This article was downloaded by: Selcuk Universitesi [615059]

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]
On: 09 February 2015, At: 00:10
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updatesJournal of Youth Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20
Challenging dominant representations
of residential childcare in Romania: an
exploration of the views of children
and young people living in the care
system
Anca Bejenarua & Stanley Tuckerb
a Department of Sociology and Social Work, ‘Lucian Blaga ’
University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania
b Department of Education and Social Policy, Newman University,
Birmingham, UK
Published online: 19 May 2014.
To cite this article: Anca Bejenaru & Stanley Tucker (2014) Challenging dominant
representations of residential childcare in Romania: an exploration of the views of children
and young people living in the care system, Journal of Youth Studies, 17:10, 1292-1305, DOI:
10.1080/13676261.2014.918250
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.918250
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

Challenging dominant representations of residential childcare
in Romania: an exploration of the views of children and young
people living in the care system
Anca Bejenarua*and Stanley Tuckerb
aDepartment of Sociology and Social Work, ‘Lucian Blaga ’University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania;
bDepartment of Education and Social Policy, Newman University, Birmingham, UK
(Received 2 November 2013; accepted 21 March 2014 )
This study explores perceptions of risk commonly shared by children and young
people living in care system in Romania. The original data, reported here, weregathered through direct interviews with children and young people living in public and
private care. In undertaking the research, the authors wanted to challenge dominant,
largely media created, representations of the care system in Romania. The aim was toexplore the real risks that young people face arising out of their daily experiences.Research data were gathered using a narrative interview approach. Specific forms of
risk are identified including: risks arising out of peer and staff relationships, care
system policy and practice, external perceptions and beliefs and young people ’s fear of
the future.
Keywords: children and young people; care homes; perceptions; risk; media
representations
1. Introduction
Currently, the practice of social work is strongly influenced by the need to understand and
measure the nature of ‘risk’(Sanders, Jackson, and Thomas 1997 ; Stanley 2007 ).
A group that has received attention, in terms of their exposure to risk, are children and
young people living in care institutions and foster families. In Romania, the image of
children from child-protection institutions conceived as being ‘at risk ’emerged at the
beginning of 1990s after the fall of communism. Following revolution, devastating
images from these institutions were presented by the media across the world. Thus,
Romania became internationally known as a country where abandoned children wereexposed to major risks in terms of their physical and mental health, and personal safety
(Lataianu 2003 ). It remains the case that even though, in the last 20 years, significant
progress has been made in developing more responsive policies and practices to supportthe development of children in care, public perceptions are still largely dominated by
images of the 1990s (Porumb 2010 ; Rus et al. 2011 ).
This study reports on recent research, conducted by the authors, into the life experiences
of children living in residential care in Romania. The central aim of the research was to
explore the risks Romanian children and young people, living in public and private care in
the twenty-first century, faced. We wanted to assess and where necessary challenge, globally
*Corresponding author. Email: anca.bejenaru@ulbsibiu.roJournal of Youth Studies, 2014
Vol. 17, No. 10, 1292 –1305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.918250
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

