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

MANDATES IN THE AREA OF MANDATES IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SERVICES 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

REFORM PATHS - financial REFORM PATHS - financial aspect 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

RE-DIRECTING RESOURCESRE-DIRECTING RESOURCESFROM INSTITUTIONS TO FROM INSTITUTIONS TO FOSTERINGFOSTERING

TRANSFORMATION OF TRANSFORMATION OF INSTITUTIONS NOT CLOSUREINSTITUTIONS 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

FOCUS ON FOSTERINGFOCUS 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 national level

STEPSSTEPS

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)

RESULTS AND PLANSRESULTS AND PLANS

Structure of foster families changed – more urban, better educated foster parents with less children

RESULTS AND PLANSRESULTS 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

MASTER PLAN FOR NEXT 5 MASTER PLAN FOR NEXT 5 YEARSYEARS

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

REDIRECTING RESOURCESREDIRECTING 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

REDIRECTING RESOURCESREDIRECTING 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 children 1.6 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

STIMULATING DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES

OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES

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

Disability Persons Organization’s Fund (DPOF)

Social Innovation Fund (SIF)

MECHANISMS MECHANISMS INTRODUCEDINTRODUCED

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

BOTH FUNDS BOTH FUNDS REPRESENTREPRESENT

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

BOTH FUNDSBOTH FUNDS

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

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DPOF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DPOF AND SIF 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

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DPOF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DPOF AND SIFAND SIF

SIFSIF

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

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

DPOFDPOF

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

OUTCOMESOUTCOMES