Abstract
The social work profession was revived in Ro-

mania in 1994, when the first generation of univer-
sity graduates went to the field. However, only in
2011, when the Law no. 292 of Social Work was is-
sued, the framework for the activity of social work-
ers in the rural communities was settled. Although
the legislation provided a proper context for the
unfolding of a meaningful social work in rural set-
tings, the labor market was far from being able to
absorb the great number of needed professionals.
On the one hand, the paper intends to present the
barriers that marked the beginning of social work
in the Romanian rural space. On the other hand,
the paper briefly describes the particularities and
the opportunities for social work in the rural areas.
Also, through the voice of professionals, the main
social problems in the countryside are exposed
and some possible interventions aiming at the im-
provement of the life conditions among the villag-
ers are proposed. The study is based on 43 quali-
tative interviews carried out in 2016-2020 with pro-
fessionals employed as social services workers by
commune or village local councils. The collected
data were explored and interpreted using thematic
analysis. One conclusion is that the field is dynam-
ic and in need of substantial improvement.

Keywords: social work, qualitative study, Ro-
mania, rural communities.

SOCIAL WORK IN ROMANIAN
RURAL COMMUNITIES:
AN INSIDE PERSPECTIVE
FROM A QUALITATIVE STUDY

Cristina FALUDI
Nicoleta NEAMȚU

Cristina FALUDI
Assistant professor, Ph.D., M.S.W., B.S.W., Social Work
Department, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work,
Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Tel.: 004-0264-424.674
E-mail: cristina.faludi@ubbcluj.ro

Nicoleta NEAMȚU
Associate professor, Ph.D., M.S.W., B.S.W., Social Work
Department, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work,
Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Tel.: 004-0264-424.674
E-mail: nicoleta.neamtu@ubbcluj.ro

DOI: 10.24193/tras.61E.2
Published First Online: 10/28/2020

Transylvanian Review
of Administrative Sciences,
No. 61 E/2020, pp. 25-45

1. Background

1.1. Romanian rural areas and their particularities
In Romania, 46.3% of the population is living in rural areas (Romanian Statistical

Yearbook, 2018). However, the rural communities are far behind the urban ones in
terms of economic and social development. Constantly, the rural areas have faced
multiple and interconnected challenges in the fields of education, health, social in-
clusion, basic infrastructure, diversification of employment, outward migration, and
population ageing (European Commission [EC], 2016).

Romania has 2,861 communes including 12,957 villages. The majority of the com-
munes and villages face the same challenges: they have a small size, have a low level
of administrative authority, maintain weak cooperation across counties and are not
capable of building projects to integrate rural and urban communities. Rural areas
are heterogeneous, with great differences between villages located in the proximity
of big urban areas and remote villages and between communes far from and close
to European roads. The majority of communes rely heavily on central funding due
to low levels of economic development. Only for 135 communes the local revenues
represented more than 50% of the budget (EC, 2016).

Agriculture, the prevailing occupation in rural areas, represents 29% of total em-
ployment in Romania, but contributes with only 5% to the GDP. The rural workforce
is predominantly involved in subsistence or semi-subsistence agriculture, involving
informal or non-remunerated family work. On long term, employment in subsistence
agriculture has been associated with low productivity and poverty (Chirică and Teșliuc,
1999; EC, 2016). The prevalence of seasonal farming activities is maintaining the phe-
nomenon of underemployment (Jigău et al., 2002, p. 16). Consequently, 55% of rural
residents were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, compared to 28% of city resi-
dents (EC, 2016).

In Romania, the population employed in agriculture is ageing1. In 2011, the skilled
workforce in agriculture consisted of 54.5% people aged 55 years and older, and only
30.6% were young people aged 15-24 years.

The percentage of young people not involved in employment, education or train-
ing, and of those dropping out of school is high among the rural population. Most of
the secondary and higher education institutions are situated in urban areas, hamper-
ing the access of pupils from the rural areas because of distance, time and financial
costs issues. In 2013, only 5% of the rural young people aged 14-24 graduated from
high school compared with 20% of their urban counterparts (EC, 2016).

Pupils from rural areas have higher enrolment rates in vocational education and
training (VET) compared to those from urban areas. On the one hand, the scarcity of
specialized agricultural high schools limits the level of skills in the sector (EC, 2016).

1 According to the National Strategic Framework for the Sustainable Development of the Agro-food
Sector and the Rural Space 2014-2020.

On the other hand, there is a conflict between the new opportunities to get employed
in industry versus the opportunity to use the vocational skills in the agricultural
sector. Thus, a significant part of the young force work in rural areas do not want to
return to their own farms and use their acquired skills, deciding rather on getting a
job and a salary, and this mentality is unlikely to disappear in the near future (Jigău et
al., 2002, p. 18). The rural areas have provided few attractive employment alternatives
to agriculture so far (Chirică and Teșliuc, 1999).

In 2014, 55.3% of children from families entitled to child rearing benefit or back-
to-work bonus lived in rural areas. Furthermore, over 80% of children from families
which qualified to benefit from family allowance were located in rural areas (Minis-
try of Labor, Family, Social Protection and Elderly, 2014).

In rural areas there is limited access to healthcare due to cost, distance or wait-
ing times. In 2014, health insurance coverage was lower in rural areas compared to
urban areas (76% versus 95%, respectively). There still exist large health inequalities
between rural and urban areas in terms of infant mortality rate, life expectancy and
vaccination rates for children (EC, 2016).

