A vote of no confidence regarding corruption is expected in the parliamentary chamber. While many comments will be made, the most severe and destructive form of corruption—corruption in the social sphere—will likely be overlooked. Since 2018, the BULGARIAN ANTI-MAFIA LEGION has supported mothers of children with disabilities, standing with them in protests, struggles, and proposals for laws and legal changes. We have witnessed extensive corruption in areas we never thought such depth of immorality could penetrate. 

Some boundaries should never be crossed. You may steal from a family member, lie to a boss, the system, or even a friend—not that it is right, but it happens. However, there is one line that must never be crossed: you DO NOT steal from the hungry, the sick, or those in trouble. You do NOT touch the crumbs that sustain someone's life.

Despite scepticism, this is precisely what is occurring in our social system. Someone has decided that aiding a disabled child, a lonely elderly person, or an abandoned baby can be turned into a business; that people's pain can be exploited for profit. This is done under the guise of legitimacy—with smiles, stamps, signatures, and invented rules and procedures. Day after day, year after year, those for whom services and assistance have been established are left waiting, suffering, and barely surviving. In many cases, they ultimately give in. This is not merely corruption; it is a betrayal of humanity—ugly, vile, and unforgivable.

When we hear the term "corruption," we often picture a minister with a briefcase or an agency head who favours friends with public contracts. However, the reality is far different. Corruption is not confined to the upper echelons; it creeps silently, invisibly, and is much more frightening where help is supposed to be provided. The areas and institutions designed to assist people, such as the social sphere, become arenas for the ugliest forms of corruption.

What happens when a person's fate depends on a single signature? In social services, a single signature can determine everything: whether a child remains with their family or is placed in a centre or foster care; whether a person with a disability receives a personal assistant or is left isolated at home; whether an elderly person gets care or is forced into an institution. This reliance on subjective judgment creates a vulnerability that allows corruption to take root.

Over the years, we have raised numerous alarms about corruption and have gained insights into the system's vulnerabilities. We’ve identified that assessments and expert reports are often subjected to corrupt practices. Some of these assessments are outsourced to external providers, including NGOs and private companies. The Social Services Act assigned them a primary role in these activities, which was a significant and regrettable error. This legally justified opportunity has opened the door wide to corrupt practices. These providers frequently produce “convenient” conclusions—sometimes advocating for larger budgets and payments, and other times downplaying real needs. In some cases, diagnoses are inflated to secure funds, while in others, they are minimized to save money. With regards to personal assistance and social services, there are instances where individuals who do not genuinely work are assigned as assistants on paper. Assistance may be given to those with connections rather than to those who truly need it.

Public procurement represents the pinnacle of corruption in all public domains. Within the social sphere, public procurement is involved in catering for institutions, repairs, transport, and medical supplies—all of which present lucrative opportunities for corrupt practices. Competitions and contracts often have predetermined winners, and provided services typically involve minimal investments of funds and labor, resulting in low quality.

Corruption surrounding the removal of children and their placement in Child Social Care (CSC) and foster families is particularly heartbreaking and life-altering. When the social system dictates fates without real oversight, it opens the door to abuses—from child trafficking to coercive pressures on vulnerable parents. Some providers of social services profit from keeping children in centers and foster families longer, as each child represents a budget. Children with disabilities are particularly sought after since payments are even higher for them. The real concern lies in the capabilities and knowledge required to care for a child with severe disabilities, especially when a foster family is expected to care for multiple children with disabilities alongside others. While the funds received can be substantial, the opportunity for adequate care and rehabilitation is often nonexistent.

Who wins and who loses in this situation? The winners are the companies with contracts, private providers of social services, those who know whom to call and how to give a “gift,” and the governing bodies involved in the social sector. These latter groups often turn a blind eye to the issues at hand, even though they are aware of them. Unfortunately, everyone else loses—especially those for whom the social system is designed to support: individuals with disabilities, low-income elderly people, and single mothers. These are the individuals who need assistance the most. As a society, we also suffer. When we witness corruption spreading, even into the social sphere, we begin to lose faith in the system. This loss of trust and hope is perhaps the most serious damage of all.

Another painful issue within the social sphere is adoption, particularly international adoptions. In theory, this process should provide a child with a loving home and family. However, in practice, it can sometimes resemble a system where the lives of the most vulnerable individuals become a “service with a price.” Numerous NGOs and organizations, under the guise of noble intentions, have begun to operate similarly to organized crime groups, engaging in the abduction and trafficking of children. Bulgaria is a country that sees many children adopted internationally each year. While this can be a positive outcome, the procedure is often facilitated by licensed organizations acting as intermediaries, who charge substantial fees to adoptive parents. This creates a serious conflict of interest: the more children declared adoptable, the more revenue is generated. There are indications that some children are declared available for adoption without all efforts being made to reintegrate them into their biological families.

Adoptive parents abroad often receive filtered information about the children, which may not accurately represent their situations. In Bulgaria, access to information regarding what happens to children after they are adopted internationally is minimal, if not non-existent. This lack of transparency facilitates various abuses.

Additionally, domestic adoption procedures can be delayed or expedited for specific families, often for reasons that raise concern. While domestic adoptions might be postponed for years, some cases move forward swiftly. Again, it comes down to not just what is done, but who is behind each adoption application.

The role of licensed NGOs in the adoption process is a double-edged sword. While some operate diligently, others do not. This raises concerns regarding fees, services, and the involvement of professionals such as translators and psychologists—all of which can be handled on a private basis. The root of corrupt practices lies in the question of who monitors the costs of adoption and who receives what share of the funds.

Children are not statistics or commodities. The most alarming aspect of corruption infiltrating the adoption system is that it can transform children from individuals into mere products. This is simply unacceptable.

In conclusion, it is clear that the social sector should not operate as a business or adhere to a "who you know" approach that encourages a "let's take what we can" mentality. Achieving this requires not only an improvement in public morality and ethics but also a reevaluation of poorly designed laws that create opportunities for corruption—a topic that deserves further discussion.

Join our Telegram community HERE