generated constructions of the conditions in Romanian care homes by listening to, and
reporting the views of, those living there. We begin the study by examining some of thefactors that have been influential in shaping the construction of dominant media images andrepresentations of the young. The second part of the study presents the outcomes of an
empirical study designed to capture the voices of young people living in residential care
homes in respect of the risks they face both inside and outside care homes.
2. Dominant representations of childcare and its reform
After the fall of communism, during the early months of 1990, the international press
published dramatic images from Romanian care homes and orphanages. Althoughaccurate statistics do not exist, it is estimated in National Authority for the Protection ofChild ’s Rights reports that in 1989 there were over 100,000 children living in state
institutions (NAPCR 2006 ). Three specific factors influenced these figures: the difficulties
that numerous families had in bringing up children in extreme poverty; state-sponsoredpro-natal policies and practices; and a state assumed responsibility for raising all childrentemporarily or permanently abandoned by their parents. Therefore, all children, regardless
of age, if abandoned or orphaned, were put into state-sponsored care institutions. Once
there, their chances of being integrated into families were almost non-existent.
The economic recession in 1982 brought about a drastic lowering of the quality of
services provided in child-protection institutions characterised by overcrowding, hazard-ous living conditions and untrained or under-trained staff (Macavei 2006a ). Children ’s
contact with outside communities was almost non-existent. They lived in institutions
according to their age and level of intellectual development, receiving education on the
premises. A harsh regime of government censorship prevented the media and publicgaining knowledge of the work of the homes (Lataianu 2003 ; Macavei 2006b ). In
addition, severely disabled children were accommodated in isolated locations.
It was only when media attention was focused on childcare institutions that the extent
and severity of problems in Romanian began to emerge. However, the images generated
were designed to shock and sensationalise. An illustration of the imagery that was
commonly used can be located in an edition of the Washington Post published in early
1990: ‘The camera, however, is unflinching. It shows naked, underfed children sitting
ankle deep in their own urine; scabrous children herded like pigs to “bathe ”in filthy
troughs of black water; infants starving to death because of treatable conditions such ascerebral palsy and even anaemia ’(Battiata 1990 ). In the same period The Vancouver Sun
proclaimed that ‘It just broke your heart. They had one nurse ’s aide for 23 babies. [ …]
Many of them were just lying limp in their cribs with soaking-wet clothes on. They rock
back and forth because they are suffering from sensory deprivation ’(Priest 1990 ). Most
of the articles were accompanied by photos. Some of the most impressive were taken byJames Nachtwey, Magnum, for The New York Times . The photos were published in the
article Romania ’s Lost Children: A Photo Essay by James Nachtwey (Hunt 1990 ).
1In
many instances, they involved the use of undercover photographing and/or filming wherethe human rights of young people were flouted (Roth 1999 ).
Yet it has to be acknowledged, that due to the pressure applied by the media and other
international organisations, e.g. UNICEF, numerous changes occurred in the child-
protection system between 1990 and 1997. At the same time, it is also important to notethat change was introduced without reference to the development of a coherent nationalpolicy strategy leading to the development of confusing, uncoordinated and unfocusedJournal of Youth Studies 1293
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

practices (Buzducea et al. 1997 ). Positive changes that occurred were supported through
the allocation of supplementary funds from the government and via a number ofinternational organisations. Such changes included: a significant improvement in physicalliving conditions, e.g. the provision of wardrobes and carpets; a decrease in the number of
children sharing a bedroom; and children being given their own clothing (Buzducea et al.
1997 ). However, major shortcomings continued to exist in terms of the quality of care
and education offered. This was mainly due to the ongoing existence of care regimesestablished under communism. For example, many children continued to live in largeinstitutions that housed between 200 and 400 children, under what can be described as‘barrack type ’supervision arrangements. In addition, the limited alternative child-
protection services initiated by various governmental organisations did not receive thenecessary funding to be able to support themselves.
2
The process of reforming the child-protection system began in 1997. New legislation
required significant changes: a restructuring of old institutions for child protection and thecreation of family-based foster care; and the transfer of authority and funding for child-protection services from a national level to a county level. Decentralisation encouragedcommunity initiatives and partnerships between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) andgovernment organisations. Other significant changes occurred between 2001 and 2004 withthe creation of the first Strategy for Child Protection in Romania. During this period, over 200large institutions were closed. The number of institutions sheltering less than 50 children
increased from 134 in December 2000 to 330 in June 2003 (NACPA and UNICEF 2004 ). In
2004, quality standards for residential care services for children were established (see Table 1 ).
During the same period, Law No. 272/2004 was passed in an effort to promote and
protect the rights of all children. Institutional restructuring and deinstitutionalisationcontinue to this day.
Yet despite the emergence of such structural and organisational changes, Romania
could not escape negative global media attention. This was exacerbated by investigationsof the child-protection system between 1998 and 2007, as a condition of Romania ’s
accession to the EU. Periodic criticism on the part of the European commissionersbrought with it media attention that, in the main, served to strengthened prevailing
sensationalised images. The reality is, that despite 20 years of reform, public perception
largely remained unchanged (Porumb 2010 ; Rus et al. 2011 ).
The research reported here, should be read, in part at least, as an attempt to counter
the kind of dominate representations of childcare in Romania prevalent in much of theglobal media coverage. We maintain it is important to counter such representationsbecause in ‘problematising ’(Griffin 1993 ) and stereotyping care institutions in this way,
we continue to perpetuate approaches to care that politicians, social care providers andpractitioners are trying to change. In turn, we construct images of children and youngpeople that fail to acknowledge cultural diversity, identity, needs and aspirations. We
embarked on the research employing a methodological approach that allowed children
and young people to explore their experiences, anxieties, hopes and concerns. The studydoes not include perspectives of policy-makers and care providers.
3. Methodology
3.1. Setting
Over the last nine years, in Romania, a variety of institutional settings coexist for the
protection of children. For this study, we use the generic term residential care homes ,1294 A. Bejenaru and S. Tucker
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