1.2. Rural social work as described in the literature
The basic aim of social workers is to assist, support and enable those affected by

poverty, disadvantages and who suffer from the negative effects of social inequalities.
They work effectively in a variety of multi-disciplinary contexts and for them, the
core professional values, including human rights and social justice, are more import-
ant than organizational structures. The functions of social work include social inte-
gration and dealing with failures of policy in the areas of health, education or crime
(Asquith, Clark and Waterhouse, 2005).

During the last three decades, there has been an active debate in the literature
about the specific characteristics of rural social work (RSW). There is still not a widely
accepted definition of RSW; however, there is a consensus that RSW is not a distinct
field of practice (Daley, 2010); instead, it ‘encompasses a blended type of interven-
tion’, as rurality implies a blended type of community (Mellow, 2005). RSW is based
on ‘community-oriented practice’ (Riebschleger, 2007). At the same time, when ad-
dressing problems at all levels of human systems – individuals, families and groups,
organizations and the community itself – RSW implements ‘a generalist model of
practice’, embedded in the ‘person-in-environment perspective’ (Daley, 2010).

In the rural settings, social workers face a severe scarcity of human and financial
resources (Turbett, 2004). Rural poverty is described by social workers as ‘common
and extreme’ (Miller and Conway, 2002 apud Riebschleger, 2007). ‘Social exclusion,
ill health and limited labor market opportunities’ are common issues for all European
countries with a large proportion of population living in rural areas. ‘The activity of
the rural social workers is made more difficult’ by the geographical distance of the
remote villages from the big cities, by the weak development of the means of access

and communication in some villages (Asquith, Clark and Waterhouse, 2005), and by
the lack of social services for the most vulnerable categories of inhabitants.

There are two valuable assets which supplement the scarcity of social services in
rural areas. Firstly, when the social worker is a resident of the local community, he/
she is ‘known, trusted by the village, contactable, and possibly the only social welfare
personnel the citizens usually see’ (Halloran and Calderón, 2005, p. 5). Secondly, in a
village, those in need still rely on relatives or neighbors. However, the quality of help
these two types of resources provide could be jeopardized by the fact that the infor-
mal providers, mostly women, are not adequately protected, resourced and supported
(Pillinger, 2001), and by the fact that, as a community member, the social worker is
exposed to dual relations and faces difficulties to maintain confidentiality (Daley and
Hickman, 2011).

Regarding Romania, many communes have not organized yet their social work
compartments, the specialized structures which are supposed to manage and provide
the social work benefits and the social services to the local rural communities are un-
der the authority of public administration (Teșliuc, Grigoraș and Stănculescu, 2015).
Furthermore, in a large number of communes, where a social work department exists,
it is not accredited as a public provider of social services and it does not have a valid
license for the social services offered. One of the criteria to receive accreditation as
a social service provider is to prove the employment of at least one qualified social
worker, who graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in social work or an employee with
graduate studies in social services management (Law no. 197/2012 regarding Quality
Assurance in the Domain of Social Services). The main priority of all rural communi-
ties from Romania is to employ a professional social worker, but in many cases they
employ only a civil servant with social work duties or a social caretaker, and not a
qualified social worker.

1.3. Legal and organizational context of rural social work in Romania
The elimination of social work during the totalitarian regime period and the reviv-

al of this field only after the change of regime in 1989, gives social work the character
of a relatively young profession in the democratic Romania (Lazăr, 2015).

The framework legislation for the actual social work system in Romania is provid-
ed mainly by the Social Work Law no. 292/2011 and by the O.G. no. 68/2003 regarding
Social Services, which include the framework of the activity of social workers in the
rural communities and the organization and functioning of different types of social
services all over the country. These regulations include a requirement for local public
administration to provide social work public services (SWPS). Until now, the villages’
Local Councils, which work under the authority of the local public administration,
were not able to absorb the great number of professionals much needed in the field of
social work. Even though there were some national programs, funded by the central
government, to encourage the development of SWPS in rural areas with qualified
social workers, like the Program of National Interest called ‘Capacity Development of

SWPS from Administrative Territorial Units’, started in 2018, very few rural commu-
nities have applied for funding to use these opportunities. This program is covering
the salary payment for a qualified social worker employed by the public administra-
tion in the rural communities until 2021 (as part of the minimum standard to offer
community social work services). In Romania, social work is included as part of the
minimum package of public services needed and it is required to be delivered at each
administrative-territorial level/unit (ATU), in both urban and rural areas.

1.4. The objectives of the paper
The paper is based on a qualitative research study which had three main objec-

tives – scientific, practical and educational – intertwined and achieved at the same
time: (i) to identify the specific characteristics of the rural social work as reported
by the professionals in the field; (ii) to build an extended database about the profile
of the social workers employed in rural areas and about the socio-medical problems
and needs of the most disadvantaged categories of the population; (iii) to inform ed-
ucational staff about the process of improving the quality of education for the Mas-
ter’s students, to be able to address better the social problems and needs from the
Romanian rural areas.

Based on the collected data, the paper explores the profile of the social services
workers employed by rural local councils, and evaluates the most relevant aspects
related to their main responsibilities, social problems of the rural localities they serve,
the missing (public or private) social services, how the social worker is perceived by
the rural community, and main opportunities and challenges of their job.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study design
This paper is based on a qualitative methodological design. The research was part

of the evaluation working plan of Master’s students enrolled in the Master’s pro-
gram ‘Management of Social Services’ of the Faculty of Sociology and Social Work
at ‘Babeș-Bolyai’ University, who have enrolled in the elective course ‘Development
of communities and of rural social work’. The data were collected between 2016 and
2020. The data was collected with a face-to-face interview using a semi-structured
interview guide.

