The reorganization of Centre for Social Welfare and Social Welfare Reform in Serbia Prof dr. Nevenka Zegarac Department of Social Work and Social Policy University of Belgrade

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli

Social Welfare in Serbia during the 1990s/1  Context – wars in immediate vicinity, sanctions, poverty, huge numbers of refugees.  System centralization – residential care and cash benefits were under the Republic competence. ‐ Decreased numbers of cash benefits beneficiaries, delays in payment and depreciation of the benefits amount. ‐ Increased pressures on residential care institutions – the only “safe place.”

Social Welfare in Serbia during the 1990s/2 ‐ Increased capacities in residential care on the basis of administrative decisions – metastasis of residential care, especially for persons with learning disabilities and psychiatric diseases. ‐ Devastated network of foster families. ‐ Faded away network of local services – local communities were left without any funds. ‐ Continuous drop in the quality of the work of professionals – without developmental mechanisms, guidance, procedures, incentives, control...

Reform aims  Development of services.  Distribution of resources toward the community services.  Distribution of tasks between the services in the system (CSWs, residential care, other services, NGOs).  Deinstitutionalization and decentralization.  Development of professional and service standards.  Requirement for the separation between professional and administrative work.

10 key principles of the EU social inclusion policy 1)Subsidiarity 2)Holistic approach 3)Transparency and accountability 4)Open, accessible and flexible services 5)Effectiveness 6)Solidarity and partnership 7)Dignity and human rights 8)Participation 9)Personal development 10)Continuous improvement and sustainability

Features of the social welfare system in Serbia  Developed network of CSWs in every municipality (136).  78 residential care institutions for different groups of children, youth, adults and elderly, run by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP).  Various community based services depending on financial and organizational capacity of local governments. Only big cities are able, so far, to fund day and home care services, different shelters, counselling centers and other daily services.

Basic CSW components Intake and emergency response service – including ”gate keeping” function. Assessment, planning, monitoring and coordination of services for: children and youth adults and elderly. Interventions in family legal protection. Development of services in the community.

New case management standards in CSWs Aspire to introduce holistic approach in assessment, reinforce individual planning methodology, introduce permanency goal in Child Welfare and strengthen participation of service users and their family. Every client gets an appointed case manager, responsible to conduct initial and organize further assessment, create an individualized service plan, build a multidisciplinary team for client, arrange and monitor service provision and evaluate service outcomes. Clear procedures and timeframe.

The process of standards construction Starting point: the system of standards should be transparent, accessible to the public, and with defined mechanisms of control and quality improvement. OWNERSHIP BUILDING formulation, elaboration, piloting and evaluation of standards within the CSWs.  Development and organization of trainings for professionals  Development of toolkit – forms, guidelines, books for practical work, etc.

Deep changes in the social welfare system  Away from the paternalistic framework with a narrow, sectoral approach.  Holistic approach to problems and needs of children and families, adults and elderly.  Standards and guidance that confront professional myths, explain roles, provide safety for both professionals and users, enable evaluation of work.  Development of poor potential of services and offering numerous, tailored and more accessible services.

Factors slowing down deinstitutionalization  Early institutionalization of children with severe disorders: insufficient knowledge, prejudices, poor cooperation with the health sector, absence of early intervention.  Difficulties in the implementation of inclusive education.  Underdevelopment of supporting services for families, especially those with children or adult members with severe disturbances.  Too big residential care institutions for adults and elderly with psychiatric diseases and mental health problems (with 500 – 1500 users).  Unprepared CSWs – in terms of funds, organization and functions.  Resistance on the part of professionals in residential care institutions.  Inadequate support of the public – insufficient finances.

Positive trends  Rigorous monitoring of the work of CSWs and reinforced control functions of MLSP and more intensive work toward the improvement of foster care.  Reduced capacities of residential care institutions for children without parental care.  Priority given to the development of foster care.  Planning innovations, piloting and participation of professionals.

The Law on Social Welfare (2011)  The system is based on licencing and pluralism of service providers,  Improvement of the quality of work of professionals, continuous trainings and licencing.  Minimal standards of services, basic rights and better coverage of cash benefits users.  Different financing schemes and service purchasing.  Elaboration of current and new control mechanisms (inspection, professional monitoring, supervision, independent monitoring, licencing of professionals and service providers).

SW Institute SW Chambre Institutions and other service providers Ethical Board; Licencing of professionals; Professional exam; Deciding on professional titles. CSWs; Residential care institutions; Centers for foster care and adoption; Welfare services organized by the local communities, NGOs, private sector and innovative / special programmes and services. Monitoring and development of quality of services and professional work; Continuous training; Accreditation of training programmes; Researches; Support and information. Ministry of LSP Development of the social welfare system and policies; Minimal standards; Licencing of service providers; Inspection; Complaints.

Challenges  There are still no all necessary by-laws.  More efficient and effective financing.  New obstacles to the inclusion of NGOs into the system of service provision.  New wave of centralization, due to austerity measures and economic crisis.  More than half of newly established community services has been already extinguished.  Information on the effectiveness of the system – monitoring and evaluation mechanisms: transparency, accountability and control, possibility of accreditation of services as a proof of top quality.  Infrastructural and personnel grow.  Transformation of residential care for vulnerable adults and elderly.