to define those institutions, public or private, which provide care and protection by
qualified personnel on a 24-hour basis. Data were collected from six residential care
homes, among of which four were public and two private. Two of the public institutions
can be described as large institutions, housing, more than 50 children and young people,of both genders. The other two institutions housed less than 50 young people, oneTable 1. The main categories of quality standards and responsibilities for residential care services.
Standards of provision required in
Romanian childcare Responsibilities of service providers
Quality of care Provide children and young people with the
opportunity to participate actively in the daily life of
residential services and in decisions about their future
Promote children ’s right to privacy, personal space and
confidentiality in an environment similar to the familyProvide children an adequate diet in terms of quantity
and quality of food
Provide children the opportunity to participate in dailyfood choices and menus as well as in activities related
to meal preparation
Provide children ’s clothing, shoes, school supplies and
other equipment, as well as pocket money in
accordance with the law and respecting the
individuality and needs of each childProvide the necessary conditions to identify and assess
the physical, emotional and health of each child, and
take appropriate measures to meet those needs
Quality of education and socialisation Support and promote through the provision of proper
equipment and materials, children ’s education,
especially when educated in the community
Provide multiple opportunities for children to engagein leisure, recreation and socialisation, which
contributes to their physical, cognitive, social and
emotional development
Protection of children against abuse Record and resolve complaints about the services
offered
Promote and apply measures to protect children fromall forms of intimidation, discrimination, abuse,neglect, exploitation, inhuman or degrading treatment
Ensure that staff respond positively to problematic
behaviours through the use of proactive educationalprocesses and activities
Quality of physical and social
environment in which children livetogetherProvide an area for communication and relaxation
similar to that which might be found in a family home
Provide a high-quality family-orientated environment
Provide sufficient and high-quality sanitary facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of all children living in a
residential environment
Source: Order No. 21/2004 for the approval of the mandatory minimum standards for children residential care
services.Journal of Youth Studies 1295
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

catering for boys and the other for girls. Two of the residential care homes were private.
One was organised in a traditional way, while the other provided smaller ‘family-
orientated ’units. The two private residential care homes housed less than 50 boys and
girls each. Data were collected between May and October 2012. Signed agreements were
entered into with individual institutions in order to allow the research to take place. Each
agreement covered the period of the study, access and the opportunity to interview youngpeople.
3.2. Participants
A purposive sample was used in order to select the young people for the study. All the
young people selected for interview had been in care for a minimum of one year priorto the study. The young people involved were aged between14 and 26 years old. Six
of the interviewees had learning difficulties and two suffered from chronic diseases:
renal insufficiency and diabetes, respectively. We specifically focused on young peoplebetween the ages of 14 and 26 years as we felt they would be exposed to risks thatwere markedly different to younger children. At the same time, we tried to ensure thatthe sample was heterogeneous in terms of gender, disability and physical and mentalhealths. Between four and eight young people were interviewed in each residentialcare home. Their characteristics are described in Table 2 . The participants gave their
written and oral consent to be interviewed. The proposal has received research ethics
approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the ‘Lucian Blaga ’University of
Sibiu.
3.3. Methodological approach
This study is based on a qualitative approach, using narrative interviews. The narrative
interview requires a setting which encourages and stimulates interviewees to tell a storyabout some significant event in their life (Jovchelovitch and Bauer 2000 ). A narrative
enquiry approach was considered to be appropriate as it allowed participants a moredirect opportunity through which they could describe their experiences, feelings and
responses to living in residential care (James and Prout 1997 , 8). Another reason why the
approach was adopted is that narrative inquiry avoids the pre-structuring of the interviewthereby minimising the ability of the interviewer to assert control over the generaldirection of questioning (Jovchelovitch and Bauer 2000 ).
The use of narrative inquiry was influenced by Riemann and Schütze ’s(1991 ) work
in that it was employed to specifically focus on experiences of risk –past, present and
Table 2. Summary of study participants.
The ages of youth when the study was conducted (min –max; years) 14 –26
Average age of youth when the study was conducted (years) 17Number of young people by gender
Male 18
Female 16
Number of young people according to disability, state of physical and mental health
Healthy 27
With learning difficulties 6With chronic disease (renal failure and diabetes) 21296 A. Bejenaru and S. Tucker
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

