way that primary
school children, according to grade level,
have class in school until 11:00 A.M. or noon
and then go home. In the secondary schools,
classes end between 12:45 P.M. and 14:15
P.M. (always beginning at 8:00 A.M.). Until
the year 2000 there were only a few schools
that, with an expanded range of offerings, required longer school hours of their pupils.
Germany was not satisfied with its results in
the PISA Study 2000. With reference to the
OECD average, the German pupils were at
best in the middle level in measurements of
competency; and in almost no other country
was the educational success so strongly dependent on the social background as it was in
Germany (see PISA-Consortium 2000). An
educational policy measure derived as a consequence of this was the expansion of the allday schools. All-day schools are defined by
at least seven hours of lessons at least three
days a week, and the availability of further
offerings. Hence, the school day ends at the
earliest at 3:00 P.M., even for primary school
children. Yet many schools expand their offerings to four or five days, and daily until at
least 4:00 P.M.
While in the school year 2002/2003 16 percent of the schools were all-day schools, the
percentage grew to 42 percent in the school

year 2008/2009 (see KMK 2008, KMK

2010). Because in many schools not all of the
pupils participate in the all-day offerings, the
percentage of all-day pupils is in each case
lower. The percentage rose within the same
time frame from 10 to 24 percent (see KMK
2008, KMK 2010). Germany has a so-called
structured school system. That means that,
following the primary school, the pupils are
assigned to diverse educational programs according to their performance level. So, for
instance, there is a Hauptschule for weak students and a Gymnasium for especially strong
ones, where students are prepared for university. The percentage of schools with all-day
offerings is highest for special learning and
comprehensive schoolsboth are types of
schools that as a rule were all-day schools
at the time of founding because they pursue
special pedagogical concepts. The strongest
expansion of the all-day schools, though, has
taken place in the primary schools.
Expectations and Goals
All-day schools are supposed to orient themselves in their pedagogical concept around,
among other things, the following main goals:
individual assistance and the establishment of
learning opportunities, changing the class and
learning culture, social learning, participation
and creative organization of free time (see
BMBF). Thus, many expectations are raised.
Explicit goals are, on the one hand, the improvement of school achievement for all of
the children and youth, and the reduction of
social difference based on family background.
On the other hand, all-day schools should
also improve the work life balance and thus
especially reach children with working mothers. This variety of expectations certainly carries with it the risk that not every goal can be
equally met, and therefore demands skill in
joining together non-congruent goals as well.
Therefore, it is especially important to observe how the newly founded all-day schools
develop, who participates in them, and what
effects do indeed come from the expanded offerings.

41

Study on the Development of All-Day

Schools (StEG)
For this reason, already at the beginning of
the expansion, a research consortium22 was
initiated to accompany the process scientifically. The consortium conducted a nationwide
representative study that followed the all-day
schools longitudinally, and three times once
every two years it carried out a survey of everyone23 involved with the schools. The pupils were questioned in primary schools in the
third grade and in secondary schools in the
fifth, seventh and ninth grades. Due to the design of the survey it is possible to follow two
lines of analysis: (1) a cohorts comparison of
each of the fifth grades, (2) a panel analysis
for those pupils who were in the fifth grade
at the time of the first assessment and then
were kept track of until the ninth grade. It is
thus possible to describe the development of
the pupils, for example dependent on their
participation in the all-day offerings of their
schools.
Participation in All-Day Schools
However, in order for the diverse expectations to have a chance of coming about at all,
one thing is absolutely necessary; namely, the
children and youth have to take advantage of
the all-day schools.
In each of the German states, the participation of the children in the all-day offerings is
regulated in a different way. Quite roughly,
all-day schools can be differentiated according to how binding the participation is for the
pupils. So, there are the schools for which either every pupil or particular classes are required to participate. This form is also known
as a compulsory all-day school. Then there
are schools for which participation is voluntary (open model). At present, about 60 percent of Level I secondary schools most of the
schools are organized in this free form. At the
primary level it is the rule.
22
Composed of the German Institute for International
Pedagogical Research (DIPF, Frankfurt), the German Youth
Institute (DJI, Munich), the Institute for School Development
Research (IFS, Dortmund) and the University Gieen (JLU).
23
School administration, teachers and further personal, pupils as well as their parents, cooperation partners.

42

Participation in schools with the open model

in all-day schools is, above all, dependent on
whether or not the children, or more exactly
their parents, decided at the beginning of the
school year for or against taking advantage of
the offerings.
Table 1: Proportion of schools with a high
participation rate (50 percent and more, only
Open-Model-Schools)
Year
Grade 3
Grade 5
2005
46.0
53.5
2007
66.0
65.4
2009
56.2
67.1
Source: Konsortium StEG (Ed.): Ganztagsschule: Entwicklung und Wirkungen, Frankfurt a.M., 2010, p 9
Because of this, the participation quota at the
schools with the open model is not 100 percent as a rule, as is the case for the completely
compulsory schools. According to Table 1, at
the beginning of the StEG project, in 2005,
at fewer than half of the open all-day schools
were the majority of the pupils participating.
Improved Work Life Balance
This has changed in the meantime. The primary schools, as well as the Level I secondary schools were able to convince pupils and/
or their parents concerning their offerings.
This speaks for the acceptance that all-day
offerings find in the family. This acceptance
results not least from the fact that parents
of younger children need reliable child care
possibilities. Already a number of years ago,
research proved that the need for all-day educational and child care services for families
with school-age children was much greater
than the available all-day places (Holtappels/
Klieme/Rauschenbach/Stecher 2007, p. 40f.).
The need was especially great among working parents. Quite often they could not find
any place in a care facility, and had to turn to
private solutions instead (Hagemann 2009, p.
222).
For this reason, it is above all the children of
working mothers who participate in all-day

offerings on a large scale. So, for example,

the participation level of children with mothers who are working full-time is 80 percent
in the primary schools, for part-time mothers
the quota is nonetheless 67 percent. All-day
schools, then, help to close a well-known gap
in services.
At least this is so for the states in western
Germany. The eastern states have kept at least
some parts of the all-day educational infrastructure that existed in the German Democratic Republic. Therefore, the relationship
between need and range of availability turns
out to be clearly more advantageous in the
new states. This, and the continued largerscale utilization of the services as a matter of
course on the part of the children and their
families, has lead to the fact that children in
eastern Germany, especially primary school
pupils, participate more often in all-day offerings than their peers in western Germany do.
Socially Unequal Participation in All-Day
Offerings?
Despite these rather positive developments,
there is still the danger that the children and
youth who especially need the support will not
attend the all-day schools. This assumption is
supported through the fact that sometimes an
attendance fee needs to be paid to take advantage of the offerings. Because of this, in
establishing the all-day offerings some of the
German states made sure that they were set
up above all at the schools that have a high
percentage of pupils needing support. That
was especially so for the Level I secondary
schools, at which the pupils participation is
often required. In these cases, there are no
participation fees that have to be paid (see
JMK/KMK 2004, p 8). This definitely affects
the participation of children with different
social backgrounds. This can be seen when
one compares the participation quotas of the
primary pupils, who as a rule participate voluntarily, with those of the pupils at the Level
I secondary schools that mandate participation.

To determine the social status, the project

used the International Socio-Economic Index
(ISEI). Significance was given to the highest
ISEI value (HISEI) in the family. On the basis
of this value, a total of four groups were put
together. In doing so, the lowest group contained the families with the lowest, the highest group the families with the highest socioeconomic status.
Table 2: Percentage of grades 3 and 5 with
more then majority participants in All-day
Offers according to Social Status of families
Social Status
Lowest HISEI-Quartil

Highest HISEI.Quartil

Year Grade 3 Grade 5

2005
58
68
2007
65
75
2009
61
71
2005
69
59
2007
81
74
2009
75
70

Source: StEG Survey of pupils 2005-2009

(Cohorts)
From Table 2 can be taken that every year
the primary pupils from families of the lowest HISEI quartile participated more rarely
than the children from families of the fourth
quartile. Even the slightly increased participation quota in both groups, when compared
to the basis year, did not change anything
here. In the Level I secondary schools, every year children from less privileged homes
were more strongly represented in all-day offerings than the children from families of the
highest HISEI quartile. The latter, however,
caught up over time. Already in 2007 the quotas were basically the same. Very similar tendencies came to be seen for the participation
of German pupils and pupils with a migration
background. Here, too, the Level I secondary
schools stood out through a greater integration of pupils with a migrant background.
When the children participate, it can be seen
that the families with the lower socio-economic status, as well as the families with a migration background, get more relief with regard
to educational tasks such as the completion
of home work or from educational problems

43

than do higher rang families. But above all

exactly the families with a lower status expect that their children will experience better individual support through participation
in all-day offerings. Whether or not these
expectations can be fulfilled, can be checked
with the StEG data.
The Pedagogical Effects of All-Day
Schools
Empirical evidence concerning the pedagogical effects of all-day schools was hardly available in the German-speaking world until now.
Only in the last few years did an increasing
occupation with this research object start to
take place (see Radisch/Klieme 2004).
Older studies gave only weak hints as to the
pedagogical effect of all-day school organizations, and in doing so these studies mostly
referred to the social conduct of the pupils
(summing up Holtappels/Klieme/Radisch/
Rauschenbach/Stecher 2008, Radisch 2009).
In very few studies were the competences of
half-day and all-day pupils investigated systematically. Owing to their cross-sectional direction, the connections found there can not
simply be traced back to school conditions
(such as, for example, all-day participation),
and can not be distinguished from selection
effects (see Hertel et al. 2008; Holtappels/Radisch/Rollett 2010).
With the help of longitudinal analysis, von
Salisch et al. (2010) were able to prove the
advantages of all-day over half-day pupils
with respect to social learning (compare von
Salisch et al. 2010). A longitudinal study
at the FU Berlin investigated the development of the school performance of pupils at
open all-day primary schools (see Merkens/
Schrnder-Lenzen/Kuper 2009). Children
who participated in the all-day programme of
their school were compared with pupils who
did not participate. After one school year,
small advantages in reading performance turn
up here for pupils who participate in the allday service. In addition, pupils with a nonGerman mother tongue achieve higher read-

44

ing performances when they participate in

all-day offerings (see Bellin/Tamke 2010).
However, the size of the effects is assessed
as rather small. In StEG pupils of the Level
I secondary schools were examined. For the
first time a data set is available that analyzed
the development of a large number of students over a period of four years; a total of
about 9000 pupils were included, for over
4000 of them data for all three waves is available. In this way it can be checked as to what
extent the participation in all-day offerings
affects the individual development of school
performance (grades in the subjects German
and mathematics), social conduct and school
enjoyment.
Overall, StEG shows that longer school hours
usually arent enough for offering specific
support. The every-day praxis and the organization of the all-day services in the schools
are still very different at the moment, and the
results show that the quality of the school
and the offered activities play an important
role. Critical variables, other than the length
of time and the intensity of the utilization of
all-day offerings by the pupils, are especially
school quality characteristics such as the social relationships in the school, the teaching
methods used in the classes and the perceived
quality of extracurricular activities. That not
all schools participating in the StEG fulfill this demand for quality in the same way
leads to the fact that, in the study, often only
very small effects of all-day participation are
found. Nonetheless, the results suggest that
all-day schools can make a contribution to
the individual support of social and cognitive
learning in the Level I secondary schools.
With regard to social conduct, participation
in extracurricular activities on a regular base
(i.e. at least two of the three survey periods)
leads to a more positive development of social misconduct in the school compared to
students, who do not use the offerings (see
illustration 1). After three survey periods the
all-day participants report that they disturb in

class less and show reduced violent conduct

and vandalism. If, in addition, the quality of
the activities is right for the pupils, i.e. if they
feel through the offerings that they are taken
seriously, are motivated and cognitively challenged, then the pro-social conduct is influenced positive by all-day participation as
well. Especially for boys, who normally exhibit fewer manifestations of pro-social conduct, possibilities to participate in the activities are decisive here. If they are permitted to
have a say in the selection of topics and in
the planning of the offering, then they also
conduct themselves more helpfully and more
supportively vis--vis their fellow pupils, and
they assume responsibility in the school.
Illustration 1: Participation and Social Misconduct (self-report)
5.0

4.0

enduring participation (3 waves)

schools in which the relationship to the personnel who compose the all-day services is
perceived as especially positive, there is an
especially positive development of grades
and also school enjoyment among the students who use the all-day offerings.
Conclusions
The reported positive effects on social conduct and school performance hold in equal
measure for all of the pupils, without regard to
social or ethnic background.For the schools,
insights arise particularly in the area of the
climate of inter-personal relationships inside
the school and with respect to the organization of the offerings. Particularly for the older
students, it is important that the activities are
perceived as interesting, supportive and motivating. Then they are satisfied with the activities, so that it can be expected that they
will regularly attend them, and in this way a
positive development of social conduct and
school performance can be supported.

no participation
3.0

2.0

1.0
Grade 5

Grade 7

Grade 9

Source: StEG Survey of pupils 2005-2009

(Level I secondary schools, Panel)
Regarding school performance, a protective
effect of all-day participation can be seen.
Regular participation in the all-day offerings
lowers the risk of having to repeat a class in
Level I secondary schools. Over and above
this, intensive (at least 3 times per week) and
regular participation in all-day activities also
result in positive effects with respect to the
development of the grades in school. Additionally, also here, the perceived quality of
the activities plays a role. When the pupils
experience the offerings as motivating and
challenging, and experience room to act and
decide, then their grades in German and mathematics improve. A further important characteristic for the development of performance
is the perceived pupil-advisor relationship. In

