needs of all beneficiaries and to the realities of today's society, with a focus on developing the skills and competences required for the young people’s subsequent adjustment to the labour market. The visited unit informed that DGASPC followed the compliance with this recommendation in all the Centres; ● children were not assessed and monitored; the multidisciplinary team did not hold meetings to monitor the beneficiaries’ status (the Alexandra-Violeta Family Centre, Teleorman county; the Social Centre for under age individuals who have perpetrated criminal deeds and are not criminally liable of TarguFrumos, Iasi county; the Behavioural Rehabilitation Centre for Boys – the “Floare de Colt” Complex of Social Services, Targoviste, Dambovita county). The People’s Advocate recommended to regularly monitor and assess progress, decisions and specialized interventions undertaken in compliance with Specific Intervention Programmes, as well as fill in all documents with the date when they were drawn up and reviewed. The visited units informed that the progress was monitored and assessed on a regular basis and all documents were filled in with the date when they were drawn up and reviewed; ● not enough action for the family and social reintegration of beneficiaries, with a low number of reintegrated beneficiaries (the Alexandra-Violeta Family Centre, Teleorman county; the “Sf. Maria” Emergency Admission Centre of Calarasi, Calarasi county; the “Casa Noastra” Care Centre of Zagujeni, Caras Severin county). The People’s Advocate recommended to further the actions for the family and social reintegration of beneficiaries; to implement the objectives set out in the Specialized Intervention Programmes to maintain family relations so as to integrate/reintegrate children, by developing activities that involve families as much as possible in the children’s lives, so that they can be integrated in the family. The visited units informed that actions were taken to further relevant approaches. ● the attributions of the case officer and the case manager were not consistent (the “Sf. Maria” Emergency Admission Centre of Calarasi, Calarasi county); legislative provisions in the field of case management are not observed (the Ciresarii Emergency Placement Centre, district 2, Bucharest; the “Sf. Nicolae” Placement Centre of Trusesti, Botosani county). The People’s Advocate recommended to reassess case management activities and match the attributions of the case manager 163