future. Each form of risk was explored through the use of ‘generative ’narrative
questions. After each ‘generative ’question, the interviewees were allowed to tell their
stories without interruption. Later in the interview, additional questions were asked inorder to extend and clarify the initial narration.
All the interviews were audiotaped with the agreement of the institution and young
person and lasted between 45 and 135 minutes. The interviews were held inside the carehomes, either in a social area or in the social assistant ’s office. A time for interview was
agreed with the young person so that it did not interfere with their daily routine, i.e.education, leisure time, etc. As part of the signed agreement with the institution, it wasnecessary to interview the young person with a member of staff present in the room. This
condition was insisted on to avoid unnecessary stress or harm. The member of staff
concerned did not take a direct part in the interview. However, it is acknowledgedthat their presence may have influenced the response of a young person. To mitigate theimpact, the young person was required to confirm that they had not been coerced intotaking part and that they were happy with the questions being asked of them.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim by the interviewers. The data analysis was
carried out using a thematic analysis approach proposed by Braun and Clarke ( 2006 ). The
coding of data during the analysis process was accomplished using the qualitative dataanalysis software NVivo10. As part of the analytical process, each interview was read bythe authors in order to familiarise themselves with the issues raised and create some earlycoding structures. Subsequently, the coding structures were revised and grouped togetherinto potential themes. Each theme was re-analysed in order to ensure that a coherentpattern was emerging.
4. Data analysis
In this section, we begin to look directly at the outcomes of the research in terms of the
key risks children and young people appear to face in their day-to-day lives in residentialcare. To illustrate key points we make direct use of quotations provided by the young
people themselves. We look at the risks arising out of interactions with peers and staff,
care system policy and practice, external perceptions and beliefs and young people ’s fear
of the future.
4.1. Risks and peers
Here, we attempt to explore the kinds of risks that can emerge from peer relationships.
It is important to note that the quality and range of peer relationships appear to differmarkedly between young people living in public and private classic institutions, and thoseliving in foster family homes. Young people living within family-based units consistentlypointed to the fact that they enjoyed close relationship with their peers, describing themas‘good friends ’or even ‘brothers/sisters ’. It would appear that such environments
appear to encourage the creation of strong social bonds and an increased likelihood of
sharing fears, uncertainties, etc.
For young people living in residential institutions meaningful relationships seem to be
far more difficult to construct. One young person typically reported:
With the youth here I haven ’t had a good relationship from the beginning. Each minds their
own business. We are not close ( …). We each have our friends, others than the ones inside.
(CCH_Y2, m, 22)Journal of Youth Studies 1297
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

Some young people were clearly uncertain about elements of their relationships with
other young people which they saw to be, ‘dangerous ’,‘risky ’and‘negative ’. There was
a fear of ‘opening up ’, being forced to join a ‘gang ’and some young people talked of the
risk of being ‘let down ’if they got too close to another young person. The quotes
presented below offer further elaboration:
The entourage here is very bad. Big girls tell you ‘You’re one of us now! Do this and that
and finally you get yourself into trouble? ’Here you shouldn ’t speak to too many people, you
shouldn ’t trust anybody because there a lot of pretend friends. As long as you have
something to give to them it ’s fine, when you don ’t anymore, they leave you high and dry.
(CCH_Y5, f, 14)
I don ’t want to make friends within the care homes, I never have. Everyone whom I got close
to has let me down. (CCH_Y9, m, 25)
Many of the young people interviewed spoke at length about the risk of physical abuse by
peers. Physical abuse, it appears, takes different guises: from ‘thrusting ’to‘beating ’.
Those exposed to such a form of risk tend to be younger children, especially if they do
not have a ‘protector ’. It is interesting to note that the risk of being exposed to physical
abuse is as high for boys as it is for girls in these institutions (for similar results, see
Barter et al. 2004 ). The comments below emphasise the nature of the difficulties
encountered:
The ones from the care homes are worse than those from the families. They are threatened,
beaten and scared of each other. (CCH_Y3, f, 15)
I was afraid when I got here. The fear of getting beaten is the worst. They are aggressive
children. I was beaten by them in the past, but now I have someone who protects me …and
when he ’s not here, it ’s bad. (CCH_Y5, f, 14)
The little ones are like ants compared to the big ones. Ants that can be stamped. They are
afraid, especially of getting beaten. (CCH_Y7, m, 17)
A fatalistic approach to the existence of such a situation is revealed through the quote
below:
The little ones will grow up to do the same as the others. It ’s a very bad entourage.
(CCH_Y2, m, 22)
Abuse is seen as ‘necessary ’form of ‘education ’:
The little ones have to be taught what ’s what from time to time, otherwise they get wise.
Sometimes we do it nicely, just by talking and sometimes by smacking them too. (CCH_Y5,f, 14)
The risk of psychological abuse, frequently discussed by children and young people
living in public classic institutions, takes different forms:
All kids suffer. There is a risk for each of them and a rather big one. When they hear things
that are being told about them or whenever they pass one another and somebody sayssomething mean, they feel bad. And in here you feel worse than outside. Outside, you move1298 A. Bejenaru and S. Tucker
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

