1 / 22

MANDATES IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SERVICES

RE-DIRECTING RESOURCES AND STIMULATING DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES – THE CASE OF SERBIA. MANDATES IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SERVICES. Central level Residential homes Fostering Salaries and running costs for Centers for Social Work (CSW) – statutory services Local level

zarek
Download Presentation

MANDATES IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SERVICES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RE-DIRECTING RESOURCES AND STIMULATING DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES – THE CASE OF SERBIA

  2. MANDATES IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SERVICES Central level • Residential homes • Fostering • Salaries and running costs for Centers for Social Work (CSW) – statutory services Local level • Other non institutional community based services • Capital costs for CSW

  3. REFORM PATHS - financial aspect Two directions • First, re-directing funds from institutions to fostering, keeping both at central level • Second, creating funds at the central level to support services in the LSG mandate • Strategy with the MoF • Savings elsewhere in the budget used as an argument • Pointing out a transitional cost argument

  4. RE-DIRECTING RESOURCESFROM INSTITUTIONS TO FOSTERING

  5. TRANSFORMATION OF INSTITUTIONS NOT CLOSURE Institutions as a source and not an obstacle to the reform: Using professional capacities of the staff, diminishing resistance to reforms through offering different solutions • Employment in local services, Regional Centers for Fostering • Professional fostering • New employment has been stopped Finding alternative usage of the institution’s infrastructure • Community based service centers • Using space for Centers for Social Work offices • “Trading” buildings with other sectors

  6. FOCUS ON FOSTERING Simultaneous activities • Substantial increase of fees and reimbursement costs for foster families • Fees include contributions for pension and health insurance • Reimburse kinship foster families part of the costs • New Family Law • New standards for foster care • Education of CSW’s staff and potential foster families • National and local level campaigns Decision to keep fostering in the mandate of the nationallevel

  7. STEPS 1. Focusing on fostering, keeping the majority of the institutions 2. Financing institutions – one part of the costs on per child basis, the professional staff’s salaries not directly related to the number of children 3. Major capital investments stopped 4. Negotiating with LSG to take over transformed institutions when the number of children starts to decrease faster 5. For each child Ministry’s approval for placement into residential institution 6. Comprehensive plan of transformation (master plan)

  8. RESULTS AND PLANS Structure of foster families changed – more urban, better educated foster parents with less children

  9. RESULTS AND PLANS Number of homes for children without parental care decreased from 23 to 17 Out of six that are not in the system anymore: • Two were closed • One was transformed and started to offer local services, financed from LSG budgets • Three homes in capital city changed their function into • Temporarily shelter for pregnant women and mothers with infants • Home for severely disabled children • Regional Center for Fostering

  10. MASTER PLAN FOR NEXT 5 YEARS The rest of the homes for children without parental care • One for transformation, local services • One for 10 children with mental health problems plus local services • One for temporary placement of children without parental care • 9 small homes for children with severe disability (20 - 40 beneficiaries), plus local services from local budgets • 4 small homes for children with severe disability (25 beneficiaries) plus for children with MH problems (5 beneficiaries) • One for 100 severely disabled children

  11. REDIRECTING RESOURCES Hypothetical monthly costs - if the structure and number of children would have stayed the same as in 2003. • For 2200 children in institutions – 0.7 mil Euro (322 per child) • For 1600 children in foster families – 0.5 mil Euro (300 per child) • Total for 3800 children – 1.2 mil Euro

  12. REDIRECTING RESOURCES Actual monthly costs • For 800 children in institutions – 0.4 mil E (500 Euro per child) • For 4000 children in fostering – 1.2 mil E (300 Euro per child) • Total for 4800 children1.6 mil Euro Difference between hypothetical and actual costs partly due to the increased number of children included in the system If the number of children had not increased, the total monthly costs for 3800 children would be 1.3 mil Euro

  13. STIMULATING DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES

  14. OBJECTIVES • To introduce community based services and new service providers at the local level • To address some of the needs immediately, not waiting for the whole system to reform • To coordinate donor’s funds • To involve in the reform state institutions as well, not only NGOs • To keep in the social sector NGOs created during the humanitarian phase • To support/ complement the reforms at the central level and to spread knowledge about new services • To disseminate reform ideas among the stakeholders at local level – involving them into the reform process at least by their engagement in applying to the funds

  15. MECHANISMS INTRODUCED Disability Persons Organization’s Fund(DPOF) Social Innovation Fund (SIF)

  16. BOTH FUNDS REPRESENT • Mechanisms for reform / introduction of new services/service providers • Decentralization mechanisms • Mechanisms for covering transition costs • Mechanisms for good practices’ transmission and capacity building at local level

  17. BOTH FUNDS • Finance projects/initiatives at local level • Insist on sustainability and/ or co-financing from local governments • Give priority to partnerships between the GO and NGO sector • Have built-in qualitative and budget auditing

  18. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DPOF AND SIF Disability Persons Organization’s Fund (DPOF): • Only finances services related to persons with disabilities • Primarily supports DPOs • Is exclusively financed from the (state) budget • Served as a pilot exercise for SIF projects

  19. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DPOF AND SIF Social Innovation Fund (SIF): • Has a wider scope, encompassing all social services • Provides equal status of all service providers • Is financed from budget and donor funds • Complements reform-oriented projects, esp. transformation of institutions and foster care

  20. SIF Typical projects targeting children and youth • Safe houses for women and children victims of abuse and violence • Daycare Centers for children with disabilities • Clubs for youth in conflict with the law • Halfway houses • Kindergartens on wheels for children with disabilities, Roma children, children victims of violence From 2003-2009 - 235 projects in the amount of 6 million Euro, 73 projects targeted children

  21. DPOF Typical projects targeting children and youth • Day care centers/Day care activities • Education & training of children with disabilities • Campaigns for awareness raising • Removing barriers • Advocacy From 2002-2006 - 538 projects in the amount of 4.9 million Euro

  22. OUTCOMES • Development of alternative social services • From 2000 until 2007 the number of Day care centers increased 4 times, number of beneficiaries 3 times, 60% NGO service providers • Empowerment of local community and beneficiaries / increased active participation • Raised awareness of social problems at local level • Lessons learned contribute to policy changes (legal framework) – introducing earmarked transfers at national level for sustainable financing of services in small and under capacitated municipalities

More Related