The instrument for collecting data comprised open questions, covering 20 topics,
among which the following are relevant for this article: main problems of the local
community and the causes which generate and maintain them; the unmet needs of
the social beneficiaries and of the people residing in the rural community; perceptions
of the legislation used in everyday practice and suggestions for improvement; main
types of services and social benefits offered to the beneficiaries; depiction of a regu-
lar working day of the social worker; how the professional is dealing with the large
amount of work; the kind of help and resources the social workers need to improve

the quality of their work; how the social worker is perceived by the community;
which are the opportunities and challenges in the social work field in the rural areas.

The interview guide ended with a section aiming to capture the profile of the
study participant. It included questions about: gender, age, place of residence and
if the employee resided in the community in which he/she worked, highest level of
education, specialization in social work, number of years of work in the field of social
work, position at the institution, and who supervised his/her work.

2.2. Participants and data collection
The research focused on countryside social work, including social services work-

ers employed by the local councils of the rural communities. The rural ATUs were
selected based on the principle of accessibility and, in most of the cases, reflected
the home region of the Master’s students who conducted the interviews. During the
research study, 43 interviews with practitioners providing social work in the coun-
tryside were performed. The study covered 5 development regions of the country and
included 13 Romanian counties.

2.3. Ethical considerations
The students who served as interviewers followed the same procedure. First, they

identified a particular rural community, where they conducted one interview with
the person employed as social worker. After that, the students established an agree-
ment with the local commune/village hall, through which the mayor allowed them
access to the commune hall and agreed to interview the social worker about his/her
work in that community.

Informed written consent was obtained from each social worker before the be-
ginning of the interview. The document included details about the interviewer, the
purpose of research, the rules of the interview, a short presentation of the types of
questions from the interview guide, the request to record the interview, and the com-
mitment to respect the anonymity of the interviewed person.

Since it is known that, in most cases, there is only one social worker employed by
the local council of a rural community, knowing the name of the commune would
allow identification of the social services worker. In order to respect the anonymity of
the study participants, the name of the commune was not recorded. Instead, only some
basic socio-demographic information about the involved communes were collected.

Each interview lasted between 15 and 50 minutes and was digitally recorded. The
study participants were informed that the recording will be destroyed after the tran-
scription of the interview and that the content of the recording will be used only for
the evaluation project and to achieve the specified research objectives.

2.4. Data analysis
The technique of thematic analysis was used for data analysis and the interpreta-

tion of results. The thematic units which guided the data analysis were based on the

interview guide, as follows: (a) the socio-demographic and professional profile of em-
ployees in rural social work; (b) main activities and responsibilities of social workers
in rural communities; (c) a diagnosis of the social problems and unmet needs in the
rural areas; (d) an inventory of missing social services and forms of interventions; (e)
opportunities and challenges of social work in the rural areas.

3. Results

3.1. A short description of the rural communities included in the research
Data from Table 1 (see the Appendix) present the communes included in the study

by development region and by county. The North-West development region was the
best represented region, by including 5 counties (BN – Bistrița-Năsăud, CJ – Cluj,
MM – Maramureș, SM – Satu Mare, SJ – Sălaj) and 28 communes, most of them from
Cluj and Sălaj counties (16, and 5, respectively). The North-East and Center develop-
ment regions included 3 counties each (BT – Botoșani, NT – Neamț, SV – Suceava,
and AB – Alba, MS – Mureș, SB – Sibiu, respectively), and a total of 10 communes.
The West and South-West development regions included one county each (HD –
Hunedoara and GJ – Gorj, respectively), with 3 communes. Altogether, a total of 42
communes were included in the research study. In one of the communes from Cluj
county, two social workers were interviewed. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the
13 counties included in the research study on the map of Romania.

Figure 1: Romanian counties included in the research study

Table 1 (see the Annex) also provides information about four socio-demographic
indicators of the studied rural communities2, namely: the SIRUTA3 unit for each com-
mune; the total size of population4; the percentage of the Roma population5; and the
marginalization rate6. The investigated communes varied with regard to the select-
ed indicators. Regarding the population size, the communes from Cluj county were
the most heterogeneous, including two extreme cases: a very small village (1,412
inhabitants) with a high percentage of Roma population (18.34%), but with a null
marginalization rate7, and an extremely large and economically developed commune
(22,813 inhabitants, of whom 4.89% are Roma), in the proximity of a big city.8 In the
North-East region, the commune from Neamț county, although with a population
higher than 2,000 inhabitants, due to higher fertility rates, is disadvantaged due to its
spatial isolation9, as it is located more than 25-30 km from the nearest cities. Seven
communes (from SM, SJ, SV, AB and MS counties) had marginalization rates above
the national level. Three communes from CJ county recorded high percentages of
Roma (over 15%), but were not marginalized. Only in two communes with more than
2,000 inhabitants (from SM and SJ counties), the high percentage of Roma was accom-
panied by a high marginalization rate.

3.2. The socio-demographic and professional profile
of employees in rural social work

The professional profile of the practitioners providing social work in the coun-
tryside is quite diverse, and therefore the reference will be made to employees of the
social services from the local council, in order to include all types of framing related
to their position/ occupation within the institution.

In Romania, to become social worker a person must receive a Bachelor’s degree
in social work, certified by an accredited university, specialized in the field of social

2 These four indicators are selected and defined according to The Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas
and of Local Human Development in Romania, 2016.

3 SIRUTA represents the unit attributed to each commune, to indicate the level of local human devel-
opment for each commune.

4 The small communes – with less than 2,000 inhabitants – are the most disadvantaged with regard to
the economic, human and social development (Teșliuc, Grigoraș and Stănculescu, 2015).

5 A rural community is called a Roma community if more than 20% of the population identify them-
selves as Roma. If the percentage varies between 0.01 and 19.99 then there is a mixed community.
Where the percentage is 0%, the rural community is considered non-Roma.