on or there is somebody who can comfort you but here you can ’t go anywhere because you ’ll
find someone even meaner. (CCH_Y4, m, 19)
I don ’t like to have friends in here because the ones from inside the system hurt you the
worst, they gossip about you behind your back, they speak ill about you although we shouldall get along because we are all wretched people. (CCH_Y9, m, 25)
It would also appear for some children and young people that peer relationships can be
harsh and repressive especially when they are based on fear and exploitation. Some sawthemselves as the ‘slave ’of another young person; others feared having their personal
possessions stolen:
There are kids who are older and want to make that very clear. A small kid becomes the slave
of a big kid, gets to be manipulated. It is humiliating because they have to wash their
underwear and stuff. (CCH_Y9, m, 25)
Leaving the room is a big risk because anything gets confiscated. In two-three seconds things
just vanish ( …). They steal money to buy cigarettes or anything they could use. (CCH_Y8,
m, 20)
The kinds of risk reported here are largely the product of living within a large group of
young people. Factors concerned with initiation, rites of passage to care home, or
associated with turning a particular age are all related to bullying. Stark differences are
exposed in relation to the location of care provision, i.e. home-based or public institution.
4.2. Risks and staff
There were, again, marked differences in the perception displayed by young people in
public residential care and those in home-based provision. The risks experienced in foster
care were more concerned with being cut-off from siblings and parents, and the potential
outcomes from feeling isolated and ‘lost’. However, the findings overwhelmingly point to
the existence of poor relationships between staff and young people in other forms of careprovision. The issue of the maintenance of ‘confidentiality ’featured particularly strongly:
Gossip is specific to the staff as well. This is what I hate, that it hurts afterwards. Sometimes
you tell them a secret and they pass it over to somebody else. And you don ’t trust them
anymore. There are people who work here and who gossip. (CY_Y28, m, 19)
A lack of what might be best described as emotional intimacy appears to exist. Staff are
generally seen as remote, often uncaring, authoritarian and aggressive, in large public
institutions:
The little ones have lost trust in some of the employees. There are educators who, if you go
to them, they tell you ‘So why are you telling me that for? Go away! ’This is the reason why
children don ’t go to them anymore, why they leave without permission and more.
(CCH_Y16, m, 18)
There are people who come here as if they come to work, they stay for 8 hours and they
don’t do anything if they don ’t want to. (CCH_Y19, m, 16)
Some young people reported being the victims of verbal and physical abuse in public
institutions:Journal of Youth Studies 1299
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

I can ’t stand the staff from the home. The teachers are shrewish. If we have a problem they
don’t even try to help us. If we tell them something about what is going on they blame us,
they find us guilty, as if we like what happens to us. If we have a problem or something they
ignore us and the staff, I don ’t trust. (CCH_Y12, m, 16)
We are sometimes beaten by the teachers. The younger ones in particular …They clout, they
pull on hair and on ears. The older girls usually fight back and they don ’t let themselves be
hit. There are teachers who don ’t have enough authority. (CCH_Y6, f, 17)
Data provide a real sense of the isolation and uncertainty that children and young people
can feel when it comes to building close relationships with staff. Undoubtedly, the care
arrangements that exist in larger institutions can aggravate difficulties that will
naturally occur following family separation. We found, however, young people despe-rately wanting to form meaningful relationships with adult carers and being thwarted by
restrictive institutional relationships and practices.
4.3. Risks and the care system
A series of risks reported by young people are grouped around the child-protection
system and the way in which decisions are made. A major risk revolved around the
frequency of movement between care institutions and a consistent failure to consult withyoung people and canvass their opinion about a forthcoming move; a view reinforced by
one young person thus:
I was never asked if I want to move from one institution to another. They move us regarding
whether we adapt or not. Eventually, if you don ’t like there, you do something bad to be
moved somewhere else. (CCH_Y13, m, 19)
Though Law No. 272/2004 on the protection of children ’s rights requires the placing of
brothers and sisters together, this principle is frequently not complied with in large
institutions. A young person described the agony of the failure to apply the law thus:
My sister is in another centre. She has lived here for a while and she had to go to the other
place because she didn ’t go to school, she was not good, she argued with the educators ( …).
After she left the centre, nobody could take care of me. I had to take care of myself alone.(CCH_Y5, f, 15)
Another situation, in which brothers and sisters are being separated, is to be found in the
counties where the protection institutions are organised according to age, and sometimesgender. This segregation of the protection institutions according to such criteria was
specific to the communist period. Although there was a period when such practices were
suspended as they were intensively criticised by both academics and practitioners(see Stativa et al. 2002 ), they have reappeared in several counties within Romania. The
outcome of such a policy change is that children are moved from one centre to another,
losing connection with a sibling who they might have spent a considerable amount oftime within the care system. One young girl bitterly regretted no longer being able to
‘protect ’her sister:
When they took us from home they said they would not separate us but they still separated
us. I could have protected her. Now, my little sister is always beaten by the girls in the care1300 A. Bejenaru and S. Tucker
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