References
Baumert, J. et al. (Eds.) (2001): PISA 2000.
Basiskompetenzen von Schlerinnen und
Schlern im internationalen Vergleich. Opladen: Leske+Budrich;
Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (o.J.): Ganztagsschulen. Zeit
fr mehr. Berlin: BMBF;
Sekretariat der Stndigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Lnder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) (Ed.) (2008): Allgemeinbildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in den
Lndern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Statistik 2002 bis 2006. Bonn: KMK;
Sekretariat der Stndigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Lnder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) (Ed.) (2010): Allgemeinbildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in den
Lndern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Statistik 2004 bis 2008. Berlin: KMK;
Bellin, N./Tamke, F. (2010): Bessere Leistungen durch Teilnahme am offenen Ganztags-

45

betrieb? Empirische Pdagogik, 24. Jg., Heft

2, 93-112;
Hagemann, K. (2009): Die Ganztagsschule als
Politikum. Die bundesdeutsche Entwicklung
in gesellschafts- und geschlechtergeschichtlicher Perspektive, 54. Beiheft der Zeitschrift
fr Pdagogik, 209 229;
Hertel, S./Klieme, E./Radisch, F./Steinert, B.
(2008): Nachmittagsangebote im Sekundarbereich und ihre Nutzung durch die Schlerinnen und Schler. In: Prenzel, M./Artelt,
C./Baumert, J./Blum, W./Hammann, M./
Klieme, E./Pekrun, R. (Eds.): PISA 2006 in
Deutschland. Die Kompetenzen der Jugendlichen im dritten Lndervergleich. Waxmann,
297318;
Holtappels, H.G./Klieme, E./Radisch, F./
Rauschenbach, Th./Stecher, L. (2008): Forschungsstand zum ganztgigen Lernen und
Fragestellungen in StEG. In: Holtappels, H.G. u.a. (Eds.): Ganztagsschule in Deutschland.
2. Auflage, Weinheim/Mnchen, 37-50;
Holtappels, H-. G./Radisch, F./Rollett, W
(2010): Bildungsangebot und Schlerkompetenzen in Ganztagsgrundschulen. In: W.
Bos, S. Hornberg, R. Valtin u.a. (Eds.), IGLU
2006 Analysen. Mnster: Waxmann, 165198;
Ipfling, H.-J. (Ed.) (1981): Modellversuche
mit Ganztagsschulen und anderen Formen
ganztgiger Frderung. Bonn-Oedekoven;
Jugendministerkonferenz/
Kultusministerkonferenz (Ed.) (2004): Zusammenarbeit

46

von Schule und Jugendhilfe zur Strkung und

Weiterentwicklung des Gesamtzusammenhangs von Bildung, Erziehung und Betreuung, Bonn;
Kller, O./Trautwein, U. (Eds.) (2003): Schulqualitt und Schlerleistung. Evaluationsstudie ber innovative Schulentwicklung an
fnf hessischen Gesamtschulen. Weinheim/
Mnchen;
Konsortium StEG (Ed.) (2010): Ganztagsschule: Entwicklung und Wirkungen, Frankfurt M.Merkens, H./Schrnder-Lenzen, A./
Kuper, H. (Eds.) (2009): Ganztagsorganisation im Grundschulbereich. Mnster;
Ministerium fr Kultus, Jugend und Sport
Baden-Wrttemberg (MKJS) (2006): Neues
Ganztagsschulprogramm Ausbau und Weiterentwicklung der Ganztagsschulen in BadenWrttemberg. Stuttgart;
Radisch, F. (2009): Qualitt und Wirkung
ganztgiger Schulorganisation. Weinheim/
Mnchen;
Radisch, F./Klieme, E. (2004): Wirkungen ganztgiger Schulorganisation. In: Die
Deutsche Schule, 96. Jg., Heft 2, 153-169;
Von Salisch, M./Kanevski, R./Phillip, M./
Schmalfeld, A./Sacher A. (2010): Welche
Auswirkungen hat die Ganztagsschulbeschulung auf die Einbindung von Jugendlichen in
Peernetzwerke und Freundschafen und auf
die Entwicklung sozialer und emotionaler
Kompetenzen? Abschlubericht. Lneburg.

CHILD POVERTY AND PARENTAL

AUTHORITY IN CANADIAN SOCIETY
Gabriela Ivan
GIvan@ccas.toronto.on.ca
Abstract
The paper analyzes how child poverty impacts
parents ability to exercise their parental role.
I intend to analyze both childrens levels of
poverty and their parents rights from the
parenting perspective, in order to determine
if the childrens rights in disadvantaged
families have an impact on the parenting roles
and styles. In Canadian society, childrens
rights are not only voiced, but also protected.
However, some immigrant families feel torn
apart between their fears of the Canadian
law that highly protects the children and their
duty to exercise their parental guidance. Some
of the disadvantaged immigrant families get
lost in the transition to an unknown system
and therefore, from their fear of having
an inadequate parenting style, fail to be
an efficient parent. Others fail because of
their inability to provide for their children
according to the Canadian expectation.
There is also a significant percentage of
disadvantaged parents who are willing to
blend into the society, open to learn different
parenting styles and take into consideration
not just the law but also their own childrens
needs and preferences, and as a result they
assume their parents roles with confidence
and succeed in being not just caring, but also
efficient in parenting their children.
Keywords: family education; immigrants;
child protection; childrens needs.
Rezumat
Acest studiu i propune s analizeze impactul
srciei asupra copilului ce provine din
familiile dezavantajate, impact care trece
prin abilitile printelui de a-i exercita
autoriatea sa parental. Analizez aici relaia
dintre nivelul de srcie al mediului de trai al

copilului i drepurile prinilor, modul n care

drepturile copiilor din familiile dezavantajate
afecteaz rolul i stilurile parentale. In
Canada, drepturile copiilor nu sunt doar
amplu vocalizate, ci i protejate la un nivel
nalt. Unele familii de imigrani se simt
sfiate ntre teama de legea canadian, care
protejeaz copiii, i datoria de a-i exercita
rolul de printe. Unele familli dezavantajate
de imigrani se pierd n tranziia unui sistem
cu care nu sunt familiarizai i de team c
au un stil parental neadecvat eueaz n a fi
prini eficieni. O alt categorie de familii
dezavantajate eueaz din cauza inabilitii
lor de a oferi suport pentru copiii lor conform
standardelor i ateptrilor canadiene. De
asemenea, exist i un procent semnificativ
de prini dezavantajai care sunt doritori s
se acomodeze noii societi n care triesc,
sunt deschii i receptivi de a nva un stil
de educaie parental i iau in considerare
nu doar legea, dar i nevoile i preferinele
copiilor lor. Ca urmare, aceast categorie de
prini i asum rolul parental cu ncredere
n sine, iar succesul lor nu se rezum doar la
grija fa de copiii lor, ci devin eficieni ca
prini pentru copiii lor.
Cuvinte cheie: educaia familial; imigrani;
protecia copiilor; nevoile copiilor.
In Canada, one of the richest countries of the
world, according to the 2008 Report Card on
Child and Family Poverty in Canada, almost
one and a half million children, or 1 child out
of every 9, still live in poverty. This figure
does not include the First Nations communities, where 1 in every 4 children is growing
up in poverty.24
24
Statistics Canada. Report Card on Child and
Family Poverty, Ottawa, 2008, p. 23.

47

In the midst of an economic boom, the least

privileged among all appeared to be the children. Although since 1989 Canada has started
to tackle this issue and the House of Commons
decided to adopt some programs to eliminate
child poverty by the year 2000, child poverty
has increased from 964,000 (or 15 per cent) in
1981 to 1.4 million (or 20 per cent) in 1997,
mostly because of the increasing poverty rate
of working families, and the increasing numbers of female lone parent families.25
The latest statistics from the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), indicated that initially the child poverty rate fell from 15.8 per cent in the mid1980s to 12.8 in the mid-1990s. However
since then the rate has increased to 15.1 per
cent in the mid-2000s reversing the earlier
progress.26
Among the 17 members of the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), the countries that produce two-thirds
of the worlds goods and services (Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and U.S.), Canadas child poverty rate
ranks 13th among these peer nations higher
than the average despite its relative wealth.27
This ranking takes into consideration the proportion of children 17 years of age and under
who are living in households where the disposable income is less than half of the median
in each particular given country.
According to this ranking, the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have the lowest rates of child poverty,
with less than 5 per cent of children living
in poor households while the U.S. continues
to have the highest poverty rate among in25
John M. Herrick, Paul H. Stuart. Encyclopaedia
of Social Welfare History in North America. New York: Sage
Publications Inc.,2005, p.281
26
OECD. Growing Unequal? Income Distribution
and Poverty in OECD Countries. Paris, 2008, p. 28.
27
Conference Board of Canada: Society Child Poverty, November 2009, p.12

48

dustrialized countries.28 Among those peers,

Canada experienced the second-highest jump
in the child poverty rate between the mid1990s and the mid- 2000s. The first place
belonged to Germany, which had the largest
increase from 11.2 per cent to 16.3 per cent.
Although four countries the U.K., Italy, the
U.S., and Australia have been successful in
the race of reducing their child poverty rates,
the U.S. still remained on the top with the
highest child poverty rate. However, among
all the world leaders, the U.K. made the most
progress during this period.29
According to the 2009 Report Card on Child
and Family Poverty in Canada, the children
of immigrants, of Aboriginal descendent, of
single parents, of racial families and those
with a disability are clearly at higher risk for
poverty.30 This is often the result of persistent
social and economic inequality which threatens social cohesion. When we compare the
earlier immigrant population with the recent
immigrant population, we note that since the
1990s, recent immigrants, in contrast with
Canadians of the same age and profile, face
higher unemployment rates, lower earnings
and more challenges in securing employment
for which they are qualified.31
In the recent years, immigrants have encountered more difficulties in finding employment
than non-immigrants. The 2007 employment
rate for newcomers shows that the hiring rate
for immigrants was 77.9 per cent, comparing with 83.8 per cent for non-immigrants,
while the unemployment rate for recent immigrants was more than double than the one
of in-born Canadians. Also, if we analyze the
earning factor, we will notice that the ratio for
newcomers is 63 cents for each dollar earned
by a Canadian-born worker.32 Presently, 49
28
OECD. Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion
Through Work. Policy Brief. Paris, 2005, p. 22.
29
OECD. Growing Unequal? Income Distribution
and Poverty in OECD Countries. Paris, 2008, p. 138.
30
Statistics Canada. Aboriginal Childrens Survey:
Family, Community and Child Care. Ottawa: Social and
Aboriginal Statistics, 2008, p. 36.
31
The Toronto Community Foundation. Vital Signs
in the Toronto Star, October 6, 2009, pp. R4-R5.
32
Jason Gilmore. The Canadian Labour Market
in 2007 in The Canadian Labour Market Force Analysis,

per cent of off-reserve First Nations children

under the age of 6 are raised in low-income
families. These children are experiencing a
living standard that is below of what may be
described as average.33 Single mothers and
their children experience the worst levels
of poverty. According to Statistics Canada,
81per cent of single mothers with children
under the age of 7 live in poverty.34
Poverty in Canada is caused by many reasons, such as low income, lack of support,
challenges faced by some immigrants who do
not have their credentials recognized and are
not provided with the same opportunities as
non-immigrants, joblessness, excessive use of
drinking alcohol, drugs, violence, early pregnancy, divorce, early marriage, and ignoring
parents advice. Poverty affects the parents
ability to provide a normal day-to-day life
for their children. The parents who are facing
poverty are not able to provide for their children with the basic life necessities, such as
purchasing groceries, a well-balanced meal,
adequate shoes, clothing or other necessities
of life. Such parents are not able to provide
access to a good education for their children
and do not afford a nice home and car, or to
take a planned vacation. Therefore, just looking at the number of children in Canada who
were relying on food banks, between 1989
and 2008, we notice a significant grow from
151,200 to 260,600. In 2009, over 375,000 of
Ontario, one of the richest provinces of Canada, had turned to food banks every month,
which represents a growth of 19 per cent
from the previous year alone. This fact is one
of the alarming effects of the recent recession
that has a direct impact on the diets and health
of our most vulnerable residents, namely the
children.35
One third of all people using the food banks in
Ontario are new Canadians, living in Canada
Statistic Canada, Ottawa, May 2008, p. 7.
33
Statistics Canada. Aboriginal Data at Statistics
Canada. Prepared for National Association of Friendship
Centres. Ottawa, 2009, p. 23.
34
Statistics Canada. Profile of Poverty in Canada.
Ottawa, 2009, p. 43.
35
Food Banks Canada. Annual Hunger Count Surveys. Ottawa, 2009, p. 28.

