It has been said many times that a society may be judged by how it treats its children and its elderly. It has become painfully clear that Bulgaria has been weighed and found wanting.
Sadly, it is clear that responsible voices in society are aware of the shortcomings in the care of children in orphanages and at risk, and that criticism of these shortcomings is by no means limited to outsiders. A number of recent appalling incidents have been given extensive coverage by the domestic media and few can justifiably claim not to be aware that problems in institutional child care run very deep.
Apart from the well-known controversy surrounding institutional care at the Mogilino home, recent incidents have included the fatal shooting this month of a 15-year-old at an orphanage in Trun, children at an orphanage in Plovdiv eating rodent poison, and the involvement some months ago of children being involved in the filming of questionable scenes for the Baklava film.
It is fortunate that President Georgi Purvanov has seemingly moved away from his position expressed early in March that exposure of woeful conditions at an orphanage was part of an anti-Bulgarian campaign, to his more recent interview on television in which he outlined options for constructive steps to improve care for children at risk.
Yet it cannot pass unrecorded that it is not as if the problem has not had treatment somewhat more official than exposure in media reports and in statements by politicians.
In February this year, it emerged from a statement by the National Council for Child Protection that in a number of cases, recommendations made after inspections of various institutions by the State Agency for Child Protection were not implemented. Especially in the light of the Mogilino documentary, whatever flaws it may have had, it is a question of profound importance as to why those administering state institutions for children felt justified in flouting the agency’s recommendations. Did they believe that they did not have the resources to do so, did they feel that the agency’s recommendations were not appropriate, did they hold that they were doing a good enough job already, or did they just not give a damn?
The National Council for Child Protection proposed at the time that there should be greater involvement of local authorities in institutions caring (if that is the word) for orphans and other children at risk, although it was by no means clear what this meant in concrete terms. It also sought to step up the frequency with which it reported to national authorities. Given that it is a matter of public record that, besides the disturbing incidents noted above, inadequate care appears to the norm, one wonders how frequent such reports have to be before anything is done.
There are, of course, a number of charities, often involving the expatriate community, that have stepped in to assist in whatever they can with financial and other assistance. Private corporates, also often involving foreigners but by no means limited to them, also lend a helping hand. These charities, including One Life and the Cedar Foundation, seek to ensure that the maximum possible funding gets to the children in need without the money being eroded by bureaucracy or other costs. But while the efforts by private charities and corporates are worthy of support and praise, there can be no question that they can only do so much when such a vast deficit of care is left by the state.
Adequate care for orphans and children at risk must become an immediate national priority. No further media reports of deaths, abuse or neglect are required to sound yet another warning bell. And if dismissals from the most senior to the most junior level of administration, along with extensive restructuring of the “care” system, are required to deal with this matter of national shame, the Government must proceed to do so with the greatest urgency.