home where she lives. Once, I threatened those girls and told them I would descend upon
them. (CCH_Y10, f, 17)
Another care system practice that young people associate with risk relates to the acquiring
of personal goods –especially clothes. A young woman described the situation thus:
I am also revolted because of clothes. If we have the same clothes, the same shoes, the same
track-suits, it is normal they realise that you come from the institution, as if we arenumbered. I have asked the Directorate that the money intended for clothes to be given to usin order to buy clothes alone, but this is not possible. (CCH_Y12, m, 16)
The quote reflects, for the young person concerned, the risk of being labelled as a child in
residential care in Romania with all its associated representations. A sense of loss ofidentity and self-respect are evident in many of the interviews. To dress differently was
not seen as a right; it required ‘special effort ’on the part of a young person:
I need clothes …It’s because I have other tastes for clothes than those which are offered to
me. I buy my own stuff. I have to work for this. (CCH_Y15, m, 18)
We found young people who wanted to challenge the dominant representations of
children and young people in care. Perhaps understandably, some blamed children whowere no longer in care:
There were young girls who stole, practiced prostitution and were violent, girls who are no
longer here, but because of them we are all considered like that. Sometimes I want to leave,not to hear any more about this house. (CCH_Y21, f, 19)
For others the power of such representations troubled them deeply:
The negative perception is a real one, but not for all. For a small number it is real. There aresome who go and steel and we are all considered the same. (CCH_Y15, m, 18)
It was also clear that many of the young people directly understood the impact of media
involvement in the creation of such images:
It is based on rumours. Most of times they say: Do you know what I have heard? That he is
like that, that one is like that. And for the simple fact that he has heard that one got into
prison and has lived in the foster house, or that one has killed I don ’t know who and he
has lived in the foster house, etc. or they have heard on TV or have read in the newspaperand in no case they have experienced themselves such a thing. On the contrary, those who
have lived around children from the classic home care know how things work and how we
are. (CCH_Y18, f, 17)
4.4. Risks associated with the outside world
The most frequent risks identified by young people, regarding life outside the care
system, centred on physical aggression in the community, or in school. Moreover, girls
identified, almost unanimously, the risk of sexual abuse. The fear of rape was widely
discussed whether ‘real’or‘imagined ’:Journal of Youth Studies 1301
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

A young girl was telling ‘Since they have found out that a girls ’centre was built here, people
keep saying that strange men walk around. I have not seen them, but I avoid getting out
alone. (CCH_Y18, f, 17)
Another risk reported frequently by young people was that of being the victims of human
trafficking. Young people in public institutions in particular felt exposed to such a dangerwhilst believing themselves to be inadequately protected. A young man said:
Young people in the institution could be subject to human trafficking. They are less protected,
they are easier to be convinced to go somewhere, if they disappear the attempts to be searched
are more limited, they are declared missing and that is all, and then the traffickers may takeadvantage of this. I heard that this happened in some institutions too. (CCH_Y2, m, 22)
For many of the children and young people interviewed, their future lives were seen as
being subject to a high level of risk. They saw themselves leaving a care system thatoffers little support: in counselling, in finding a job and in identification of a house torent. The re-establishing of contact with a birth family was likely to prove extremelydifficult in many cases. The gravity of the situation for one young man wasdescribed thus:
The most revolting risk is when children get out of the centre. It is the most revolting. It is
not just a risk; it is really scary. (CCH_Y13, m, 19)
5. Discussion
This study has attempted to present a detailed picture of what we believe are some of
the major risks faced by children and young people living in the Romanian care system. Ithas been written as a deliberate challenge to prevailing media perspectives and stereo-typical images on what it means to be a child, in care, in Romania, in the twenty-firstcentury. We have charted some of the key policy changes that have been introduced in an
attempt to reform arrangements that existed in a former communist regime. In doing so, it
has proved possible to trace strands of development that indicate a clear commitment topromoting children ’s rights, improving protection and care systems, thereby improving
the quality of life for children and young people. Crucially, we have listened to the voicesof children and young people in a genuine attempt to understand their perspectives,uncertainties and fears. We acknowledge the partial nature of this approach in that wehave not included the perspectives of policy-makers, service managers and practitioners.However, we do not apologise for this omission; for we believe that real reform can onlycome about if we are willing to listen to the voices of those children and young peoplewho experience the care system from the ‘inside ’.
What is clear is that major challenges still face those trying to construct responsive and
meaningful care provision in Romania. The experiences reported here make for distressingreading. We have talked to children and young people who felt genuinely ‘at risk ’because
of the lives they faced in care system. Living in an institution, which offer little in terms ofprivacy, opportunities for socialisation and positive educational outcomes, has to leave anindelible mark. Children ’s rights agenda has little value when a child, rightly or wrongly,
feels undervalued and disrespected by those who are supposed to care. In making such astatement, we recognise the difficulties faced by care staff in terms of the wages paid and the1302 A. Bejenaru and S. Tucker
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