6 The marginalization rate at the national level is 6.2, according to the data from the 2011 Census.
7 A rural community with a high percentage of Roma people or a Roma community are not always

disadvantaged or marginalized communities, even though the two characteristics are frequently as-
sociated (Teșliuc, Grigoraș and Stănculescu, 2015).

8 Mihalache (2019) explained that this type of rural community has known a recent accelerated so-
cio-economic development and benefited from an important flux of migration from the urban area to
the rural area.

9 A commune is considered spatially isolated from the administrative perspective when the distance
from the nearest city is larger than 25 km (Stan et al., 2015).

work. The academic studies in social work can be of long duration/ form (4 years)
or of short duration/ form (3 years) (art.1, para. (2), Law no. 466/2004 Regarding the
Status of Social Worker).

Regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, 41 out of 43
were women, and 75% of them were up to 45 years old (the youngest was 27 years
old and the oldest was 63 years old). Among the interviewed professionals, 31 out of
the 37 who originated from rural areas resided within the commune in which they
worked. In the study population, the length of service had an average of 10 years,
with 75% of them having up to 15 years of experience in social services delivery in
rural areas (with a minimum experience of 9 months and a maximum of 24 years).

Figure 2 describes the level of education of the study participants. The most com-
mon level of education among the social workers in the rural ATUs included in the
research study was: Bachelor’s degree’ (65%), followed by a Master’s degree’ (28%).
Only a minority of them had only a high school or post-high school diploma (about
5%). Having postgraduate training was also a rarity among participants.

High School or
Post-High School

Graduates; 4.7

Bachelor’s Degree;
65.1

Master’s Degree;
27.9

Postgraduate
Training; 2.3

Figure 2: The distribution of level of education (%) among study participants

Source: Generated by the authors

Regarding the field of undergraduate and graduate studies, Table 2 shows that the
majority of respondents had a graduate diploma in the field of Social Work (44.3%)
and the combination of a Bachelor’s degree with Master’s degree either in the same
field of Social Work or Social Work combined with Theology (14%).

It is important to mention that, with only two exceptions (those with high school
diplomas), the fields of Bachelor’s and of Master’s degrees of the study respondents
were more or less related to social work: Public Administration, Psychology, Eco-
nomics or Law, in different combinations, as indicated by the distribution presented
in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of the field of undergraduate and graduate studies for the study participants

Field of undergraduate and graduate studies N %
Social Work/ Theology-Social Work 18+1 44.3
Psychology 2 4.7
Public Administration 4 9.3
Law 1 2.3
Economics 2 4.7
Social Work + MS in Social Work 4 9.3
Social Work/ Social Work-Theology + MS in Theology 1+1 4.7
Social Work + MS in Psychology 1 2.3
Social Work + MS in Public Administration 1 2.3
Social Work + MS in European Studies 1 2.3
Social Work & Social Pedagogy + MS in Law 1 2.3
Psychology + MS in Social Work 1 2.3
Public Administration + MS in Public Administration 1 2.3
Social Work + Postgraduate training in Public Administration 1 2.3
Medical High School 1 2.3
Generalist High School 1 2.3
Total 43 100

Source: Generated by the authors

Romania is not unique with regard to the diversity of educational backgrounds
of those employed in social work. For instance, among those who were identified as
social workers in USA in 2015, only 25% mentioned Social Work as their major field
of study, followed by those who had Psychology (18%), and Sociology (8%) as their
fields of study.

In the Social Work compartment of the Local Council from the rural ATU, the re-
spondents held different positions and titles for their job, as illustrated in Figure 3. Al-
most half of the participants (46.5%) declared they were employed as social workers,
and almost a third (30.2%) that they were employed as civil servants with social work
duties. The civil servants specialized in social work represented a minority among the
participants, with a percentage of 16.3%. The proportions of those employed as social
care workers (with a medium level of study, and who completed a short training
course in the social-work or socio-medical field) or manager of social services were
very small.

Social worker; 46.5

Civil servant
specialized in social

work; 16.3

Civil servant with
social work duties;

30.2

Manager of social
services; 2.3

Social carer; 4.7

Figure 3: Distribution of occupation/ title of the job/ position held in the local council
of the commune for the study participants

Source: Generated by the authors

3.3. Main activities and responsibilities of social workers
in rural communities

Speaking about their professional life, the social services workers emphasized that
their main activities and duties concern the primary counseling, providing social ben-
efits and office activities, with limited opportunities for field work.

‘The social work service within our local council offers only primary ser-
vices, namely primary counseling and guidance for specialized counseling when
appropriate. Our commune does not offer accredited social services to the
community, but only social benefits (I5, 3,065 inhabitants, Cluj).’

They complained that their responsibilities involved a multitude of tasks, and the
lack of enough human resources in the social work department makes these duties
burdensome.

‘I would like to have someone to coordinate my work. Sometimes I feel
powerless with a thousand problems. I would need to know the laws better,
to be able to help more people (who) are so powerless and ignorant. ... It is not
enough to just give a person a social aid or a bag of food from the European
Union. There is so much more to do: dependent people due to chronic diseases
would need support; then the alcohol addicts for whom we could do some-
thing; Roma community; isolated elderly ... These are just some of the catego-
ries that come to my mind’ (I15, 1,846 inhabitants, Sălaj).

3.4. A diagnosis of the social problems and unmet needs in the rural areas
The interviewed local social services employees identified several structural fac-

tors that negatively affect the wellbeing of rural inhabitants. Poverty acts both as a

cause and as an effect of the precarious situation faced by the villagers. In the disad-
vantaged families, children’s quality of life is most affected.

