Redistribution of Resources in the Process of De-institutionalization

1. Redistribution of Resources in the Process of De-institutionalization Halyna Postoliuk Director of “Hope & Homes for Children” in Ukraine Chisinau November 24-26, 2009

2. “Hope & Homes for Children” has been working in Ukraine since 1998 First projects: Establishment of children’s homes of family type (65 CHFT, < 1000children) Development of services to prevent abandonment of young children (2 social centers of mother and child, prevention of 215 abandonments) Current activities: De-institutionalization Reformation of residential institutions Family-oriented services at the level of local community

3. Year of 2006 – the launch of rayon-level project “Reformation of children’s home and establishment of the Center of social services for children and families in difficult life situations” The goal:To implement the comprehensive model of de-institutionalization at the rayon level through the establishment and development of family-oriented services for children and families according to their needs Key results: The number of children in the children’s home reduced from 60to13 The project prevented the removal of 146children from 68families under the social follow-up 58children returned to their biological families 85children were placed under different forms of family-based care

4. Design of services of the Center of social support to children and families • Activity areas considering the needs of the pilot rayon: • Social follow-up of families in difficult life situations (DLS) at the place of residence to prevent removal of children (135 families, about 400 clients) Reintegration (about 15-18 children are removed from families annually) Support of crisis families in conditions of social hostels (3-4 families during a year are forced to take shelter in hospitals for various social reasons) Development of family-based placements(search for families, trainings, counseling) – up to 30 children are placed under family-based care annually Small family home (up to 10 children can stay in the Center for longer periods) Working with children at risk (day care group – up to 15 children; round-the-clock staying to provide emergency assistance to children – up to 12 children) Training and support of parents

5. Financing of services after the project completion (solution within the framework of current legislation) • An Agreement was signed with the rayon administration and rayon council, which established the procedure of transfer of the Center for Social Support to the communal property of the rayon and rayon’s further funding of services, offered by the Center • Provisions on the Center, staffing arrangements, the budget and estimate of expenditures to be approved by the Decision of the session of the rayon council • An agreement was signed with the oblast administration, according to which the rayon budget receives a subvention from the central budget to align the network • After the closure of the children’s home, partially released funds to be redistributed by the decision of the rayon council to finance new services

6. Long-term impact of the project • On the example of one rayon, the project piloted the model of reformation of residential institution for children together with the development of local social services for children and their families. This model can be replicated in other regions of Ukraine • The project developed and tested different methodologies of work with families in difficult life situations; these methods will be submitted to the national level for further inclusion in the system of social work • The project developed draft regulations on the development of preventive services and redistribution of financial resources

7. Key difficulties • The absence of a single vision of reforms in the area of child protection at all levels of the government • The lack of unified, financially grounded social standards • Functioning of outdated guidelines and regulations (primarily, financial) on service provision • The absence of flexible system to plan and design services depending on the needs of population of different territories • The lack of clear mechanisms for information sharing and interrelations between different providers of social services

8. Lessons, learned during the project implementation Lesson 1. The new system has obvious economic advantages

9. Lessons, learned during the project implementation Lesson 2. Prevention work with families is the least costly in terms of financing (Note: expenditures indicated in UAH, current exchange rate is $ 1 = approx. UAH 8.1 - 8.2)

10. Lessons, learned during the project implementation Lesson 3.It is necessary to ensure direct interrelation between the guaranteed social payments and services, offered within the framework of social follow-up of families Lesson 4.Provision and financing of services should be performed on the basis of needs assessment of specific families according to individual plan of work with families Lesson 5. Reformation of residential institutions should be carried out together with the development of prevention services, while released financial resources should be channeled at the development of such services Lesson 6.It is necessary to establish clear link between the quality of services and the cost of service provision

11. Necessary changes in the budget legislation to introduce a family-oriented model Improvement of the formula-based calculations of interbudgetary transfers: not to fund the current offer (organization or institution), but to fund the needs of a specific administrative and territorial unit Monetary measurement of social service standards should become a basis of the methodology of distribution of interbudgetary transfers Shift towards financing/ordering of services Introduction of monitoring and evaluation of service provision on the basis of approved standards Clear distinction of powers (differentiation of budget expenditures) of the central and local government authorities (to introduce changes in the laws on local self-governments and local administrations).

12. 1. Improvement of the formula-based calculations of interbudgetary transfers: not to fund the current offer (organization or institution), but to fund the needs of a specific administrative and territorial unit. For example, today the government does not finance a specific service (full function), but it finances operative infrastructure. The number of registered “clients” in boarding schools is the determining value to calculate services of social protection of orphaned children and children deprived of parental care The dominant position of boarding institutions in the formula of calculations stimulates the use of these institutions in the provision of services Since this formula does not take into account community-based services, local governments do not have any incentives to develop alternative services It is necessary to introduce changes in the structure of expenditures, which are considered and not considered in the identification of the size of interbudgetary transfers

13. 2. Monetary measurement of social service standards should become a basis of the methodology of distribution of interbudgetary transfers Currently the country lacks a system of standards of social service provision It is necessary to introduce an assessment of economic cost of services, that are offered by the government Real cost of services will make it possible to calculate resources, necessary to provide these services, in the unbiased manner

14. 3. Shift towards financing/ordering of services Current legislation does not have clear definition of social services There is a lack of methodology to identify the balance of services (different approaches are used to calculate expenditures in different sectors) Local self-governments have to have opportunities to formulate specific packages of services

15. 4. Introduction of monitoring and evaluation of service provision on the basis of approved standards It is necessary to develop clear criteria to identify the quality and effectiveness of services provided It is necessary to establish a direct interrelation between the quality of service and the cost of service provision

16. 5. Clear distinction of powers(differentiation of budget expenditures) of the central and local government authorities(to introduce changes in the laws on local self-governments and local administrations) The delegated authority lacks clear definition. A number of regulatory acts, which are currently in force, lack conformity in many areas and instances. Forms and limits of powers of the central and local authorities in the area of social service provision regulation lack relevant definition at the legislative level Managerial independence of local self-governments in the selection of forms and methods of realization of delegated powers is rather limited

17. CONTACT INFORMATION “Hope & Homes for Children” in Ukraine 04107 Kyiv 4 Baggovutivska St., office 57 Fax: (044) 483 29 79 Tel.: (044) 483 77 83 www.hopeanhomes.org.ua