Building a Family-Friendly County

Harghita County Council in the service of families

Harghita County Council wants to concentrate financial and logistical resources for the benefit of the families living in the county. Modernising infrastructure—the roads, certain institutions, and public services—serves families indirectly. But just as with watering plants, it matters that the water does not take effect “somewhere else,” but exactly where it is needed; in the same way, family-support measures must affect the family directly.

Harghita County Council is committed to increasing the number of measures aimed at the direct support of family life and strengthening their impact. We consider it important to nurture the culture of family life—preserving and passing on its intellectual, spiritual, psychological, and moral aspects—while also representing a stabilising force in economic activity.

We initiate, encourage, and support family-welfare measures that, from the perspective of our community life, strengthen and support family formation, home creation, and child-rearing—through the strength of national existence, culture, religion, the economy, and sport.

This year, the County Council’s calls for proposals supported social inclusion programs, after-school education and upbringing programs, and also many initiatives such as the “School for Parents,” which strengthen the culture of family life.

We were pleased to note that initiative and organisational energy are growing in this field—among civil organisations, churches, and local authorities alike. As a result, demand for grants has also increased, so we consider it essential to raise the available funding amounts.

It is important that, in order to develop county-level family-welfare services, we announce a dedicated position so that the organisational capacity needed for these matters can be concentrated, enabling further concrete family-welfare measures. This job posting is active, and we welcome applications from candidates who wish to successfully and committedly implement Harghita County’s Family-Welfare Program Package.

For us, money spent on families is an investment!

The full text of the statement can be viewed at this link.

Three core principles on family policy (EU Work-Life Balance Directive)

In connection with family policy, Tibor Kolozsvári, county councillor and chair of the Harghita County Council’s family working group, considers it important to formulate three basic principles regarding the EU Work-Life Balance Directive:

1) Demographic factors are also sustainability factors

These include:

  • changes in the population age pyramid,

  • the rising share of elderly people,

  • the decreasing share of women of child-bearing age,

  • the low birth rate and low total fertility rate (TFR/TRF),

  • persistent emigration trends,

  • differing demographic behaviour among population groups,

  • the burden on social care systems,

  • within certain regions: high fertility among socially disadvantaged populations,

  • a very high share of single-parent families (7–8%).

2) Having children is a private matter, but a community benefit—therefore an investment basis

There is also a relationship between the TFR (total fertility rate) and the value system of a given group or national community. At the same time, it is thought-provoking that even within strongly pronatalist, child- and family-centred Christian regions, there are significant differences in TFR.

In the Christian cultural sphere:

  • Europe: average 1.6

  • North America: 2.2

  • Africa: 4.2

The V4 countries show broadly similar (increasing) trends in demographic indicators, but unlike Scandinavian countries, they still have low fertility rates—somewhat contradicting their pronounced pronatalist value orientation—compared with liberal/alternative countries with more nonconformist attitudes in relation to Christian morality, where birth rates are significantly higher.

Among Hungarians in Transylvania and in Hungary there are also cultural/value-preference resources that could support higher fertility; there is a substantial gap between the desired number of children and the number actually born.

Voluntary childlessness is not typical among Transylvanian Hungarians.

Two major factors contribute to increasing TFR:

  • the presence of conventional family- and child-friendly ethical norms at both individual and community levels; and

  • supportive, predictable, reliable population policy.

While childbearing is a private matter, it is also a community benefit and even the key to sustainability determined by demographic factors—therefore it is our primary duty to support it.

3) We need long-term, predictable population policies, because individual decisions react sensitively and almost immediately

In Transylvania, the combined effects of fertility, mortality, out-migration, and assimilation balance explain population decline. These factors also indicate the intervention points that are needed for many reasons. It must become a shared recognition in our national community that below-replacement fertility is a social problem requiring correction, which in economic terms is also a sustainability problem—not only for Transylvanian Hungarians, but for the country as a whole.

Influencing the demographic processes of Transylvanian Hungarians in line with our national interests is part of the broader interest complex that must also provide answers to the demographic, population-rooted problems of Transylvanian Romanians and of the whole country.

Measures and laws are needed that directly influence marriage, fertility, and emigration—through education and youth policy tools, as well as population policy and family policy instruments.

We must have a direct influence on the size and composition of the population.

From the perspective of the future and sustainability of Transylvanian Hungarians and the country, outcomes depend on demographic factors and their indirect effects—especially their impact on the economy and the sustainability of major welfare systems.

Romania must increasingly reckon with under-population, visible in:

  • shifts in the age structure,

  • a growing share of elderly people,

  • a decreasing share of women of child-bearing age,

  • low birth rates and low total fertility.

Additional factors include strong current emigration and persistent out-migration, differing demographic behaviour among population groups, pressure on social care systems, and—in certain regions—high fertility among socially disadvantaged populations.