for four years or less. Unfortunately, they live in

poverty, despite above average levels of education. Hence, 54 per cent of these new Canadians
who are turning to food banks have a post-secondary degree or diploma, trades certificate, college degree/diploma, or university degree.36 The

results of the Material Deprivation Survey

revealed the fact that the parents who are facing poverty are purchasing food with lower
nutritional content, high in carbohydrate,
sodium, sugar and fat, such as cured meats,
canned fruits and vegetables, comparing with
higher income households, where parents are
more likely to spend on fresh meat cuts, low
fat milk, and fresh vegetables and fruits.37 At
the same time, almost 20 per cent of Ontarians living in poverty state that they cannot
afford to eat fresh fruit and vegetables every
day, this being, de facto, a failure to properly
nourish our most vulnerable residents.38
Although we tend to believe that child poverty is mostly present in lone-parent families,
in fact, the largest number of poor children
live in two-parent families. According to the
National Council of Poverty, in 2007, 54 per
cent of low-income children in Canada lived
in two-parent families and approximately 1.4
million children lived in poverty for at least a
year from 2002 to 2007.39
The effects of poverty can be extremely challenging especially for children. Poverty affects the mental and physical well being of
families, including children. The children
who experience poverty are at higher risk of
suffering health problems, developmental delays, and behaviour disorders.40 Moreover,
they tend to attain lower levels of education and are more likely to live in poverty as
adults.41 Poverty has a direct impact not just
36
*** The 2009 Ontario Hunger Report. Toronto,
2009, p. 7.
37
*** Ontario Hunger Report 2010: Living with Hunger. Toronto, 2010, p. 5.
38
Ibidem.
39
Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion. Nutritious
Food Basket Guidance Document, Standards, Programs &
Community Development Branch. Toronto, 2010, p. 14.
40
Marc Frenette. Why Are Youth From LowerIncome Families Less Likely to Attend University? Ottawa:
Statistics Canada, 2007, p. 34.
41
Dominique Fleury. Low-income Children in
Perspectives on Labour and Income. Vol. 9/ No. 5. Ottawa:

49

on parents ability to provide, but also to parent their children efficiently because of the
lack of resources. The children who come
from disadvantaged families do not have the
same opportunities as other children. The
parents of those children live the frustration of being able to buy just fewer of those
foods and services that benefit all the family.
These parents are losing control of making
decisions regarding their children and their
own life. Financial difficulties lead to poorer
housing in poorer neighbourhoods. Living in
a poor neighbourhood does not always give
children access to the best-rated schools.
Very often, because of the parents inability
to pay their rent and keep their accommodation, the children need to move and change
schools frequently. According to Statistics
Canada, the proportion of low-income neighbourhoods rose from 19 per cent in 1970 to
53 per cent in 2006.42 Also, the children who
live in disadvantaged families have fewer opportunities to participate in social and cultural
activities like sports and excursions.
Although many poor families make sacrifices
to give their children the best possible start in
life, researches reveal that the children who
grow up in poverty are more likely to have
learning difficulties, to drop out of school, to
resort to drugs, to commit crimes, to be out of
work, to become pregnant at an early age, and
to live lives that perpetuate poverty and disadvantage into succeeding generations. According to Frempong and Willms, the student
performance in school is influenced by such
school environments as the size of the class,
as demonstrated by the significantly different
levels of performance the child from disadvantaged families has in different schools.43
The children living in poverty start school
with many disadvantages in addition to chronic hunger. According to various researches, as
Statistics Canada, May 2008, p. 1.
42
Statistics Canada. Report Card on Child and
Family Poverty, Ottawa, 2008, p. 20.
43
Frempong G.; Willms D. Can School Quality
Compensate for Socioeconomic Disadvantage? in Willms
D., editor. Vulnerable Children. Edmonton: University of
Alberta Press, 2002. pp. 277304.

50

illustrated below, poor children are twice as

likely as non-poor children to repeat a grade,
be suspended from school, or drop out. They
are 1.3 times as likely to have a developmental delay or learning disability and require
special education services. Poor children are
9.9 times more likely to have experienced
hunger. These difficulties translate into the
classroom where teachers are more likely to
assess poor children as poor students with
more academic and behaviour problems.44
Poor children are also more likely to be hyperactive, suffer from emotional disorders,
exhibit disorderly conduct, get into trouble
with the law, be in the care of child welfare
services, and engage in risky behaviour. They
are also twice as likely to be judged as poor
by their teachers and are twice as likely to
drop out.45
Canadian studies have demonstrated the
educational outcomes are often influenced
by family incomes. The children from lowincome families often start school already behind their peers who come from more affluent families, as shown in measures of school
readiness. The school readiness reflects a
childs ability to succeed both academically
and socially in a school environment. According to Janus et al., the schools with the
largest proportion of children with low school
readiness were from neighbourhoods of high
social risk, including poverty.46 A report by
E.M. Thomas,47 has concluded that children
from lower income households score significantly lower on measures of vocabulary and
communication skills, knowledge of numbers, copying and symbol use, ability to concentrate and cooperative play with other children than children from higher income households. The children who live in poverty are
44
Statistics Canada. Report Card on Child and
Family Poverty, Ottawa, 2008, p. 11.
45
Conference Board of Canada. How Canada
Performs: A Report Card on Canada. http://www.
conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details. Retrieved January 7, 2011
46
Janus, M. et al. School Readiness to Learn and
Neighbourhood Characteristics. Temp Books, Montreal:
2009, p.p. 46-47.
47
Thomas, E.M. Readiness to Learn at School
Among Five-year-old Children in Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-599-MIE/89-599-MIE2006004.
pdf . Version current at January 5, 2011.

also more likely to become teenage parents,

to serve a prison sentence, and to have less
success in the labour market. These children
become parents who are less able to support
and help their children with the school work,
as their own education level is reduced.
During the past 20 years, the access to postsecondary education has become increasingly
difficult for marginalized students, including
Aboriginals, students with disabilities and
those from low- and modest-income families.
The parents lack of resources and struggle to
make end meets may have a deep impact on
their parenting style. They may either adopt
an authoritarian rigid parenting style and
place great expectations on the children, i.e.
an aggressive parenting style driven by their
inability to control the stress generated by
their precarious situation they live in, or a
passive and indifferent attitude towards their
children generated by their resignation in
front of their hopeless situation.
Other parents who live in poverty do not
allow their socio-economic situation to interfere too much with their ability to parent
the children and compensate this deficit with
their profound dedication to their children.
These are the parents who have confidence
in their parenting ability, are always there
for their children in helping and supporting
them throughout their life and difficulties.
There are the parents who always ensure an
adequate level of supervision for their children and are strongly bounded with their children.
The resources reveal that the parent-child
relationship has the greatest influence on reversing the impact of poverty. According to
Chao & Willms, both the parenting style and
parental involvement, inside and outside of
the school environment, have a great impact
on a childs early development. The parents
who display a predictable behaviour, social
responsiveness, verbal behaviour, mutual attention and positive role modelling have deep

impact on several aspects of child outcome.48

The parental involvement in different aspects
of the childs life, such as frequency of outings and problem-based play, creates greater intellectual stimulation and educational
support for a child, develops into increased
school readiness and brings greater academic
success.49
Reducing and even eliminating child poverty
is possible, as Canada has demonstrated by
successfully addressing the issue represented
by another segment of its disadvantaged population, namely its seniors, when in the mid1980s it managed to cut the seniors poverty rate in half. Nevertheless, for now, child
poverty continues to remain a stringent issue
in Canadian society. Therefore, urgent measures and polices are required to reduce and
eliminate child poverty before it is too late.
Todays childrens are tomorrows parents,
hence without eliminating the deprivation
that stains their childhood we will be unable
to build a healthy and strong society.
References
Conference Board of Canada. Society: Child
Poverty. November 2009.Chao, R., Willms,
D. (2002), The effects of Parenting Practices
on Childrens Outcomes in Willms D., editor.
Vulnerable Children. Edmonton: University
of Alberta Press;
Fleury, D. (2008), Low-income Children in
Perspectives on Labour and Income. Vol. 9/
No. 5. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, May;
Food Banks Canada, (2009), Annual Hunger
Count Surveys. Ottawa;
Frempong G.; Willms D. (2002), Can School
Quality Compensate for Socioeconomic Disadvantage? in Willms D., editor. Vulnerable
Children. Edmonton: University of Alberta
48
Chao, R.; Willms, D. The effects of Parenting
Practices on Childrens Outcomes in Willms D., editor. Op.
cit., pp. 14966.
49
Hango, D. Parental Investment in Childhood and
Educational Qualifications: Can Greater Parental Involvement
Mediate the Effects of Socioeconomic Disadvantage? Toronto: Social Science Res., 2007, p.

51

Press
Frenette, M. (2007), Why Are Youth From
Lower-Income Families Less Likely to Attend
University? Ottawa: Statistics Canada;
Gilmore, J. (2008), The Canadian Labour
Market in 2007 in The Canadian Labour
Market Force Analysis, Statistic Canada, Ottawa, May;
Hango, D. (2007). Parental Investment in
Childhood and Educational Qualifications:
Can Greater Parental Involvement Mediate
the Effects of Socioeconomic Disadvantage?
Toronto: Social Science Res;
Herrick, John M.; Stuart, P. (2005), Encyclopaedia of Social Welfare History in North
America. New York: Sage Publications Inc;
Janus, M. et al. (2009), School Readiness to
Learn and Neighbourhood Characteristics.
Temp Books, Montreal;
OECD. (2005),Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion Through Work. Policy Brief.
Paris;
OECD. (2008), Growing Unequal? Income
Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. Paris;

52

Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion,

(2010), Nutritious Food Basket Guidance
Document, Standards, Programs & Community Development Branch. Toronto;
Statistics Canada (2008), Aboriginal Childrens Survey: Family, Community and Child
Care. Ottawa: Social and Aboriginal Statistics;
Statistics Canada (2009), Aboriginal Data at
Statistics Canada. Prepared for National Association of Friendship Centres. Ottawa;
Statistics Canada (2008), Report Card on
Child and Family Poverty, Ottawa;
Thomas, E.M. (2011), Readiness to Learn
at School Among Five-year-old Children
in Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/
research/89-599-MIE/89-599-MIE2006004.
pdf . Version current at January 5;
Toronto Community Foundation(2009), Vital
Signs in the Toronto Star, October 6;
*** Ontario Hunger Report (2010), Living
with Hunger. Toronto;
*** The 2009 Ontario Hunger Report. Toronto.

POVERTY, CHILDREN, AND THE

LARGE FAMILIES

Zsuzsa Kormosn Debreceni,

Hungarian National Association for Large Families,
kormos.zsuzsa@noe.hu
Abstract
In the last decade, in Hungary one can find,
among other social problems, a serious
intensification of poverty and social exclusion,
an increase of unemployment mainly among
women and young people, an increase of
social inequalities, and a simultaneous ageing
and demographic decline of society. All
these problems were getting more and more
serious. The most vulnerable groups were
families rearing several children, and within
this layer, families from ethnic minorities,
lone parent families, and migrant families
constituted the group most struck by extreme
poverty and exclusion. In the present article
we discuss the national strategies, as well as
our initiative to solve individualized social
problems of families with many children, by
Local Alliances for Families.
Keywords: poverty; starving children;
family social policies; alliance; supporting
families.
Rezumat
Srcia a fost considerat a fi un fenomen trist
care a nsoit istoria omenirii pe parcursul
a sute de ani, fiind nu numai o realitate dar
totodat o problem n continu cretere,
chiar i n rile considerate a fi bogate i
dezvoltate. Este un fenomen adevrat de
asemenea pentru ntreaga Europ, unde
srcia crete n mod constant i persistent

chiar i n unele grupuri ale Suediei.50Tema

lucrrii de fa pornete de la srcia
din famliile numeroase i sfrete prin a
prezenta o modalitate inovativ de exprimare
a solidaritii sociale, anume Aliantele
Locale pentru Familii, bazat pe colaborarea
individualizat a serviciilor publice i private
n vederea rezolvrii cazurilor individuale.
Cuvinte cheie: srcie; familii numeroase;
calitatea nfometrii; politici sociale
familiale; aliane; asistarea familiilor.
Introduction
Poverty has been a sad attendant phenomenon
of mankinds history for thousands of years
and is not only a reality but a growing problem even in the countries considered as rich
and developed. It is true also for all of Europe
where poverty is constantly and persistently
growing even in some groups in Sweden51.
In 2005 at the 5th anniversary of the Lisbon
Treaty a report on the social situation in Europe listed a range of problems which are still
not only existing but even deepening due to
the economic crisis of the last two or three
years52.
50
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf,
http://www.politiquessociales.net/IMG/pdf/dp4881.pdf
51
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.
pdf,
52
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_
situation/docs/ssr2005_2006_en.pdf

53

In the list one can find, among others, a serious intensification of poverty and social exclusion, an increase of unemployment mainly
among women and young people, an increase
of social inequalities, and a simultaneous ageing and demographic decline of society. All
these problems were getting more and more
severe. The most vulnerable groups were
families rearing several children, and within
this layer, families from ethnic minorities,
lone parent families, and migrant families
constituted the group most struck by extreme
poverty and exclusion.
The actual question is where we stand at the
beginning of 2011. At present, 16 % of the
European population, that is, 84 million people are considered as poor. Moreover, data on
child poverty are really alarming the level
of child poverty reaches 20 %, that is, 20 million children out of 100 million living in Europe are poor. These data do not include the
impact of the economic crisis. This makes it
clear why the European Union declared 2010
to be the Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, and called the Member States
to engage in dealing with this problem and
finding solutions.
It is clear why child poverty mainly the
situation of children living in large families
became one of the main priorities of the European Year in Hungary. We agree with European experts declaring that the dimension, the
durability and the constant increase of child
poverty is simply a scandal.
Children in large families predestinated
to poverty?
No scientific degree is needed to count: if an
income is divided for sustaining several family members, the per capita part is less and
less in relation to the increasing number of
persons cared for in the family. Consequently,
the great majority of large families lives under or near the subsistence level. In Hungary,
in 2009, the basic living cost of an adult person was 75 thousand HUF and that of a family with two children was 215 thousand HUF.