‘Poverty is one of the causes of rural problems… We have families with a
very poor financial situation, parents who work day to day to support their
family. In the homes of these families I saw children who didn’t know what
a toy was. They were playing with the tins received from the aids’ (I18, 1,428
inhabitants, Alba).

The limited financial resources of the local authorities and the lack of entrepre-
neurial initiatives at the community level hamper the opportunities for career de-
velopment of the workforce and for the connection of the community with external
resources.

‘In the community, it is necessary to create jobs for the villagers and to
initiate actions regarding the insufficient means of travel to the city’ (I5, 3,065
inhabitants, Cluj).

The vulnerable categories of rural inhabitants more frequently mentioned during
the interviews were – apart from the children from poor families and the unemployed
young people – the dependent elderly, the marginalized Roma communities, and the
chronically ill adults, including those addicted to alcohol.

‘We have two aged villages, most of the inhabitants need assistance and
care, which is quite complicated, because there are not many people to do this
work’ (I16, 2,321 inhabitants, Cluj).

‘It is a Roma community (at the edge of one village of the commune) ...
where six families live with their children. The living conditions are difficult,
without electricity, without running water, and none of the adults is employed.
Unfortunately, most of them are also abusing alcohol’ (I15, 1,846 inhabitants,
Sălaj).

3.5. An inventory of missing social services and forms of interventions
The type of individual and family support and services which are not available

in the rural communities, included: child day-care, services for teenage pregnancy,
support and home-based services for senior citizens, assistance required to preserve,
and where possible, to restore the family unit, meet the needs of adults affected by a
disability or a chronic illness or develop the proper social functioning of rural inhab-
itants.

‘People with disabilities would need a community center for recovery ...
There is a need for a support group for those with serious illnesses, moved’ (in
the commune) (I3, 22,813 inhabitants, Cluj).

‘There is no day center in the community for children from vulnerable
families or for the elderly and other disadvantaged categories’ (I5, 3,065 in-
habitants, Cluj).

‘At the local level we do not have social services. The most needed, in my
opinion, is the establishment of a home care service for the elderly’ (I6, 2,021
inhabitants, Cluj).

3.6. The perceptions of the social worker in the rural communities
Given that academic social work training in Romania was reinvented after 1990,

and the first framework law regarding the social work system was promulgated in
Romania in 2001, it was not a surprise to find out that the professional competencies
of social workers are not clearly understood by the general population.

‘In general, people’s mentality about social work was that they only deal
with Roma people or with those who must benefit from social assistance ... who
have poor conditions. But it is not so, it benefits absolutely all categories of
people, from the poor to the super rich’ (I3, 22,813 inhabitants, Cluj).

For multiple reasons the professional identity of social workers among the inhab-
itants of villages and even among their colleagues is still not clearly outlined and it
does not reflect the truth about the profession.

‘The mentality towards the job of social worker is somewhere unreal, be-
cause it is considered unimportant, although it may be more important than
many activities, many jobs ... And the most serious problems can be solved by
social work’ (I14, 1,197 inhabitants, Alba).

Although there are still misunderstandings about the complexity of social work
in the rural communities, the other professionals from the local authority, who can
observe the number and the variety of cases, appreciate the huge amount of work
involved in the delivery of social assistance.

‘Unfortunately, in our country the profession of social worker is not promot-
ed and appreciated at its true value’ (I8, 2,857 inhabitants, Maramureș).

‘Many (colleagues) tell me that they can’t do what I do here, that you do a
lot’ (I4, 7,028 inhabitants, Sibiu).

3.7. Challenges and opportunities of social work in the rural areas
The main challenges at their workplace are: too many responsibilities, bureaucra-

cy, risk of getting ill by working face to face with sick people, the poor collaboration
with the local or regional public authorities, and the lack of a professional team.

‘There is ... even the risk of illness, because (the social worker) comes into
contact with all sorts of people who ... (live in) poverty ...; where there is pov-
erty, there are also diseases’ (I14, 1,197 inhabitants, Alba).

A great challenge is the caseload or the quantity of work. The study participants
mentioned the burden of paperwork, heavy caseloads, and the hardship of working
with difficult clients.

‘The beneficiaries are people without an elementary education, and some-
times there are communication barriers and you have to explain them many
times until they understand something .... Most of the social assistance appli-
cants are always dissatisfied ... and consider that they are given less than
what they think they deserve ... I had situations when I was verbally abused
by some social beneficiaries’ (I17, 4,451 inhabitants, Neamț).

Social work is a demanding profession that is usually generating a lot of stress.
Working within statutory institutions implies frequent changes of social politics and
practices and severe lack of resources. There is a high level of dissatisfaction due to
the combination of the emotional wear involved in providing social assistance and
the low level of remuneration.

‘There are social workers who face stress and exhaustion due to the large
number of cases allocated and the insufficiency of the staf’ (I8, 2,857 inhabi-
tants, Maramureș).

‘The legislation does not protect the social worker on the labor market and
does not guarantee quality services for the disadvantaged categories. We
face many problems, especially regarding remuneration ... but I better not
comment about it’ (I18, 1,428 inhabitants, Alba).

4. Discussions

4.1. Lessons learned about the contemporary social work in rural areas
Having its function associated with the traditional female nurturing role, similar

with nursing and teaching, social work is practiced mostly by women, as also indicat-
ed by this study and by another recent report on the social work workforce in the US
(Salsberg et al., 2017). However, social work is not a female-dominated profession, as
women prevail only numerically. Women are the foot soldiers, while the power and
control positions in social work are still held by men (O’Neill, 1994, and Rauch, 1975
apud McPhail, 2004).

