THE EVOLUTION OF THE NUMBER OF ADOPTABLE CHILDREN WITH A PUBLIC PROFILE WITHIN THE SPECIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM IN DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT REGIONS IN ROMANIA
THE EVOLUTION OF THE NUMBER OF ADOPTABLE CHILDREN WITH A PUBLIC PROFILE WITHIN THE SPECIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM IN DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT REGIONS IN ROMANIA

Summary/Abstract: Since 2016, Romania opened the path to the adoption of adoptable children in the special protection system, creating a distinct section in the National Adoption Registry (R.N.A.), called public profile. The purpose of this study is to observe the evolution of the number of children from the special protection system for which a public profile was created, the evolution of the number of adoptions from the public profile, as well as the failed matches of children adopted from the public profile, in the period 2016-2021, depending on the development regions of Romania. We used as a research method the secondary analysis of the data provided by the National Authority for the Protection of Children's Rights and Adoption. The results of the analysis show that although between 2016-2021 the North-East Region had the highest number of children in the special protection system, it also had among the lowest rates of children enrolled in the public profile out of the total number of children in the system from that region. Bucharest-Ilfov is the region with the fewest children in the protection system, but also with the fewest children with a public profile and the lowest rate of children with a public profile compared to the total number of children in the system. And yet, the data show that at the level of developing regions, there is no connection between the high number of children in the special protection system and the high number of children with a public profile. If we look at the figures reported at the county level, there are counties such as Iași, Vaslui, Dolj, Olt, Timiș, Bihor, Satu-Mare, Mureș, which have both the most children in the system and the most children with a public profile. We believe that other explanations should be sought and we recommend expanding research in the field, possibly through qualitative research to identify the criteria used by DGASPCs to create public profiles and the strategies to stimulate adoptions.

• Details
• Contents