54

At the same time the amount of the minimum

pension, the per capita reference income
qualifying for social assistance, which is also
the amount of a widespread category of child
benefits, was 28.500 HUF. This amount has
remained unchanged for three years and and
will also remain even in 2011. The level of
child allowance has also been unchanged for
several years, including the past two years of
economic crisis.
Measuring the level of poverty goes beyond
simple statistical calculation. There are a lot
of other factors to be considered, and the existence or the lack of these elements shows
also the dimension of poverty. When several
basic conditions of living are simultaneously
missing we speak of a deep poverty. An interesting aspect of this range of necessities is
the access to culture (cinema, theatre, books).
Some years ago our Association took youngsters to Brussels to a meeting organized by
Eurochild53 aimed to confront children with
MEP-s and tell them what children think of
their own situation and problems. Beside
other aspects, Hungarian youngsters coming
from large families and from a Roma background mentioned their difficulties in getting
access to cultural facilities, to learning arts,
to do sports etc. These are very important aspects because they have an elementary impact
on the emotional intelligence, the dignity, the
spiritual and mental capacity and richness,
and the human values. Without them our children become uneducated, insensible and selfish, and unable to be a useful member of the
community.
The National Association of Large Families54
(NALF in Hungarian: NOE) works for all
families with children with a special concern
for families with 3 or more children. The situation of large families is much more difficult
compared to other families. Unfortunately
53
Eurochild is a network of organisations and
individuals working in and across Europe to improve the
quality of life of children and young people. www.eurochild.
org
54
Nagycsaldosok Orszgos Egyeslete, www.noe.
hu one of the largest family NGO-s in Central and Eastern
Europe with a membership of 14 thousand families with 3 or
more children.

the impacts of the economic crisis, the unemployment, the cuts and restrictions, the debts
and the lack of a real family policy in the last
8 years overburdened these families and their
material troubles became almost insupportable. Social inequalities increased in an incredible way and thus the chances of children
living in these families decreased seriously.
The number of large families is around 14%
of households with children but the proportion of children living in these families is
28% of the population of Hungarian children.
It is unacceptable that one third of Hungarian
children live in poverty deep under the average poverty line. In Hungary one child in six
lives in a household without any active employment, and the proportion of children in
large families is also high in this group. The
data on starving children is fearful. Estimations in the media state that about 25 thousand children are really starving and 100 to
120 thousand are subject of malnutrition.
The phenomenon of quality starvation is a
widely known problem: children can eat only
low quality and unhealthy food and they have
no access to healthy food rich in vitamins and
other nutriments necessary for their healthy
development. It can be one of the reasons of
the deterrent state of child health published in
a new UNICEF report55 containing the data of
24 OECD countries.
Societies but mainly politicians and decision-makers need to understand in Hungary
and all over Europe that money spent on children is not a superfluous and unproductive
item in budgets but an investment into future.
Large families are not a burden on society but
a means of solution for various troubles of
society.
Commitment of Hungary for tackling child
poverty
Every actor of society families, politicians,
governments, local authorities, NGO-s,
churches, academics and media should join
55
The children left behind Report Card 9, UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre 2010 by Peter Adamson, http://
unicef.hu/download/RC9_kiadvany.pdf

forces in order to bridge the social gap and

interrupt the chain of poverty inherited from
one generation to another, to prevent families
and children living actually on modest but
still acceptable standards from sliding down
to extreme poverty.
In 2004 a 25-year-perspective National Strategy for the Better Life of Children was developed under the aegis of the National Academy
of Sciences and accepted by the National Assembly56. But it is a crucial deficiency of this
Strategy that it does not contain any solution
to improve the life and diminish the poverty
of present-day children, and the Governments
in office did not assign resources for the program between 2004 and 2010.
The new Hungarian Government set up in the
spring of 2010 carried on the programs of the
European Year for Combating Poverty and
Social Exclusion and as part of the so-called
Trio Presidency (Spain, Belgium, Hungary)
committed itself to combat child poverty by
setting up clear targets, mainstreaming childrens wellbeing and involving the concerned
children and young people.57 The governmental statements and measures from that time
show that this is a real, serious commitment
and is among the priorities. But one cannot
ignore the economic and financial crisis of
the country, which can hinder the realization
of the goals. Despite of these difficulties we
hope that a gradual improvement of the living
conditions of children would be achieved.
Of course, the first priority is to improve the
general situation of families whether small
or large because childrens wellbeing basically depends on the general conditions
of their families. The main task is to widen
employment possibilities because the best
social policy is employment policy. The real
chance of families with children for emerging
from poverty is not a matter of aids, supports
56
http://www.childpoverty.hu/docs/english%20
summary%20of%20GYEP.pdf
57
http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/
Events/2010/09%20BE%20Presidency%20Child%20Poverty
/Signed%20Declaration.pdf

55

and benefits but that of an increased income

earned by stable work. Vulnerable families
need the former types of help but these can
only be temporary solutions. The real solution is work.
Another important issue is the separation of
family policy from social policy aimed at the
poor. The state must have a clear vision of the
importance of families, they must declare this
and develop policies and programs expressing
their commitment toward families. The issue
of life conditions of children living in large
families is not only an emotional or humanitarian question. It is also a demographic and
economic question as hard as stone. Without bring into the world enough children who
become healthy and well-educated adults it is
impossible to maintain the existing systems
of social security, health care, and education;
villages will turn empty etc. It is a crucial interest of society to invest in this human capital, which is the warranty of survival.
A good solution: to join forces
We are convinced that besides support and
programs provided by state a real and effective improvement in the well-being of families and children (involving not only material
resources but also safety, healthy and secure
environment, physical and mental health,
quality and easy accessibility of education
and services, local family-friendly workplaces, active communal life, access to culture and
family entertainments etc.) can be realized on
the level of municipalities, the scene of everyday life of families. This is why NALF
established the Family-friendly Municipality
Prize in 2005. There have been 23 awardees
of this prize so far, and the idea of familyfriendliness has started to spread among municipalities. We not only remunerate them but
spread the best practices by the press and media. Our experience is that municipalities take
wing as a result of the appreciation of their
good examples and the confirmation of their
strivings for improving the situation and the
general feeling of families.
We have also begun to spread the idea of Lo-

56

cal Alliances for Families. At the end of 2004

a conference on the Peer Review of the workfamily issue was held in Berlin58 and a delegate of NALF was invited to attend it as an
independent national expert. At this meeting
Germany presented its new initiation: the Local Alliances for Family (Lokale Bndnisse
fr Familie) as a new way of creating worklife balance and improving the well-being
of families with children and, as a result,
encouraging couples to have children and
thus increasing the fertility rate. The aim is
to initiate the building of local round tables
alliances of the relevant local actors that
could help to improve the context for family life in the respective municipality. Such
actors may include the local administration,
the town council, companies, representatives
of employers associations and trade unions,
churches, clubs, third sector initiatives and
many other actors, depending on the local
situation. Last but not least families themselves are encouraged to engage themselves
in the process of debate and the finding of solutions. 59
This initiation met the aims and strivings of
NALF and therefore we began to work on
implementing this movement in Hungary. We
have organised conferences including speakers from Germany who presented their experiences with this movement, and published
a booklet presenting the model and showing
some Hungarian examples of family-friendly
municipalities.
In Germany the number of Local Alliances
exceeds 600. In Hungary we are still at the
beginning with less than 10 officially created
Alliances but we are convinced that acting locally and involving all possible local actors
is one of the most important tools for creating the basis of a better family life, and thus
for encouraging young couples to give birth
58
http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu/peerreviews/2004/local-alliances-for-the-family-reconciliation-ofwork-and-family-life
59
Ute Klammer: Reconciliation of Work and Family Life - Comment Paper by the Host Country, Germany
2004, http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu/peerreviews/2004/local-alliances-for-the-family-reconciliation-ofwork-and-family-life

to children.
Municipalities are free to define the content,
the methods, the actors, and all conditions
of their local alliance. The essence is to join
forces, to cooperate, and to have a vision, a
comprehensive and holistic view of families
and children, to overstep ideological and political confrontation and interests, and to act
for the common good and the common goal:
the well-being of families.
The aims of the new EU 2020 Strategy in the
field of tackling poverty are the following:
75 % of the population aged 20-64
should be employed,
the share of early school leavers
should be under 10% and at least 40%
of the younger generation should have
a tertiary degree,
20 million less people should be at
risk of poverty60.
Among the so-called flag-ship initiations of
the EU we find also the setting of the European Platform Against Poverty. 61
Eurochild calls the European Union and its
Member States to set concrete, well-defined
and real EU-level and national targets and
controllable indicators for diminishing child
poverty. 62 The new Hungarian Government
is working on defining these goals. At the
same time important measures have already
been taken to support families with children.
The main element is a new family taxation
system leaving a greater part of the earning
at the family.
Conclusion
In the first part of our article we mentioned
the opinion of European experts saying that
the dimension and widening of child poverty
all over Europe is inacceptable and scandal60
http://2010againstpoverty.eu/news/news/news29.
html?langid=en
61
http://www.efc.be/News/Pages/Proposalsforthenew%
E2%80%9CEuropeanPlatformAgainstPovertyandSocialExclu
sion%E2%80%9D.aspx
62
www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy/
Other/Eurochild_key_messages_Platform_against_Poverty_
Sept_2010.pdf

ous. The reasons of this fact are in relation

with the predominance in the EU of economic
and financial issues and neglecting of the life,
values and necessities of citizens and families constituting the real Europe. If European
and Member States decision-makers want to
avoid a fiasco of the new EU2020 Strategy
it is absolutely necessary to change their attitude towards families and the children and
young people living in these families. We can
see the first signs of this change due among
others to the persistent work of international
NGO networks like Eurochild or ELFAC (European Large Families Confederation)63. The
EU 2020 strategic goals for tackling poverty
are to be taken serious and the Member States
need to translate these goals into their own
action programs.
NGO-s have also their own responsibility.
Their experiences and knowledge based on
the mass of information coming from their
background, from their membership, form
their clients and the problems and difficulties
of families unfolded by them can serve as a
basis for the decision-makers to find the best
solutions and diminish poverty in a general
sense and of the children. Besides forwarding information NGO-s have also the huge
task of monitoring, controlling and hauling
up Governments for implementing and executing the programs. We also mentioned that
the best social policy is employment policy.
If parents can earn enough money for living
the level of child poverty would be decreased
automatically. And if parents can find a job
and access to services and the necessary support near their residence all the family life
would be improved. The cooperation of local actors can contribute to his process and
raise the well-being of families. The creation
of Local Alliances for Families can be a good
solution. It does not require much money but
cooperation, development of a local strategy,
empathy and good will.
Total elimination of poverty in a general sense
and in particular of children is obviously an
63

www.elfac.org

57

illusion. Nevertheless, it is a moral obligation to do all we can to reduce it as much as

possible. We must not ponder whether somebody mainly a child deserves help or not.
We need to begin to act everybody can find
somebody to help in his/her surroundings.
No-one can do everything but everyone can
do something
Whoever destroys a soul, it is con-

sidered as if he destroyed an entire world.

And whoever saves a life, it is considered as
if he saved an entire world.64
The thing is to be prepared always
to help other people if there is an opportunity
to do so 65

64
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud Tractate
Sanhedrin 37a
65
Sir Nicholas Winton. In 1938, he helped 669
Czech Jewish kids escape certain death from the Nazis. He
never told anyone about this.

58

RELATIVE POVERTY AMONG

ROMANIAN CHILDREN: A
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS IN THE
EUROPEAN CONTEXT.

Andreea Birneanu
Assistent, Social Work School,
West University of Timisoara, Romania
andera_birneanu@yahoo.com
Acknowledgments
This article is a result of the project
Creterea calitii i a competitivitii
cercetrii doctorale prin acordarea de
burse. This project is co-funded by the European Social Fund through The Sectorial
Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, coordinated
by theWest University of Timisoara in partnership with the University of Craiova and
Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Systems
and Device Technology - Fraunhofer IISB.
Abstract
The present research presents a theoretical
point of view concerning the degrees of
relative poverty among Romanian children. It
takes into consideration the European context
of the phenomenon and also the impact of
poverty on children. In addition, this research
analyses the main forms of poverty, insisting
on relative poverty of Romanian children in
comparison with other European countries
as well as the moral, political, social and
economical necessities triggered by this
analysis.
Keywords: relative poverty; absolute

poverty; collective costs of poverty

Rezumat
Lucrarea de fa i propune s prezinte
un punct de vedere teoretic privind ratele
srciei relative n rndul copiilor din
Romnia, avnd n vedere contextul European
al fenomenului, precum i impactul srciei
asupra copiilor. De asemenea, lucrarea
analizeaz principalele forme ale srciei,
insistnd asupra situaiei srciei relative a
copiilor din Romnia comparativ cu alte ri
Europene, precum i imperativele morale,
politice, sociale i economice ce decurd din
acest tip analiz.
Cuvinte cheie: srcie relativ; srcie
absolut; costuri colective ale srciei.
Introduction
Beyond doubt, the existence and persistence
of poverty, is one of the most important contemporary issues. Especially, childrens poverty is a crucial concern of social policies at
both national and international level (Wintersberger i Sgritta 1994)66 claim that the states
66
Sgritta, G.( 1992).The Generational Division of
Welfare, in Childhood Matters,Avebury, Aldershot, pp.
335-361.