Most of the recent studies have showed that the employees in rural social work
did not hold a ‘solid specialized background’ and have followed different training
paths (Csesznek and Șimon, 2019, p. 23). Although the number of social work gradu-
ates in Romania is increasing every year, there is still a great need for professionals
in the rural areas.

Despite its noble aims, there is not too much recognition of the value of the social
worker’s profession among the beneficiaries and also among other professionals. It
is still perceived as a profession with a low prestige and small income, at the local,
regional, national and international level (Asquith, Clark and Waterhouse, 2005). The
villagers are inclined to appreciate the social workers based on the kind of help re-
ceived or problems solved, rather than on their degrees, years of education or areas of
specialization (Davenport and Davenport, 1995).

Regarding the problems present in rural communities, similarly to the findings
from another recent study carried out in the underprivileged communities of Brașov
county (Bódi, 2019), the major areas of unmet needs in the rural communities men-
tioned by our study participants were:

1. Basic material needs: problems associated with substandard housing and over-
crowed housing (perceived as having a greater occurrence among Roma low-in-
come groups), food and nutrition, and inadequate public transportation for the
inhabitants to travel to the urban areas.

2. Health-related needs: problems with general health care, deficit of qualified med-
ical and social care personnel, need for home health care and health education,
and alcoholism problems.

3. Economic security: dramatic changes in employment opportunities, changes in
the labor force and in the structure of population (increasing rates of older peo-
ple), lack of suitable jobs, problems due to unemployment, severe poverty and
risks of social exclusion for some groups of rural inhabitants.

Similar to a recent report from Hungary (Halloran and Calderón, 2005), in Romania,
despite a major policy change which empowers local authorities, the essential social
services, such as home-based care, child welfare and family support, are still concen-
trated in the county seat municipality and, therefore, difficult to access by people
residing in remote rural areas. Csesznek and Șimon (2019) also have shown that the
diversity of rural vulnerable groups requires the development of good quality and
accessible services, able to respond efficiently to their complex and diverse social
problems.

Primary and community social work services, which are using the generalist social
work methods and strategies of intervention, are dominant in Romanian rural areas
while the specialized social interventions provided by professionals are not available
in the majority of the communes. Social workers employed by the local public ad-
ministration in communes and villages are usually in the situation of doing all things
for all people from that community. The main types of missing professional social
services are the following: residential centers for children, adults with disabilities and
older people, services for personal social care, recovery and rehabilitation services,
social integration and reintegration services, and home-based social services. The in-
tegration of social services with health, educational, and occupational services must
be improved at the level of the rural administrative units.

The data generated by the present research study about the human resources in
the social work field and about the socio-medical problems and needs at the coun-
tryside may enable reciprocal interactions and cooperation in order to increase the
potential of the local resources to better serve the most disadvantaged categories of
beneficiaries.

4.2. Suggestions for improvement of rural social work in Romania
This section will provide suggestions for improvement, motivated by this paper

and also by the literature in the field. An important observation is that the study has
provided a better picture of the main social problems and unmet needs of the rural
communities from the perspective of the social services workers employed by local
councils. This is a bottom-up approach that may inform the social policy makers and
the political decision-makers when future legislation regarding the field of social pro-
tection and the settlement of social services will be under consideration. The changes
they would implement to their profession to make their job as social workers more
efficient are related mainly to legislation and to the direction of ‘creating and consol-
idating the work teams’ (Csesznek and Șimon, 2019, p. 23).

One of the major legislative changes which can help the social workers become
more efficient in their work is to provide standards for maximum active caseloads,
and workloads in general, that could be allocated per social worker either weekly or
monthly, based on realistic professional judgements. Clear procedures and protocols
for different professionals to cooperate within multidisciplinary teams, in order to
implement effective case management for children and families, adults with disabil-
ities, older people and homeless persons, are also much needed and will have the
potential to significantly improve the results of social interventions.

Practicing social work is ‘very complex and very demanding’ (Csesznek and
Șimon, 2019, p. 23). A high level of stress is often encountered in the activity of a
social worker, which is negatively affecting the degree of professional satisfaction.
Staff shortages and lack of adequate supervision (Kim and Stoner, 2008) increase the
level of professional stress. Stress management is important in order to avoid the
professional exhaustion (Neamțu and Huzum, 2018). Therefore, there is a great need
‘of various forms of support from within the work setting, especially mutual group
support, accompanied by individual differences linked to good self-esteem, personal
hardiness and resilience’ to increase the satisfaction social workers feel about their
work (Collins, 2008, p. 1173).

5. Conclusions

The paper provides a useful addition to the already existing data from the
Romanian literature regarding the profile of the social workers and the specific char-
acteristics of social work in rural areas.

First of all, our research has implications for practice. Data from the interviews
has emphasized the need for qualified social workers in rural areas, the need for
stress management skills, burnout prevention and self-care activities for personnel,
the need for professional supervision in social work and the need for supplementary
professionals in social work in each commune.

Secondly, our research has implications for social policies. A new public policy
designed to introduce required professional and managerial supervision in social ser-
vices in all ATUs and the development of SWPS is clearly needed. The effects of profes-

sional supervision and support, received by social workers from their line-managers
and peer colleagues, will be a well-worth investment for the organization/employer.
An emergency investment in the social work national system from Romania must in-
clude professional supervision done by qualified and experienced social workers, and
the supervision function of social services management being made a requirement in
all social work settings, from both the public and private sector. These solutions will
improve the quality of work life for qualified social workers, will prevent burnout
and turnover of the professional staff, will increase the quality of services, and will
raise the effectiveness of the public institutions and organizations which provide so-
cial services. Without supportive and educational functions of supervision applied to
social work practice, the administrative supervision, done by line managers who are
not social work professionals, is not enough and it is even inadequate in a profession
where the workers must use their personal self as a tool for needs assessment and
interventions in the social work processes.