training offered. Many buildings are poorly constructed, designed and maintained, and there
is a battle to secure resources to improve education and care.
Yet in making all the above points, we assert that what has been achieved thus far is a
direct challenge to many of the representations of residential childcare that dominatesmedia discourse. Yes, children were poorly dressed; they talked about abuse at the handsof some staff; social and educational outcomes remain inadequate; and life beyond theboundaries of the institutional walls was seen as ‘scary ’and filled with potential risks.
The young people also talked about risks connected with human trafficking, prostitutionand grooming. Yet on reflection how far removed are such views from their counterpartsliving in some countries in the West? A cursory glance at literature and some of the media
stories prevalent in the UK press, for example, reflects many of the issues and concerns
raised by the young people interviewed for this study. That is not to defend eithersituation but it is to make an important connection.
6. Concluding thoughts
The life experiences and opportunities for children and young people living in residential
care in Romania have to be markedly improved. The views of those children and young
people who took part in the study make that clear. From our perspective, this can be
achieved through the development of policies and practices that are linked strategicallyand reasonably well resourced. There is always the danger otherwise of individual localcounty authorities reverting back to previous approaches, as illustrated earlier in thisstudy. More needs to be done in terms of developing clearly defined high-qualityoutcomes for those living in care, but significant policy improvements will only arise ifthere is a genuine intention to engage with, and act on, the views of young people whofind themselves, often through no fault of their own, living in care system.
The study was written in an attempt to challenge dominate media representations of
the care system in Romania. What we know is that young people not only read anddiscuss such representations, but they are also hurt by them. They are more than willingto outline the serious risks they face, but what appears to be lacking is the provision ofopportunities for self-advocacy, where young people can present their real needs,
expectations and hopes for the future.
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research,
CNCS –UEFISCDI [project number PN-II-RU-PD-2011-3-0253].
Notes
1. The photos taken by James Nachtwey can be seen here: http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/
slides/g14.html ;http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/slides/g15.html .
2. Details on the social politics and child-protection evolution in Romania are given by a series of
authors like Buzducea et al. ( 1997 ), Roth ( 1999 ), Greenwell ( 2003 ), Lataianu ( 2003 ), Dickens
and Groza ( 2004 ), Wehrmann ( 2005 ), Rus et al. ( 2011 ), etc.
References
Barter, Christine, Emma Renold, David Berridge, and Pat Cawson. 2004. Peer Violence in
Children ’s Residential Care . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Journal of Youth Studies 1303
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