59

promote a distorted distribution of resources

among generations as economic policies favor the older generations.
Aspects of child poverty
These comments of the authors above reveal
a high awareness of the fact that childhood
is a variable, a dependent variable even
(Qvortrup, 2000: 79).67Maybe the main reason we are so concerned with childrens poverty dues to the fact that we see children as
a social investment, meaning we see them
as future adults (Harper, Marcus and Moore,
2003; Lundberg, 1993, apud McDonald, C.,
1999). Generally speaking, researches indicate that childhood poverty is directly linked
to major problems in adult life, problems
which have a great impact on manpowers capacity to integrate, on health and also on the
general welfare of children and their families.
Also we must not overlook the importance of
collective costs of such phenomena as delinquency, privation of the opportunity of growing up with the biological family, privation of
a home, high risk of morbidity when reaching adult life as a consequence of childhood
poverty (McDonald,C. 1999)68. Last, but not
least childrens poverty is associated with social isolation, domestic violence and with all
sorts of abuse in general.
Privation of the right to a coherent education
and of forming social support networks are
also results of poverty. Furthermore, poverty
is also reflected in malnutrition which affects
cerebral development, learning capacities
and induces behaviour problems that may affect their whole personality (Galler, Ramsay,
Solimano, &Lowell, 1983; Mustard, 1999;
Tanner & Finn-Stevenson, apud Leschied,
A.W., 1996).69
67
Qvortrup, J. (2000). Macroanalysis of Childhood.
in Research with Children, Christensen, P. and James, A.
(Eds), Falmer Press: London.
68
McDonald,C.(1999). Children and Poverty Why
their experience of their lives matter for policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues Vol.44 (1).
69
Leschied ,A.W., Chiodo,D., Whitehead ,P.C.,and
Dermot H.(2006).The association of poverty with child welfare service and child and family clinical outcomes. Community, Work and Family Vol. 9,(1) , pp. 29 -46.

60

Avison 1998 (apud Leschied, A.W. 2006)

suggests that poverty materialises by privation
of social support, low self esteem and maternal stress, leading to childrens both inner
and outer vulnerability. In a detailed research,
Willms (2000) observed that childrens poverty is associated with behaviour problems
(age 4 to 12 years, approximately), with an
underdeveloped vocabulary for preschool
children and generally with low intellective
performances. Being such a wide-spread phenomenon, the United States have made 2010
the European Year of Fighting against Poverty and Social Exclusion. In most European
countries, children are submitted to a higher
risk of poverty than the rest of the population.
In many European countries,1 in 4 children
is submitted to the risk of poverty.70 It is a
generally accepted fact that these children,
who were brought up in poverty, have fewer
chances of enjoying a good health, satisfying
academic results and finding a job. In 2005
there were 97,5 million children, aged 0-17
years in the United States(approximately
20% of the population), that is 10 millions
less than 1995 and their number is still dropping as a result of demographic aging.71
The lowest level of relative poverty among
children can be seen in the Northern states,
Denmark and Finland (both with a 10% rate
of relative poverty among children). However,
in almost a half of the European countries the
risk of childhood poverty goes beyond 20%,
reaching 25% in Romania, 27% in Leton
and 29% in Poland. Only in a few countries,
childhood poverty is equal or lower than the
rates of general poverty: Belgia, Denmark,
Germany, Cyprus, Slovenia and Finland.
Life standards of poor children vary significantly all over Europe. For 11 of the 15
old members, the monthly income required
for a household consisting of two adults and
two children to be considered at the limit of
70
Child Poverty and well-being in the EU.Current
status and way forward. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?c
atId=751&langId=en&furtherPubs=yes
71
UNICEF (2005). Child Poverty in Rich Countries
2005. UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre Report Card No.6.
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence.

poverty, varies from 1500 euro to 2400 euro

while the same income is no more than 500
euro for 9 of the 12 new-members. Having made the necessaries adjustments for differences between costs of life, the variation
remains impressive: for Luxemburg the average income is of 3000 euro, which is more
than 10 time the income of 250 euro in Romania, the country with the lowest average
income. 72Poverty diminishes ones chances
to live within the minimum standards of life
level. These standards are of course relative,
depending on the country and region. The
OMS defines poverty as the result of the ratio
between the global average income for inhabitant and the average income for inhabitant in
a particular country. For example, the lowest limit of poverty was fixed in Germany, in
2003 at a monthly income of 983 euro. Other
marks for establishing poverty limits are: insufficient income to provide regular nourishment, a minimum of clothing, warming and
other compulsory necessities.
Poverty triggers cultural deficiencies, lack of
qualified manpower and increased rates of illiteracy. Poverty can be absolute or relative.
Robert McNamara, an American politician,
defines absolute poverty as an extreme condition of human existence in which the individual, in its struggle to survive, is exposed to
all kinds of deprivations and humiliations that
may shock the imagination of the privileged.
All over the world, almost a billion people
(850 millions) suffer from hunger or malnutrition out of which 170 millions are children.
Every 5 seconds, a child under 5 dies and annually approximately 30 million people die
of malnutrition.73 As mentioned above, the
concept of poverty can be understood as absolute (a minimum of physical survival),
as proposed by Rowntree in 1901 by taking
in consideration wider ranges of basic needs,
or relative, by referring the entire population
of a country or a geographic area; finally it
can refer both to strictly material factors and
72
Studiu tematic privind msurile politice referitoare
la srcia n rndul copiilor. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.
jsp?langId=en&catId=750
73
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Limita_s%C4%83r%C4%83ciei

non-material factors(need of education, security, rest, relaxation and culture etc).74 EU

statistics concerning incomes and life conditions provide useful information in order to
perform a comparative analysis of poverty
among children at a European level. The two
Laeken markers concerning childhood poverty are: rate of relative poverty: percentage
of children living in households with incomes
under 60% of the national average and percentage of children whose parents do not have
a job. In most European countries the rate of
relative poverty among children is higher
than the general rate of poverty (except for
Denmark, Germany, Cyprus and Finland in
2006). In many countries, including the Czech
Republic, Italy, Leton, Luxemburg, Hungary,
Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, the rate of relative poverty among children is higher than
the rate of relative poverty among pensioners.
Approximately 16% of the UE population-79
million people-confront the risk of poverty,
and for children and elderly persons this percentage is even higher. Poverty has both lots
of causes and also effects: inadequate houses,
insufficient capacities, no access to medical
assistance and other vital services, incapacity to access work-markets-all these factors,
especially when combined can stop a person
from fully participating to social life.
Social inclusion intends to guarantee to each
and every person, including those who came
from vulnerable backgrounds, the right to
play a full part on the working force market
and in society as well, benefiting of equal opportunities. Promoting social inclusion is also
crucial for EU in terms of reaching its goals
of stable economic growth, more and better
jobs and a stronger social cohesion.
Policies designed to fight poverty are national
policies: both povertys measurement and the
necessary instruments to fight it are specially adapted to the standards of the country in
question. Currently, in Romania there are 2
indicators for measuring monetary poverty:
relative poverty and absolute poverty. The
74
Neculau,A., Ferreol, G.(1999).Aspecte psihosociale ale srciei.Iai: Editura Polirom.

61

indicator for relative poverty derives from a

methodology which has been adopted by the
European Council of Laeken, in December
2001.
This methodology was designed to enable the
monitoring in a comparative manner of the
members progress concerning the goals of
the EU in the battle against poverty and social
exclusion. The indicator of absolute poverty is
based on a national methodology, which was
created in 2002 by a team of experts from the
National Institute of Statistics, government
experts, researchers and experts of the World
Bank and it is a national indicator included in
the Monitoring System for poverty and social
integration in Romania.
In 2005, by releasing HG nr. 488 on 26 may
concerning the approval of the national system of social inclusion indicators, the figures
for poverty degrees have become official.75
Fighting childhood poverty and cutting off
the transfer of disadvantages from one generation to another(inherited poverty) have
been issues of major concern from the very
beginning of the process of social inclusion.
This issue is more and more emphasized as
a priority for the EU members. The Rom
population of Europe faces a series of problems that make it extremely vulnerable to the
phenomena of social exclusion and poverty.
Consequently, the states with a large Rom minority have approached the issue with more
commitment, and generally these states have
a better understanding of the challenges implied. The problems that must be hurdled refer especially to integration, access to jobs,
approaching educational disadvantages and
improving access to basic services like houses and medical assistance.
Data provided by the National Institute of
Statistics reveal that currently, 4 million
Romanians live on the edge of poverty. The
President of the National Institute of Statis75
Guvernul Romniei, Hotrrea Guvernului nr. 488
din 26 mai 2005, Monitorul Oficial al Romniei, nr. 492, 10
iunie 2005.

62

tics, Vergil Voineagu stated that 4 million Romanians belong to families whose monthly
income is under 1.480 lei. This means that 1
in 5 families have incomes below the limit of
relative poverty. For 2008 the relative poverty
limit was 459.33 lei (approx. 11 eur), meaning that a person, whose income goes under
this figure, is considered to be poor. The absolute poverty rate is the total weight of every person in the household whose consumption per adult is under the poverty limit for
the entire population. In order to calculate the
limit of absolute poverty, a series of factors
are taken into account: the cost of a minimum
nutriment basket, a minimum consumption
of non-alimentary goods and services, equal
to the expenses of persons whose alimentary
consumption is the same with the cost of the
alimentary basket. The cost of the nutriment
basket was estimated in order to ensure the
2.550 necessary calories per day depending
on the consumption of the population, which
had been distributed according to the criteria
of consumption expenses (people in the first
decile are the poorest). In 2008, the absolute poverty limit was of 254.5 lei (6 eur) per
person. The highest value of absolute poverty
rate is being registered among young people,
aged 15 to 24 years and that is of 8,4%. 76According to appraisals of the National Institute
of Statistics, the relative poverty limit in 2009
was of about 1.500 per household, to be more
precise 1.486 lei. Official statistics show that
in Romania 2 thirds of the households have to
manage with incomes under the national average. In poor families, the hire provides only
7% of the income, the rest of the budget being
completed by social services and agricultural
income.77
In 2006, relative poverty in the rural environment significantly overrated that in urban
area: 29,6% in comparison with the 9,6%.
More than 70% of Romanias poor population lives in the countryside. Analyzing the
households situation,4 categories with a
76
http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/img/site/files/fb64439b12
9bf0910308ca2064b3707a.pdf.
77
http://www.stiridecluj.ro/national/una-din-cinci-familiidin-romania-are-venituri-sub-pragul-de-saracie-relativa.

higher rate of relative poverty can be distinguished, and those are: single persons(26,8%),
19,8% men and 30,1% women, families with
only 1 parent(27,1%), families with at least
3 children(45,4%) and single persons over
65(32,8%). On the other hand, children (0 to
14 years) and young people(15 to 24 years)
are submitted to the highest risk of poverty.
Relative poverty rate among children, aged 0
to 15 years was of 25,9% in 2008 in comparison with the relative poverty rate of 16,2%
among people aged 65 or over 65 years. Approximately 75% of poor children live in
the countryside, where the risk of poverty is
3 times bigger than in the city. More than a
third of these children come from agriculturalist families, and their poverty level is 7
times bigger than the one of children living in
families with at least an employed adult.78
Over the last years, education has proved to
be one of the factors most tightly connected
to the level of welfare. Mediafax reveals that
the economic crisis made the figures go up to
350.000 poor children and tripled the rate of
school abandon, according to representatives
of World Vision Romania. Thus, approximately 40.000 children, most of them coming
from the countryside have dropped school,
year after year. The organization pointed out
that access to education continues to be a
problem in Romania and that the economic
crisis has stopped a lot of parents from sending their children to school. Poverty risk is
inversely proportional with the boost of the
education level, even approaching the 0 value
for graduating adults. Another important aspect of poverty in Romania is connected to
the ethnical dimension. Even if the relative
poverty rate among Roma has dropped from
76% in 2003 to 48% in 2007, the risk of poverty was 4 times bigger for the Roma population than for the majority in 2007. The Rom
population is seriously affected by unemploy78
Raport comun al Ministerului Muncii, Familiei
i Egalitii de anse (MMFES), Institutului Naional de
Statistic(INS) i Bncii Mondiale(BM)Romnia: Raport de
evaluare a srciei.Programul de asisten analitic i consiliere.AnulFiscal2007.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTROMANIAINROMANIAN/Resources/PovertyAssessmentReportRom.pdf.

ment rates above average, inadequate housing

conditions and a high rate of illiteracy.79 Also
depending on the region of development, the
relative poverty rate was in 2008 of 4,7% for
Bucuresti and Ilfov in comparison with the
N-E side where its value reached 27,2% in
the same year. Currently, in most parts of Romania, poverty is only temporary (Teliuc,
Pop, Teliuc, 2001).80 This can be explained
by the fact that poverty is not thorough, many
people finding themselves placed near the
poverty limit as their incomes were seriously
shaken by the current negative economical
climate. Between 2004-2005, about a half of
the teenagers, aged 15 to 18 years and coming from poor families, were registered in
school. Furthermore, only 37% of the young
and poor people(aged 15 to 24 years), were
attending classes in 2006, while others were
having a rough time on the work-market, as
illegal workers(30%) or unemployed(15%).
Approximately 70% of the poor adults(aged
15 or older) have only graduated 8 classes or
less.81
Conclusions:
The relative poverty indicator is based on a
methodology, which had been adopted by the
European Council of Laeken in December
2001. EU states a relative definition of poverty: percentage of people whose available
income is under 60% of the national average
income.
This methodology was designed to enable
the monitoring in a comparative manner of
the members progress concerning the goals
of the EU in the battle against poverty and
social exclusion. Romania is one of the few
countries to have an officially adopted poverty measuring methodology. In the last year
poverty has increased, whatever measures
are used. Relative poverty, even if included
as a primary indicator of social exclusion and
used in international comparisons all over the
79
http://www.unicef.ro.
80
Tesliuc, C.M., Pop, L., Tesliuc,D.E.(2001). Srcia
i sistemul de protecie social, Ia i: Editura Polirom.
16
http://www.urbaniulian.ro/2009/05/18/situatia-saraciei-inromania-studiu/.
81