Thirdly, we conducted a small research study, not based on a probabilistic sample,
and of an exploratory nature. However, our results indicate the need to extend the
research in the field. Further and deeper investigations are needed about: job analysis
and job design, work satisfaction, performance evaluation of social workers and civil
servants, and risk of burnout for professional staff in rural social work.

Romanian legislation also needs another major change that will be of help for
professional social services, to make illegal the employment of non-professionals and
paraprofessionals in civil servant jobs which require social work duties. If this mea-
sure is not taken immediately the social work system will function even worse, and
it will be a waste of valuable human and financial resources, a lose-lose situation for
the clients of social services, for the providers of SWPS, and for the Romanian society
at large.

We recommend the design of new social policies, to satisfy the real social needs
identified in the local rural communities by the social workers during their field
work, together with the design and development of social services which can offer
innovative responses to the unmet needs found in different communes and villages,
as a result of participation of services users in the decision making processes.

In the process of planning and implementing social services it is necessary to ac-
quire a better understanding of population’s needs, adding to the socio-economic
indicators the voices of citizens regarding to what they wish. Local networking and
co-operation are indispensable in order to deliver high quality and accessible ser-
vices, based on an integrated approach including health, housing, employment, social
services and community (Halloran and Calderón, 2005).

The major professional organizations in the social work field, like the National
College of Social Workers from Romania, together with the Ministry of Labor and
Social Protection and with the accredited universities, specialized in the field of social
work, which train the force work of the future, are responsible for the development
and improvement of the social work practice in rural communities.

References:

1. Asquith, S., Clark, C. and Waterhouse, L., ‘The Role of the Social Worker in the 21st Centu-
ry – A Literature Review’, Scottish Executive: Edinburgh, 2005.

2. Bódi, D.C., ‘Social Needs and Problems in the Rural Area of Brașov County, Romania. The
Social Workers’ Perspective on Causes and Solutions’, 2019, Social Work Review, vol. XVIII,
no. 3, pp. 19-28.

3. Chirică, C. and Teșliuc, E.D. (coord.), ‘From Rural Poverty to Rural Development’, World
Bank, National Commission for Statistics, 1999.

4. Collins, S., ‘Statutory Social Workers: Stress, Job Satisfaction, Coping, Social Support and
Individual Differences’, 2008, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38, pp. 1173-1193.

5. Csesznek, C. and Șimon, M., ‘The Profile of Social Services Workers Employed by the Lo-
cal Councils and Their Perception of the Job of a Social Worker: An Exploratory Research
in Brașov County’, 2019, Social Work Review, vol. XVIII, no. 4, pp. 23-35.

6. Daley, M.R. and Hickman, S., ‘Dual Relations and Beyond: Understanding and Addressing
Ethical Challenges for Rural Social Work’, 2011, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics,
vol. 8, no. 1, [Online] available at http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/spr11/spr11daley
hickman.pdf, accessed on May 5, 2020.

7. Daley, M.R., ‘A Conceptual Model for Rural Social Work’, 2010, Contemporary Rural Social
Work, vol. 2, pp. 1-7.

8. Davenport, J.A. and Davenport, J., ‘Rural Social Work Overview’, in Edwards, R.L. and
Hopps J.G. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Work, Washington, D.C.: National Association of
Social Workers, 1995, pp. 2076-2085.

9. Halloran, J. and Calderón, K.V., ‘Basic Social Services in Rural Settlements – Village and
Remote Homestead Community Care-Giving, Synthesis Report’, 2005, Peer Review in the
Field of Social Inclusion Policies, Hungary, [Online] available at http://pdc.ceu.hu/archi
ve/00004294/01/1138966400_93475.pdf, accessed on May 13, 2020.

10. Jigău, M. (coord.), Anghel, F., Balica, M., Butucă, A., et al., Rural Education in Romania –
Conditions, Challenges and Strategies of Development, 2nd edition, Bucharest: MarLink, 2002.

11. Kim, H. and Stoner, M., ‘Burnout and Turnover Intention among Social Workers: Effects of
Role Stress, Job Autonomy, and Social Support’, 2008, Administration in Social Work, vol.
32, no. 3, pp. 5-25.

12. Lazăr, F., Profilul asistenților sociali din România [The Profile of Social Workers from Ro-
mania], Timișoara: Editura de Vest, 2015.

13. Kaufman, R., Cultura serviciilor superioare [Uplifting Service: The Proven Path to Delight-
ing Your Customers, Colleagues and Everyone Else You Meet], Bucharest: Publica, 2013.

14. McPhail, B.A., ‘Setting the Record Straight: Social Work is Not a Female-Dominated Pro-
fession’, 2004, Social Work, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 323-326.

15. Mellow, M., ‘The Work of Rural Professionals: Doing the Gemeinschaft-Gesselschaft Ga-
votte’, 2005, Rural Sociology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 50-69.

16. Mihalache, F., ‘Comunitățile teritoriale’ [Territorial Communities], in Mărginean, I. and
Precupețu, I., (coord.), Enciclopedia calității vieții în România [Encyclopedia of Quality of
Life in Romania], Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 2019, pp. 75-93.

17. Neamțu, N. and Huzum, T., ‘Relația dintre climatul organizațional și riscul de epuizare
profesională perceput de angajații care oferă direct servicii de asistență socială în instituții

publice – Studiu de caz’ [The Relationship Between the Organizational Climate and the
Risk of Burnout for the Employees Who Offer Direct Social Work Services in Public Insti-
tutions – A Case Study], 2018, Social Work Review, vol. XVII, no. 4, pp. 41-52.