Battiata, Mary. 1990. “‘20/20 ’: Inside Romanian Orphanages. ”The Washington Post (Pre-1997
Fulltext ), October 5. http://search.proquest.com/docview/307322989?accountid=15533 .
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. ”Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77 –101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .
Buzducea, Doru, Adrian-Nicolae Dan, Rodica Ghetau, Antoaneta Ionita, Vanda Margarit, Marian
Preda, Nina Tolstobrach, Cristian Vladescu, Catalin Zamfir, and Elena Zamfir. 1997. Pentru o
societate centrat ăpe copil [For a Child-centered Society]. Bucuresti: Alternative.
Dickens, Jonathan, and Victor Groza. 2004. “Empowerment in Difficulty: A Critical Appraisal of
International Intervention in Child Welfare in Romania. ”International Social Work 47 (4): 469 –
487. doi: 10.1177/0020872804046254 .
Greenwell, Karen Fern. 2003. The Effects of Child Welfare Reform on Levels of Child Abandonment
and Deinstitutionalization in Romania, 1987 –2000 . Austin: University of Texas at Austin. http://
www.library.utexas.edu/etd/d/2003/greenwellkf039/greenwellkf039.pdf .
Griffin, Christine. 1993. Representations of Youth: The Study of Youth and Adolescence in Britain
and America. Feminist Perspectives . Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Hunt, Kathleen. 1990. “Romania ’s Lost Children: A Photo Essay by James Nachtwey. ”The New
York Times , June 24. http://search.proquest.com/docview/215526753?accountid=15533 .
James, Allison, and Alan Prout. 1997. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary
Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood . London and Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Jovchelovitch, Sandra, and Martin W. Bauer. 2000. “The Narrative Interview. ”InQualitative
Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook for Social Research , edited by
Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell, 57 –74. London: Sage.
Lataianu, Manuela Camelia. 2003. “Social Protection of Children in Public Care in Romania from
the Perspective of EU Integration. ”International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 17 (1):
99–120. doi: 10.1093/lawfam/17.1.99 .
Macavei, Elena. 2006a. “Adevaruri despre leaganele si casele de copii [Truths about Cradles and
Children ’s Homes]. ”InSuras, lacrima, speranta [Smile, Tears, Hope], 179 –181. Sibiu:
Psihomedia.
Macavei, Elena. 2006b. “Cine sunt copiii din leagane? [Who are the Children in Cradles?] ”In
Suras, lacrima, speranta [Smile, Tears, Hope], 174 –179. Sibiu: Psihomedia.
National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption (NACPA) and United Nations Children ’s
Fund (UNICEF). 2004. Child Care System Reform in Romania, UNICEF Romania .http://www.
unicef.org/romania/imas1.pdf .
National Authority for the Protection of Childs ’s Rights (NAPCR). 2006. Child Welfare in Romania:
The Story of a Reform Process .http://www.copii.ro/Files/NAPCR_brochure_200744184931.pdf .
Porumb, Ecaterina. 2010. “Cum sa vorbesc despre ‘EU’într-o mare multime de ‘NOI’? formarea
identitatii la tinerii din centrele de plasament [How Can I Define “Myself ”within a Crowd of
“Ourselves ”? Identity Formation by Youngsters in Residential Care]. ”Revista de Asistenta
Sociala 2: 275 –283.
Priest, Alicia. 1990. “Romanian Care Shocks City MD: Practice of Medicine Described as
Primitive. ”The Vancouver Sun , January 19. http://search.proquest.com/docview/243530544?
accountid=15533 .
Riemann, Gerhard, and Fritz Schütze. 1991. “Trajectory as a Basic Theoretical Concept for
Analyzing Suffering and Disorderly Social Processes. ”InSocial Organization and Social
Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss , edited by Anselm Leonard Strauss and David R.
Maines, 333 –357. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Roth, Maria. 1999. “Children ’s Rights in Romania: Problems and Progress. ”Social Work in Europe
6 (3): 30 –37.
Rus, Adrian V., Sheri Parris, David Cross, Karyn Purvis, and Simona Draghici. 2011. “Reforming
the Romanian Child Welfare System: 1990 –2010. ”Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala
34: 56 –72.
Sanders, Robert, Sonia Jackson, and Nigel Thomas. 1997. “Policy Priorities in Child Protection:
Perception of Risk and Agency Strategy. ”Policy Studies 18 (2): 139 –158. doi: 10.1080/
01442879708423727 .
Stanley, Tony. 2007. “Risky Work: Child Protection Practice. ”Policy Journal of New Zealand: Te
Puna Whakaaro 30: 163 –177.1304 A. Bejenaru and S. Tucker
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015

Stativa, Ecaterina, Cormen Sahan, Rodica Mitulescu, and Alin Stanescu. 2002. “Caracteristici generale
ale copiilor din institutiile de protectie luate in studiu [Overall Features of Children in Residential
Care Institutions Considered in the Present Survey]. ”InAbuzul asupra copilului in institutiile de
protectie sociala din Romania [Child Abuse in Residential Care Institutions in Romania], edited by
Ecaterina Stativa, 22 –32. Bucuresti: Extreme Group.
Wehrmann, Kathryn Conley. 2005. “An Exploratory Study on Child Welfare Reform in Post-
revolutionary Romania. ”Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation 6 (1): 87 –99.Journal of Youth Studies 1305
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 00:10 09 February 2015