63

EU, does not reflect accurately the dynamic

evolution of the phenomenon in Romania.
Still, if these comparisons are made between
countries having similar levels of development, they may provide a wider picture of
those countries with a higher risk of poverty,
usually triggered by less efficient social protection programs.
References:
Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., and Richardson,
D. (2007)., An index of child well-being in
the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 133-77;
Leschied , A.W., Chiodo, D., Whitehead ,P.
C., and Dermot, H.(2006), The association of
poverty with child welfare service and child
and family clinical outcomes. Community,
Work and Family Vol. 9, (1), pp. 29 -46;
Marlier, E., Atkinson, A.B., Cantillon, B.,
and Nolan, B. (2005),Taking Forward the EU
Social Inclusion Process.FinalReport.(Gover
nmentofLuxembourg,Luxembourg).Gsit la
adresa:http://www.ceps.lu/eu2005_lu/inclusion/report/final_report.pdf.din 2 Noiembrie,
2010;
McDonald,C.,(1999), Children and Poverty
Why their experience of their lives matter for
policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues,
Vol.44 (1 );
Neculau,A., Ferreol, G.(1999), Aspecte psihosociale ale srciei.Iai: Editura Polirom;
Ridge, T. (2002), Childhood poverty and social exclusion: From a ChildsPerspective.
Bristol: Policy Press;
Tesliuc, C. (2001), Srcia i sistemul de
protecie social.Iai: Editura Polirom;
European Commission Social Protection
Committee(2008), Child poverty and wellbeing in the EU:Current status and way forward, Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of theEuropean Communities.Gsit la
adresa:

64

http://www.libertysecurity.org/IMG/pdf_
ke3008251_en.pdf.din 2 Noiembrie, 2010;
UNICEF (2007), Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich
countries, Innocenti report card 7, UNICEF:
Florence. Gsit la adresa:
http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf. la 2 Noiembrie,2010;
UNICEF (2005), Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005. UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre Report Card No.6.UNICEFInnocentiRese
archCentre, Florence. Gsit la adresa:
http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf la 2 Noiembrie, 2010;
Raport comun al Ministerului Muncii,
Familiei i Egalitii de anse (MMFES),
Institutului Naional de Statistic(INS)i
Bncii Mondiale(BM)Romnia: Raport de
evaluare a srciei.Programul de asisten
analiticiconsiliere.AnulFiscal2007. Gsit
la adresa: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTROMANIAINROMANIAN/Resources/
PovertyAssessmentReportRom.pdf la 24 octombrie,2010;
Raport comun privind protecia social i incluziunea social 2009 Rezumat. Incluziune
social, pensii, asisten medical i ngrijire
pe termen lung. Luxemburg;
Child poverty in perspective: An overview
of child well-being in rich countries. A comprehensive assessment of the lives and wellbeing of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations;
Community Action Programme on Social Exclusion. Poverty and social exclusion among
lone-parent households.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.
jsp?catId=751&langId=en. La 20 Octombrie,
2010;
Studiu tematic privind msurile politice
referitoare la srcia n rndul copiilor.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.

jsp?langId=en&catId=750. la 22 Octombrie,
2010;
Romanian Government (Guvernul Romniei),
Hotrrea Guvernului (HG) nr. 488 din 26
mai 2005, Monitorul Oficial al Romniei, nr.
492, 10 iunie 2005;

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Limita_s%C4%83r%C4%83ciei. 20 Octombrie, 2010;
http://www.urbaniulian.ro/2009/05/18/situatia-saraciei-in-romania-studiu/.27Octombrie,
2010.

65

THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF POVERTY

STRICKEN CHILDREN AN OVERALL
VIEW

Brndua Antonia Grigora

Babe-Bolyai University
brindusa_grigoras@yahoo.com

66

Abstract
The quality of life is an evaluative
multidimensional concept that refers to the
value of life and the extent to which life is
fulfilling to a person, in our case to the child.
The purpose of this study is an overview of
some important concepts and indicators that
define the quality of life of poverty stricken
children. It will also present points of reference
regarding the EU political agenda to reduce
child poverty that requires both national
and international strategies for research
and social policies in this area. The article
compares European data and Romanian
data concerning poverty. The comparisons
indicate that there is urgent need to help
children living in poverty.
Keywords: quality of life; combating poverty;
state of deprivation, material deprivation.

fie protejate. Pentru acest articol, problema

principal este cea a copiilor. Srcia
afecteaz posibilitatea de a le asigura o via
normal, o educaie normal, accesul la
servicii medicale, la oportuniti de petrecere
a timpului liber, de dezvoltare a abilitilor
pentru via. Pentru a descrie felul n care
este monitorizat situaia copiilor afectai
de srcie i a familiilor lor e nevoie s ne
raportm la seturile de indicatori sociali de
msurare a calitii vieii special construii
de cercettori n acest scop. Articolul pune n
paralel datele europene privind srcia, cu
datele romneti. Comparaiile indic nevoia
urgent de a interveni n favoarea copiilor
lovii de srcie.
Cuvinte cheie: calitatea vieii; combaterea
srciei; stare de deprivare, deprivare
material.

Rezumat
Calitatea
vieii
este
un
concept
multidimensional, evaluativ care se refer la
valoarea vieii i la msura n care viaa este
satisfctoare pentru om, respectiv n cazul
nostru pentru copil. Lupta mpotriva srciei
este pe prima pagin a agendei europene
i grupurile care sunt cele mai vulnerabile
(copiii, femeile, btrnii, populaia de etnie
rom, persoanele cu dizabiliti) trebuie sa

Introduction
Childhood and adolescence is a period of
change in many areas of life (biological, social, psychological), but is also a time of exploration, of learning, of choices, of identity
strengthening and also relationship building.
All children should enjoy the rights and obligations specific to their age, protection and
promotion of child rights being one of the
most sensitive indicators in the general health

of a society.
All children must be catered for their basic
needs by respecting their development rights,
not only in terms of survival and protection,
but also of personality, talents, mental and
physical abilities. They need everything that
can help them grow and develop. For example, they need family and friends, love and
entertainment, they need a clean environment
and playgrounds, stories, music, schools and
libraries, as well as all the good things that
stimulate the mind and help them develop.
Therefore, children have the right to development and the right to education, medical
care, social welfare, etc. Participation rights
allow children to express their own views as
to their lives. This gives them the opportunity to express opinions, discuss issues they
consider important, and to seek and receive
information relevant to them (E. Florian,
2007, p.92).
The quality of life, as defined in literature is
an evaluative concept referring to both the objective conditions of the individuals life, as
the ensemble of the elements referring to the
physical, economic, cultural, politic, health
situation people live in, the contents and the
nature of the activities they have, the characteristics of the relationships and the social relationships they participate in, the consuming
patterns they adopt, the goods and services
they have access to, the way and style of life
they lead (I. Mrgineanu, A. Blaa, 2005,
p.33), as well as the subjective way each
evaluates his/her own life, satisfaction state,
happiness, fulfillment.
Economic recession in Europe is worsening poverty and social exclusion, including
children. Public services need instruments to
measure the impact of economic downturn on
peoples quality of life. EU Member States
need to streamline these services, in order to
fulfill their promises to reduce poverty. 2010
was designated by the European Union and
its Member States as the European Year for
Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in

order to reaffirm and strengthen the political commitment expressed by the European
Union at the beginning of the Lisbon strategy to achieve a decisive impact on poverty
eradication , in other words fighting poverty
among children, including intergenerational
transmission of poverty, and family poverty,
paying special attention to large families,
single parents and families caring for a dependent person, as well as poverty stricken
institutionalized children (UE , 2010).
Overview of concepts
Coherent and systematic foundation of the
concept of quality of life was developed in
North American society in the 1960s based
on the need to define national goals and to
measure their level of achievement by means
of social indicators. This is the originating era
for the concept of quality of life. Sociologists
have built complex instruments for measuring quality of life, and politicians have introduced the idea of quality of life in the social
development programs as ultimate goal (E.
Zamfir, 1997).
The concept of quality of life refers both to
life as a whole and to different key areas of
life with emphasis on welfare. In their report entitled Report by the Commission on
the Measurement of Economic Performance
and Social Progress economists J. Stiglitz,
A. Sen and J.P. Fitoussi pointed out the importance of measuring both the objective and
the subjective aspects of social progress, as
seen by individuals rather than by economist,
recommending that the multidimensional nature of quality of life should be taken into account (J. Stiglitz, A. Sen, J.P. Fitoussi, 2009).
According to these parameters, the European
Study on Quality of Life started in 2003 and
led by Eurofound represents an important step
in this direction. It should be emphasized that
the study provides an opportunity to analyze
the interdependence between happiness and
life satisfaction within various areas of life
such as family, work, health, standard of living. In all countries surveyed there has been a
low level of personal satisfaction among those

67

living in poverty, struggling with unemployment, health problems and need to bring up
children on their own, without any assistance.
Low income has clearly an adverse effect on
life satisfaction attributes on people and this
effect is significantly higher in countries with
a low level of GDP (Eurofound, European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions, 2010).
The living conditions of children cannot be
separated from their families. Traditional
poverty is in many states a consequence of
their economic model based on low income
and low levels of qualifications and professional skills (A., Bastos, F., Nunes, F., 2009,
p. 68). The results of international research
(A., Bastos, F., Nunes, F., 2009, A. Bastos,
2001) indicate that children are a vulnerable
group in terms related to poverty and income
deprivation. This highlights that the socioeconomic profile of childrens families, parents unemployment or the situation on the
labor market of the parents or other persons
responsible for the child are highly influential
on child poverty and on the period of time the
child must spend in this state. Child poverty
is correlated with family status and structure
(children who do not live in traditional families with their mother and father are particularly exposed to poverty, as well as children
living in large families; living and housing
conditions also impinge on child poverty.
International statistics indicate that there is
a growing number of children living in poverty. In the EU, 19% of children are at risk
of poverty. In some countries, more than one
child in four suffer from poverty and deprivation, and in most countries they are closer to
poverty than the population as a whole (CE,
2008, p.1). One in five U.S. children live in
poverty, in 2007, their number increasing
to 13.3 million compared to 11.6 million in
2000. (K., A., Moore (et al.), 2009, p. 1).
A 2005 UNICEF report shows a positive association between government spending for
family and social benefits and poverty eradi-

68

cation in children. In fact, this process is the

result of complex multiple interface between
government policies, family effort, labor
market and social conditions. (A., Bastos, F.,
Nunes, F., 2009, p. 69). In the literature, child
poverty is seen both as a state of deprivation
in the area of two or more basic needs such
as food, water, sanitation facilities, health,
shelter, education, information, and as social
exclusion. So, poverty depends not only on
income but also on the access to social services (A., A., G., Ali, 2002, p.3), which are
considered to be essential to ensure child welfare.
The study of Amelia Bastos, Child poverty
a discussion on conceptualization and measurement; A Portuguese case study, presents
a reflection on children poverty, distinguishing it from general poverty. It is characterized
as an interacting group of differing needs
that impedes on the childs well-being (A.
Bastos, 2001). The tools created by researchers to measure poverty among children (like
The Child Poverty Index and the Deprivation
Factor), are based on the assumption that
child poverty is a state of deprivation according to the social exclusion theory developed
by Peter Townsend in the late 80 (A. Bastos,
2001). Both instruments are based on three
essential indicators of children well-being,
namely: health, education, and habitat. To
these, social inclusion was added because
it is assumed that in poor families children
are dependent on neighborhood and family lifestyle, which is usually precarious and
this may severely limit social integration.
The results of the survey described by Amelia Bastos show that usually the children in
poor families live in a state of isolation. Having little contact with other way of life and
a few positive references, these children will
probably follow their parents way of life. In
the case of education the estimation indicate
that the children living in poor follow specific
school path characterized by school failure
and the absence of parental support. The habitat is a particularly important domain where
child poverty is concerned. The lives of chil-

dren living in poor families are mostly spent

in low quality housing projects. The living
conditions of these children have negative
effects on their studies and aggravate social
disintegration. Moreover, such conditions are
a risk to their health as they encourage the appearance of certain illnesses, with very negative effects (A. Bastos, 2001).
Studies in this area have shown that children
living in poverty will be disadvantaged as
adults as well. Taking into account this priority, we can say that long-term costs to society
of lack of investment in this population category are very high.
Romanian dimensions of childhood
poverty
The Romanian National Strategy in the field
of the protection of the childrens rights
2008-2013 makes the norm in aspects regarding the protection of the childrens rights and
their liberties and the equal opportunity right
to exercise these rights for vulnerable groups
of children and young people who require
extra attention, among which the groups at
risk because of poverty. The aim is that by
implementing this strategy the quality of the
childrens life to be increased and all services
to children to be periodically checked by a
competent, coherent and unique system. To
achieve this goal it is necessary that all major
decision makers be involved: governments,
social partners, non-government sector.
In Romania there are about 4.2 million children of which over one million (24% of those
under 17 years) were in poverty in 2004 with
more than 350 000 (8%) in severe poverty.
Children and young people were hardest hit
during the economic boom and have experienced less improvement in the welfare level
during this period, getting to face a considerably higher poverty risk than elderly people
who, at the level of public discourse, are considered as the most vulnerable category. The
high percentage of children who are affected
by poverty is a consequence of both the high
cost of raising a child and of a differentiated

birth rate patter, with higher values among

poor families in comparison with the overall
population that has adopted one-child family
model (Zamfir C., 2005).
Even before 1989, Romanian families with
many children had a special situation in the
process of social polarization. Their situation
has worsened since due to the shock of an endless transition and lack of appropriate support
policies so that children has have become one
of the most disadvantaged categories in the
process of transition with a generally higher
percentage than that of adult or elderly population. Many children live in large families,
lacking basic resources necessary for optimal development. Although the proportion
of families with three or more children is
relatively low within all families with children (14, 9%), the number of children living
in these families represents about 40% of the
total. Children living in families with at least
two children represent two-thirds of all children. Most children from large families live
in a state of chronic poverty. The poverty rate
for children in rural areas compared to urban
areas is double (32.9 vs. 15.6% in 2004), (C.
Zamfir, 2005, p. 4).
Single-parent families represent a special
category. As there is only one earner in the
household, this type of family faces increased
risks the more so because they are usually
formed of single women with children (womens incomes are on average lower than those
of men). Children who live in such families
must not only overcome the difficult situation
generated by the lack of a parent, but often the
state of chronic poverty. (Gender Barometer
Database, 2000; Mrgineanu, Blaa, 2005).
Measurement
At the Lisbon Congress in 2000, the Council
of Europe agreed to adopt an open method
of coordination to have a decisive impact
on eradicating poverty and social exclusion
until 2010. European Union Member States
adopted common objectives at the Nice European Council and have participated in na-