It is a fact that demographic phenomena (birth rate, different growth rates of social groups, changes in age structure) affect the economy, and we also know the economy affects demographic trends.

The relationship between fertility and economic factors

Across historical periods, cultures, societies, and stages of demographic transition, the relationship between economic conditions and fertility indicators is not the same.

For example, it was observed that during the 1929–30 oil crisis and the global economic crisis, fertility rates fell in both the developed and developing world, because the one-earner family model shifted toward a two-earner model; women’s life-course models changed; and due to the incompatibility between family and work, fertility declined.

This broad sociological phenomenon—arguably characteristic of the human species—was already observed in Hungary in the early 20th century: agricultural production results correlated with the number of marriages.

Even within populations that are theoretically in the same cultural sphere, with similar value systems and lifestyles, economic and social conditions can trigger significant behavioural change.

In Europe in the 20th century, a negative relationship developed between income level and fertility. At the same time, experience shows that:

  • the initial stage of economic and social development tends to have a positive effect on population trends,

  • medium income levels often coincide with fertility decline,

  • but at higher income and education levels, higher fertility indicators can reappear—only if there is a strong pronatalist, child- and family-centred cultural attitude.

Because an effective population policy must be able to influence positive demographic decisions at the family level—and because childbearing is a community benefit and the key to sustainability determined by demographic factors—supporting it is our primary duty.

Media release (COFACE Families Europe) – 22 June 2018

What is left of the original proposal for an EU Work-Life Balance Directive?

Brussels, 22 June 2018 — Yesterday, the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) agreed on a General Approach on the Work-Life Balance Directive. This means the legislative process can continue and, with a vote in the European Parliament expected in July 2018, families in Europe can still hope to see the directive approved before the 2019 European elections.

COFACE Families Europe, together with more than 3,400 NGOs and trade unions from across Europe, mobilised strongly to push Member States to reach the common position agreed at the EPSCO Council.

COFACE Families Europe President Annemie Drieskens said it was an important step toward the ambitious proposal of Commissioners Thyssen and Jourová, but noted the Council text had been “emptied” of many key components.

The initial Commission proposal aimed at a fairer and more equal Europe with elements such as full non-transferability of parental leave and a high income replacement (proposed as equivalent to sick-leave pay) for all three types of leave (paternity, parental, carers’).

This directive was the first proposal following the proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, when Member States committed to developing a framework for a social Europe. For this reason, success would also be a symbolic statement that Member States are committed to keeping their word.

The standards in the Council position were described as extremely low; one could conclude Member States would agree only on a text with obligations so limited that they would need to change as little as possible in national legislation, rather than creating a progressive EU-wide framework.

COFACE published an analysis comparing the Council position with the Commission’s initial proposal, measured against the COFACE position.

Harghita County Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection

Contact:

  • Address: 530140 – Miercurea Ciuc, Libertății Square, No. 5

  • Phone: +40 266 314 711

  • Fax: +40 266 207 754

  • Email: office@dgaspchr.ro

Adult protection

More than 5,000 people and families receive monthly social assistance provided by the Harghita County Council’s subordinate institution, the County Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection. The benefits offered by the directorate provide significant financial help to people with disabilities and their families. Approximately 4,000 adults with disabilities outside the institutional system and 1,000 children receive support.

At county level, the directorate is the most important institution responsible for developing the social services network. The system includes social services that support individuals’ recovery in their familiar environment. At the same time, it focuses on developing individual abilities, thereby preventing institutionalisation.

The main social categories served by social services include:

  • elderly persons

  • persons with disabilities

  • chronically ill persons

  • alcohol and drug addicts

  • victims of domestic violence

  • victims of human trafficking

  • young people leaving the child protection system

The institution’s long-term goal is to create a social care system that is coherent, accessible, and sustainable, and through the network’s services to ensure that every resident of the county can live with dignity.

As the first step in creating the system, the institution’s reorganisation projects can be mentioned, as well as cooperation projects with foundations and associations active in the social field. We believe the coming years will be decisive in this process, and we invite you to participate by following the updates we publish here.

Number of children in the system (31 December 2010)

  • Family placement: 362

    • with relatives: 287

    • with others: 75

  • Placement with professional foster parents: 426

  • Family-type placement centres: 332

  • Residential-type placement centres: 242

    • traditional centre (Vărghiș/Várhegy): 24

    • centres for children with disabilities: 218

      • Ocland: 82

      • Bilbor: 34

      • Saint Anne – Miercurea Ciuc: 102

  • Centres for children with multiple disabilities: 68

    • Cristuru Secuiesc: 38

    • Toplița: 30

  • Guardianship: 34

  • Day centres: 51

  • Orientation and supervision centre supporting children’s social integration – Miercurea Ciuc: 7

  • Emergency placement: 4

  • Placement centres run by civil organisations: 42