18. Pillinger, J., ‘Quality in Social Public Services’, European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions, 2001.

19. Riebschleger, J., ‘Social Workers’ Suggestions for Effective Rural Practice’, 2007, Families
in Society, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 203-213.

20. Salsberg, E., Quigley, L., Mehfoud, N., Acquaviva, K., Wyche, K. and Sliwa, S, ‘Profile of
the Social Work Workforce’, The George Washington University Health Workforce Insti-
tute, 2017.

21. Stan, D., Măgurianu, L.A. (coord.), Ionescu, I., Asiminei, R. and Lupu, A.L., ‘Studiu-dia-
gnostic privind nevoile de servicii sociale și securitate comunitară în mediul rural din
Regiunea Nord-Est’ [Diagnostic Study on the Needs of Social Services and Community
Security in Rural Areas in the North-East Region], Organizația Salvați Copiii [Save the
Children], Iași, 2015.

22. Teșliuc, E., Grigoraș, V. and Stănculescu, M. (coord.), ‘Studiu de fundamentare pentru Stra-
tegia națională privind incluziunea socială și reducerea sărăciei 2015-2020’ [Substantiation
Study for the National Strategy on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction 2015-2020],
Bucharest: World Bank Group, 2015.

23. Turbett, C., ‘A Decade after Orkney: Towards a Practice Model for Social Work in the
Remoter Areas of Scotland’, 2004, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 981-995.

24. Comisia prezidențială pentru politici publice de dezvoltare a agriculturii: Cadrul național
strategic pentru dezvoltare durabilă a sectorului agroalimentar și a spațiului rural în pe-
rioada 2014-2020 [National Strategic Framework for the Sustainable Development of the
Agro-Food Sector and the Rural Space 2014-2020], [Online] available at http://www.acad.ro/
forumuri/doc2013/d0701-02StrategieCadrulNationalRural.pdf, accessed on April 10, 2020.

25. European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, ‘Country Report Romania,
Including an In-Depth Review on the Prevention and Correction of Macroeconomic Im-
balances’, Brussels, 2016.

26. Ministerul Muncii, Familiei, Protecţiei Sociale şi Persoanelor Vârstnice [Ministry of La-
bor, Family, Social Protection and Elderly], ‘Evoluții în domeniul asistenței sociale în anul
2014’ [Evolutions in the Social Work Domain in 2014], [Online] available at http://www.
mmuncii.ro/j33/images/buletin_statistic/asistenta-2014.pdf, accessed on April 10, 2020.

27. *** Atlasul Zonelor Rurale Marginalizate şi al Dezvoltării Umane Locale din România [The
Atlas of Rural Marginalized Areas and of Local Human Development in Romania], 2016.

28. *** Law no. 197/2012 regarding Quality Assurance in the Domain of Social Services.
29. *** Law no. 466/2004 Regarding the Status of Social Worker.
30. *** Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 2018.

ANNEX 1.
Main characteristics of the communes included in the research study10

Id.
no.

Region
of Romania

County No.
of villages

Code
SIRUTA

Population % of Roma
Marginalization

rate10Name Abbreviation

1 North-West

Bistrița-Năsăud BN 1 179720 1,407 0.00 0

Cluj CJ 16

55687 10,685 3.86 0
55838 10,317 6.39 0
56210 4,856 19.81 0
56425 2,021 0.40 0
56773 1,993 4.01 0
56988 3,065 0.59 0
57644 2,564 16.15 0
57706 22,813 4.89 0
58008 3,889 7.33 0
58142 4,263 2.21 0
58259 4,270 0.84 0
55277 5,423 1.49 0
60169 2,321 2.33 0
59130 1,412 18.34 0
55311 1,798 0.22 0
59826 1,947 3.24 0

Maramureș MM 3
106368 2,857 0.07 0
108348 9,264 0.03 0
106648 2,659 0.00 0

Satu Mare SM 3
137443 2,215 15.4 24+%
138618 2,182 5.87 0
139287 2,067 4.40 0

Sălaj SJ 5

140379 2,586 15.93 12≤24%
140823 2,641 4.24 0
140869 1,864 8.37 0.1≤6.1%
141786 1,846 1.95 0
142337 2,405 6.61 12≤24%

2 North-East

Botoșani BT 1 39694 3,420 0.00 0
Neamț NT 1 123790 4,451 0.00 0

Suceava SV 2
146860 6,719 0.70 12≤24%
151479 5,136 6.54 12≤24%

10 The methodology used to identify marginalized rural areas is based on data from the 2011 Census.
Six key indicators were selected for each of the three criteria used to define marginalized rural areas,
namely (a) human capital, (b) declared jobs and (c) living conditions.

Id.
no.

Region
of Romania

County No.
of villages

Code
SIRUTA

Population % of Roma
Marginalization

rate10Name Abbreviation

3 Center

Alba AB 3
4008 1,197 0.17 0
6976 1,428 0.00 0
7348 2,411 5.02 6.1≤12%

Mureș MS 2
118995 3,748 7.55 12≤24%
119466 4,233 3.09 0

Sibiu SB 1 143557 7,028 1.37 0

4 West Hunedoara HD 2
86883 1,983 0.25 0
90431 1,207 0.00 0

5 South-West Gorj GJ 1 79834 5,133 0.06 0

Source: Atlasul Zonelor Rurale Marginalizate şi al Dezvoltării Umane Locale din România
[The Atlase of Rural Marginalised Areas and of Local Human Development in Romania], 2016.