69

tional action plans against poverty and social

exclusion. As part of this process a set of primary and secondary indicators has been adopted to monitor progress and national governments have been encouraged to adopt its
tertiary indicators. The authors A. Ben-Arieh
and M. Goerge in their book Indicators of
Childrens Well- Being give an example
concerning Great Britain. In this country,
three indicators were used to have a different
approach to monitoring progress in terms of
child poverty:
1. Absolute poverty. Referes to the number of children living in households
with incomes below 60% of the average income in 1996-1997, which is a
threshold modified only relative to inflation;
2. Relatively low income. Referes to the
number of children living in households with income below 60% of the
average contemporary equivalent income;
3. Material deprivation and low income
combined. Referes to the number of
children living in households with income below 70% of the contemporary
average income who live in deprivation
(lack certain goods and services) (A.
Ben-Arieh, M., Goerge, 2006, p.65).
Child welfare can not be represented by a single area or indicator, such as family income.
A legitimate question within research on childrens life is the following: Do additional
revenue improve childrens quality of life?
The answer is the fact that childrens lives are
influenced by many factors and each of them
has an influence on their welfare. In the literature there are five relevant areas mentioned in
connection with the welfare of children and
young people: economic well-being - to
have sufficient income and material comfort
allowing them to take advantage of opportunities, health - to enjoy physical and mental
health and practice a healthy lifestyle, personal safety - being protected from harm or
neglect and grow up in a way that allows them
to take care of themselves, the ability to en-

70

joy life and to have achievements - the ability to enjoy most of their life and developing
skills useful in adult life, achieving a positive
contribution - developing skills and attitudes
that enable them to have a contribution to the
society in which they live (J. Bradshaw in A.
Ben-Arieh, M., Goerge, 2006, pp.75-76).
These five areas of child welfare show that the
quality of life depends upon the complexity of
the existing links between children and their
social environment. Childrens functions and
behaviors are closely related to the social circumstances of which they are part. Development theorists have pointed out that children
and their living environment belong to the
mutual relationships that develop naturally
between children and their affiliation group.
Children are active agents that are formed
by the environment and who, in their turn,
form their own environment. Children attend
school, play, improve their relationships with
family and friends, and participate in various
sporting activities and social events. Children who belong to groups or communities in
situations of risk may have difficulty in their
relations with family and friends, school and
profession choice, in carrying out various leisure activities (riding a bike, doing different
household activities or going shopping with
friends), in learning how to drive a car, how to
speak a foreign language or to play an instrument, etc. We expect that belonging to such a
group / community at risk because of poverty
exerts a major influence on childrens personality development, especially in terms of their
independence skills during adolescence (M.
Kostak, 2006).
In conclusion, research on childrens quality
of life will take into account a large variety
of aspects, like family support, relations with
peer group, physical, emotional and social
wellbeing.
In measuring the quality of life, instruments
developed for children have to take into account childrens activities as well as their influence on development and future chances

of success. Quality of life is a concept sensitive to changes occurring during physical and
intellectual development. The way children
perceive their quality of life through different phases is different as well. Even among
peers, perception of quality of life is very different. Therefore, measurement of quality of
life must adapt and respond to these changes
and variations.
Conclusion and discussion
The number of children at risk due to multiple problems caused by poverty is higher in
proportion to the population as a whole. The
problem is not necessarily the large number
of poor children, but rather the consequence
of the fact that they live in poverty. These
consequences are reflected both in childrens
individual development and the development
of groups and society in general.
Results of studies in the field and various national and international statistical data about
the situation of children affected by poverty are leading us to the question: Why are
there so many poor children currently in the
world? One answer may be that many social
policies and programs undertaken to eradicate
child poverty, which are ongoing at international level are effective but include only a
part of families with children at risk due to
poverty. There are other programs aimed at
providing support to poor families with children in acquiring greater economic stability
that need to be extended or improved. During this economically difficult period, there is
an urgent need for progress in all these directions. The effects of these policies and strategies on children depend on how world states
design their welfare programs.
To provide quality services tailored to the
needs of children at risk because of poverty
and of their families, social policies must
properly reflect the multidimensional nature
of poverty and social exclusion. This is made
possible by rapid and coherent development
of international indicators to measure child
welfare. Instruments developed to measure

poverty among children indicates that family

income is directly associated with deprivation but it is not its only determinant.
There is a need to develop and use not only
monetary indicators (measuring family income) but also to investigate non-monetary
poverty among children, with emphasis on
the importance of using a subjective perspective, namely what children tell about their
own lives (aspirations, attitudes, beliefs,
feelings and perceptions). Also, a more efficient use of administrative data (statistics,
public documents, health, education, etc.) is
essential along with increasing the variety of
research data sources. For this to become a
reality, international collaboration is needed
among specialists dealing with this thematic
area, exchange of experience, support from
society in general, and especially from decision makers. Investing in children and their
welfare is not only a moral obligation but
also an economic priority. This is probably
the most effective path to social sustainability, and to economic and political progress in
Europe and worldwide.
References
Ali, A.,A.,G. (2002). Child Poverty: Concept
and Measurement, material disponibil online
la : http://www.arab-api.org/cv/aali-cv/aali/
wps0701.pdf;
Bastos, A., (2001). Child poverty - a discussion on conceptualization and measurement.
A portuguese case study, 41st Congress of
the European Regional Science Association,
Zagreb;
Bastos, A., Nunes, F. (2009). Child Poverty in Portugal: Dimensions and dynamics,
Childhood, Sage, 16: 67-87;
Ben-Arieh, A., Goerge Robert, M., (editors),
(2006). Indicators of Childrens Well- Being,
Understanding their role, usage and policy
influence, Netherlands: Springer;
CE (2008). Studiu tematic privind masurile

71

politice referitoare la saracia in randul copiilor, http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/

spsi/child_poverty_en.htm#childpoverty;
Eurofound, European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, (2010) Trends in quality of life in the
EU: 2003-2009,
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1047.htm;
Florian, E., (2007). Protecia Drepturilor Copilului, Bucureti: Editura CH Bech;
Kostak, M., (2006). Measuring The Quality
Of Life In Children, Biotechnol&Biotechnol.
Eq, 20/2006/3;
Mrginean, I. (2004). Studii de sociologie,
Calitatea vieii i Politici sociale, Piteti:
Editura Universitii din Piteti;
Mrginean, I., Blaa, A. (2005). Calitatea
vieii n Romnia, Editura Expert, Bucureti;
Moore, K., A. (et al.), (2009). Children in
poverty : Trends, Consequences and Policy
Options, Research Brief, raport disponibil on
line la:
http://www.aboutpinellaskids.org/childpoverty/Child%20Poverty%20Brief.pdf;
Sallila, S., Hiilamo, H. i Sund, R. (2006).
Rethinking relative Measures of Poverty,
Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 16
(2): 107-120, London: Sage Publications;

72

Stiglitz, Joseph, E., Sen, Amartya, Fitoussi,

Jean-Paul, (2009). Report by the Commission
on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, raport disponibil
on line la: www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr;
UE (2010). Anul European de lupt mpotriva srciei i a excluziunii sociale (2010),
document cadru strategic, prioriti i linii
directoare pentru activitile Anului European 2010 document disponibil on line la :
http://2010againstpoverty.ec.europa.eu;
Zamfir, Ctlin (1984). Indicatori ii surse de
variaie a calitii vieii, Bucureti: Editura
Academiei R.S.Romania;
Zamfir, Ctlin (coord.) (2005). Diagnoza
srciei i a riscurilor n dezvoltarea copilului n Romnia, Bucureti: Academia Romn,
Institutul Naional de Cercetri Economice,
Institutul de Cercetare a Calitii Vieii;
Zamfir, Elena (1997). Psihologie social,
Iai: Editura Ankarom.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php
http://www.lisproject.org/keyfigures/povertytable.htm
http://www.infolegal.ro/strategia-nationalain-domeniul-protectiei-drepturilor-copilului-2008-2013/2008/08/14/

THE ROLE OF PARENTS AND

POVERTY IMPACT UPON THE
EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF SCHOOL
CHILDREN

PhD. Candidate Raluca Nicoleta Preda,

University of Bucharest,
ralucanicoleta.preda@yahoo.com
Abstract
Poverty affects the functions of the family and
and it has a great influence in terms of school
education. This article presents the results of
a qualitative research, focused on how parents
assume their responsibilities in raising
children and the factors like low educational
level of parents, traditional conception of
gender roles, insufficient financial resources,
unhealthy and inappropriate space for
developping school activities, that may
have a negative influence in the educational
performance of school. The interviews with
parents of low lerner schoolchildren pointed
to the housing conditions of these families as
having a negative impact on childrens lives,
because the lack of basic conditions (light,
desk, heat, quiet, etc.) raise serious obstacles
against school involvement of children. The
biggest obstacle mentioned by interviewee
remains the lack of financial resources,
which, once solved, would reduce most of the
povertys negative consequences mentioned
in the article.
Key words: poor familiis; schooling;
traditional family roles; social housing.

Rezumat
Srcia afecteaz funciile unei familii i
implicit are o influen foarte mare n ceea ce
privete educaia colarilor. Articolul prezint
rezultatele unei cercetri calitative care se
centreaz pe modalitatea n care prinii i
asum responsabilitile n creterea copiilor
si pe factorii ce pot avea o influena negativa
in procesul educativ al colarilor (nivelul
sczut de educaie al parinilor, concepie
traditionala privind rolurile de gen, resurse
financiare insuficiente, spatiu insalubru si
inadecvat desfurrii activitilor colare).
Interviurile cu prini ai unor copii cu
dificulti colare au subliniat faptul c
situaia locativ are un impact negativ n
viaa de zi cu zi a copiilor datorit lipsei
condiiilor minime necesare (lumin, birou,
cldur, linite) aprnd ca un obstacol
n desfurarea activitii colare. Cel mai
mare obstacol menionat de cei intervievai
rmne ns situaia material care, odat
rezolvat, ar diminua consecinele negative
ale srciei.
Cuvinte cheie: familii srace; colarizarea
copiilor; roluri tradiionale familiale;
locuine sociale.

73

The family has an important role both for individuals (if we are looking at a micro level)
and for the whole society (at a macro level).
Even if along time this institution has suffered
significant changes, it remains a source of
wealth for the person and occupies a central
place in the life of social actors. The transition
to parenthood can be difficult especially if we
refer to a single mother but also for families
that have a poor economic situation which
emphasizes the care of tomorrow.
Many of these families face real difficulties
regarding the educational process of school
children. The high cost of textbooks, notebooks and other school supplies, coupled
with deacresed utility of diplomas for the
inclusion on the labor market have led to a
decrease in the percentage of school-age children attending school [..]( Zamfir, Catalin,
1999, p. 309). Also, according to studies conducted by the Institute for Quality of Life, the
investment of the ones with high financial resources in the education of children is beeing
done directly by acquiring all the necessary
things for the study and indirectly by providing favorable conditions for home study
(Mrginean, Precupeu, 2010, pag. 81).
In a research conducted in 2009 in one of Bucharests districts which had as main objective to identify functional and dysfunctional
aspects of poor families, it was also examined how the educational function is assured
with the implication and the contribution of
each marital partner. Referring to families in
poverty we must mention that, according to
sociologist Elena Zamfir, the level of the resources that delimits poverty is that which
prevents realization of a lifestyle considered
to be acceptable for a community (Zamfir,
Zamfir, 1995, p. 57).
Thus, interviews were conducted with singleparent families or persons living in consensual union having at least one child of school
age. Interviews were carried out at the residence of persons, all benefiting from social
assistance (families were supported either by

74

financial benefits, either by other services to

meet specific needs). The selection was based
on families receiving social support, evaluated as disadvantaged, and endangering the
harmonious development of children.
Also, based on the assumption that if the
socio-economic status of the family is poor,
the more likely is to adopt traditional roles,
the research aimed to capture the behaviour
adopted in parenting and the role models provided in primary and secondary socialization. The areas examined were those which
are so-called homes for single (or ghetto)
represented by comfort III studio apartament
in wich usually lives from 2 to 6 people, or by
disused buildings, illegally occupied by families, with no housing. Buildings this type can
be called ghetto. They are defined by the
lack of access to utilities, small living space
and large number of people living at the same
address.
One factor that may have major influences
on childrens education is the education level of parents. In this research it was noted
that parents education level is low, many
of whom are illiterate. But the situation has
had a mobilizing effect in terms of stimulating childrens education according to a large
number of families with children enrolled in
a program of day care centers (the day care
center is a social service day where children
receive support in writing homework, with
educational activities designed to help life
skills independence, socialization and recreational activities). Such centers functions
within certain schools. As stated in the study
Broke, looking for another life by the sociologist Laura Stoica , school is one of the
most active institutions to support children
in poor areas. (Stanculescu, Berevoescu,
2004, p.300)
The explanation is that the day care center is a
life saving solution specifically for single parents because the child is safe during the day
while the parent can work, but also for families where both parents are present. Reasons

for registering a child to a day care center is

divided into two major reasons: that reason
that parents can engage in labour market and
the fact that the institution (day care center)
provides educational support. (Female, 36
years If I do not know how to read and write
I can not help him, at least he should know
how to wright and read , Female 24 years
old, he doesnt understand his homework
and there is nobody to help him at home lessons).
For families with both parents present, the request to include the child in a daycare center
in order for parent to be able to go to work
shows a detachment from the traditional
roles, especially because the mother wants
to be assigned to the labor market. But, taking into account the economic situation of the
family, the mother is being forced to work
to provide the daily living and still remains
mothers responsibility for childcare. Even if
the level of education of parents is low, this
does not necessarily lead to lack of interest in
the education of children. Poor families with
children of school age that are unable to provide support to the educational process, turn
to the solutions offered by the state, that is the
day care center. They show a positive attitude
towards this service wich is very helpful for
both children and parents. On the other hand,
the registration of children in such institutions may have as effect upon parents laxity
and repeal from all educational responsibilities, transferring them to the day care center.
This however can be resolved by the social
policy of the day care center through empowering parents.
Regarding the education level of parents,
higher frequency of women with low education (majority only knowing how to write
and read) is explained, according to analysis
by early age at which they become mothers,
in conjunction with a traditionalist stance on
the family roles. This has a negative result
in terms of labor market status. However,
because the traditional optics, according to
studies ... an unemployed man is socially

labeled in a negative way in a greater extent

than a woman (Stanculescu, Berevoescu,
2004, p.231).
For families with both parents present, about
half of them work, while the other half is divided relatively equal between the following
situations: mother occasionally works as a laborer, mother is looking for a job, mother is a
personal assistant for a minor in the family or
she is unable to work. For male, partners, of
those employed is noted that, due to the poor
(or none) skill education they provide work in
areas called dirty works (at Rosal or Public
Domain Administration). The financial situation is an impediment to all the families in
terms of ensuring the necessities for school
(clothes, supplies, etc.). (Male, 29 years,
They beat my children at school and stole
his shoes and has no shoes to go to school
). By the needs they have (food, clothing
school, costs) combined with the scarcity of
the income of to the family [..] children have
become an important source of poverty for
low-income families [..]( Zamfir, Catalin,
1999, p.308).
But the situation changes for families with
both parents in the sense that mothers are
housewives, while the fathers responsibility
is to make money. It can be concluded therefore that women are traditionally assigned
the role of being responsible for raising and
educating children and housework. Thus, it
confirms that if the family is poor, the more
likely is to adopt traditional roles.
However, adoption of traditional roles is so
because of the husband and because of the
situation of being a single parent. It is clear
from interviews that the view of these families is that the husband / concubine has a duty
to work and make money, while the women
has to take care of children, especially where
there are several descendants. Raising the
children stops the mother to work, due to the
fact that there is no one to take care for the
child if both parents would work. It follows
that the function of education is in a higher

75

degree mothers responsability. Active involvement of mothers in terms of responsibility for children is demonstrated by the fact
that persons seeking to get state support for
education and consequently for their children,
are mostly female.
According to the aforementioned research,
intergenerational cohabitation appears to be a
saving solution as a way of coping and adapting to the situation in which these families
are, in particular single parent families (unable to raise children without support from
extended family). As a direct result there is
an overcrowding in the dwelling space. One
man reported: When I moved here and saw
how people live I thought it was earthquake
(male, 40 years). Many families interviewed
who receive state support are living in a room
while others live in apartments categorized as
lowest comfort. The apartment studio has a
(small) space toilet bounded or not, which is
arranged to be used as a kitchen. If the family lives in a room, in all cases bathroom in
common and grill is carried out either in a
common kitchen or in an improvised manner,
beeing impossible to ensure a proper hygiene.
The rooms in which some families live is the
basement space and many of them do not
have heat\. Some have the electric power cut
off by several years).
Small space has a negative impact on school
children because they can not get adequate
space for writing themes and for learning,
while the presence of others distract pupils.
Most pupils write in bed or on makeshift tables.

Conclusions
The low level of education within a poor family, the physical condition or the fact that
mother is the person who must deal with raising and caring for the children, do not necessarily represent the factors that inhibit the normal educational process of students. Parents
who are unable to provide support appeal to
certain services (such as the above example
of the day care center) that meet their needs.
The interviews pointed to the housing conditions of these families as having a negative
impact on childrens lives, because the lack of
basic conditions (light, desk, heat, quiet, etc.)
which makes the study harder for the school
children. The biggest obstacle mentioned by
interviewees remains the lack of financial resources, which, once solved, would reduce
most of the povertys negative consequences
mentioned in the article.
References
Mrginean, I. and Precupeu, I. (coord),
(2010), Annual diagnosis of quality of life,
Bucharest: Expert Publishing;
Stnculescu, M. and Berevoescu, I. (coord.),
(2004), Broke, looking for another life! Bucharest : Nemira Publishing;
Zamfir, C. (coord.), (1999), Social politics in
Romnia 1990-1998, Bucharest : Alternative
Publishing;
Zamfir, E. and Zamfir, C. (coord.), (1995),
Social politics. Romania in the europena
context, Bucharest : Alternative Publishing;
Order Nr.24/4martie 2004 for approving the
minimum standards for day care centers.

76

TODAYS CHILDREN ARE

TOMORROWS PARENTS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
Short description of the journal
The Journal Todays Children are Tomorrows Parents (TCTP) started in Romania, in 1999. The journal is an useful resource
of information for professionals working in
the childhood area. Each issue of the Journal
is based on a specific topic concerning the
prevention of any kind of violence against
the child. After more than 10 years of appearance, TCTP journal, arrived at 27th issue, included in the international database EBSCO,
is bringing into the authors attention few recommendations.
Types of contributions:
Papers will be considered providing
that they have not previously been published
or admitted simultaneously elsewhere for
publication.
Original, Theoretical, and Empirical Contributions: The paper should conform
the APA (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association) standards,
with a legible abstracts of 100 to 280 words).
Furthermore the paper should include a clear
introductory statement of purpose; historical
review when desirable; description of method
and scope of observations; full presentation
of results; brief comment/discussion on the
significance of the findings and any correlation with others in the literature; section on
speculation and relevance or implications;
summary in brief which may include discussion. Section of references is required.
Brief Communications: Shorter articles of 5 to 7 pages (abstracts and/or references optional).

Articles on Clinical Practice: Authors should provide an account of previous

clinical theory in an organized and up-to-date
manner distinct from the clinical case material. Further, the clinical case material should
occupy no more than a third of the paper. The
first third should include only relevant background theory, while the final third should
aim to discuss the descriptive presentation
of the clinical case material against the background of existing theories and/or modifications needed to accommodate the clinical
material.
Invited Reviews: Plans for proposed
reviews and invited in draft outline in the
first instance. The editors will commission
reviews on specific topics. Reviews submitted without invitation or prior approval will
be returned.
Submission Requirements:
All submissions should include an
abstract, and ordinarily be 15 to 20 pages in
length, though occasionally longer papers are
considered. In order to facilitate blind peer
review, authors are encouraged to prepare a
cover sheet that includes identifying details
not included in the manuscript which will be
sent out for review, less the cover sheet.
E-mail submission to the Editor is preferred; please send an electronic copy of your
manuscript to: anamuntean25@yahoo.com.
All correspondence, including notification of
the Editor-in-Chiefs decision and requests
for revision takes place by e-mail.
Manuscripts may be submitted in Romanian, French, or English and the author
will be informed about the languages of the
publication. The Romanian Authors will be

77

asked for providing the translation into the

language of publication.
Authors are responsible for obtaining
written permission from copyright owners to
reprint any previously published material included in their article.
The editors reserve the right to refuse
any manuscript submitted, whether by invitation or otherwise, and to make suggestions
and modifications before publication. Submitted papers must be in final form when
submitted; manuscripts will be returned for
reworking or retyping that do not conform to
required style and format.
Abstract: A structured abstract (objective, method, results, conclusions, practical
implications) should not exceed 360 words in
length covering the main factual points is required. Use complete sentences, and spell out
acronyms at first mention.
References: Style and formatting of
bibliographic citations in the text and the reference section must adhere to the guidelines
of APA (Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association). The Journal uses
an alphabetical style rather than a numeric
style both in the text and bibliography. No
abbreviations of journal titles or use of et al.
is permitted in the bibliography.
Tables/Figures: Cite each table/figure
clearly in text. Tables should be arranged one
to a page with a self contained title that is
understandable without reference to the text.
Figures should be computer generated one
per page, with legends. Tables and figures
should be submitted as separate files named
Tables of Figures.
Citations in text:
Citations in text must match reference
citations exactly. Groups of citations with the
text must be in alphabetical order within the

78

group.
List all authors the first time a work is
cited unless there are six or more authors. In
bibliography use et al. after the sixth authors
name and initial to indicate the remaining authors of the article. In text list the first author
et al year (Jones et al., 2009) for first and subsequent citations.
For citations with three or more authors, list all authors the first time the work
is cited, then author et al. for citations thereafter. When two authors list both and do so
every time reference are cited. If two or more
citations with the same authors for the same
year, list as many authors as needed to differentiate citations followed by et al.
If two or more citations with exactly
the same authors in exactly the same order for
exactly the same year, use 2009a, 2009b etc.
to clearly link text citations to correct reference citation.
If reference is within parentheses, use
ampersand. If not within parentheses, use
and.
Citations in the references:
The use of et al. is not permitted in the
reference section under any circumstances.
Abbreviations of journal titles is not permitted. Please write out completely. Citations
should be in correct alphabetical order. Watch
punctuation closely, particularly in strings of
authors (and initials), and in journal volumes,
issues, and page numbers.
Examples of citations in Reference
section:
Journal articles:
Egeland, B. (2009). Taking stock:
Childhood emotional and developmental
psychopathology. Child Abuse and Neglect.
Vol. 33, Nr 1, pp. 22-27

Authored books:
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlsson,
E A. & Collins, W. A. (2005). The Development of the Person. The Minnesota Study of
Risk and Adaption from Birth to Adulthood.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Edited books:
George, C. & Solomon, J. (2008). Attachment and caregiving behavioral system.
In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications.Second edition. New
York: Guilford Press.
Chapters in books:
Cicchetti, D. & Valentino; K. (2006).
An Ecological-Transactional Perspective on
Child Maltreatment: Failure of the Average

Expectable Environment and Its Influence

on Child development I D. Cicchetti & D.,J.
Cohen (Eds.). Developmental Psychopathology. Volume 3: Risk, Disorder and Adaptation. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
On-line citations:
Ascione, F. R. (2001). Animal abuse
and youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Washington, DC; Departement of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved September 26, 2003 from
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org
Presentations at conferences:
Lundn, K. (2007). To identify children at risk for maltreatment Paper presented
at the Second International Forum on Psychological safety, Resilience and Trauma,
September 2007, Timisoara, Romania.

79

ADVERTISING
Sant Mentale

et Exclusion Sociale
Mental Health and Social Exclusion

POVERTY and RIGHT

Overcoming

poverty

is

not

charitable gesture. It is an act of justice.

It is the protection of a fundamental
human right, the right to dignity and a
decent life.
(Nelson Mandela 2005)

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT

TO A STANDARD OF LIVING ADEQUATE

MENTAL HEALTH & WELL-BEING

Deinstitutionalise

for

humanize,

to take care in the community, antidote

against segregation & stigma, promoting
a state of well-being in which the
individual realises himself ( Def. of W H O)

EMPOWERMENT & PARTICIPATION

are two inseparable pillars for the
promotion of effective, sustainable
inclusion, particularly by facilitating the
marginalized people to regain their place
meaningful and effective as citizens that
matter in society.

FOR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

Art.25 Univ. Decl. Hum. Right

SHARING and PARTICIPATING

To promote Dignified Life and Mental Health
BUCHAREST 16 - 18 MARCH 2011

11th EUROPEAN SMES CONFERENCE

80

after

Contact and
Identity in Adoption
After Adoptions National Conference 2011
Tuesday 12th April 2011, Wales Millennium Centre, Cardiff
Explore themes of contact and identity in adoption
from all perspectives, with professionals, academics,
birth parents and young people.
Key Learning Themes
t
To understand the link between
contact and identity in adoption
t
To understand contact from all
perspectives and how this impacts on
a childs identity
t
To promote reflection, sharing and
partnership working
t
To learn from those who have first
hand experience of the importance of
contact and identity

Key Learning Outcomes

t Improved understanding of the role
of contact for children and their
families in establishing identity
t
Awareness raising of how identity is
formed
t
Increased commitment to supporting
the lifelong impact of adoption for all
parties.

Includes adoption book stall by Academy books

81

82