1 “The quality of social service in multicultural F.Y.R. of Macedonia, implications, obstacles, and inequities“ A GIM P OSHKA, P H D The South East European University, Tetovo-Macedonia

Introduction The focus is on the quality of life and the quality of social services Based on the findings from a household survey carried out in September The representative sample survey covered 1,000 households throughout the country Follows the trends in the quality of life which were initiated in the previous Addresses the issue of inter-ethnic relations 3

Structure of report Chapter 1: Introduction – Analytical framework – Modern approaches to social services in EU – Social services in FYR Macedonia – Decentralisation and social services – Recent developments Chapter 2: Profile of the quality of life Chapter 3: Inter-ethnic relations Chapter 4: Quality of social services Chapter 5: Policy conclusions 4

Analytical framework Hirschman: “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” Exit – Limited amount of exit needed to alert managers to existence of problems Voice – In absence of exit and ‘choice’ a limited amount of voice can inform social service managers of problems Loyalty – Loyalty is needed to avoid the paradox that too much exit leads to collapse of the service 5

Modern approaches to social services in EU Member states have begun to modernise their social services They have introduced measures such as benchmarking, quality assurance, and user involvement Decentralised services to local or regional level, outsourcing services to the private sector; Developed public-private partnerships to complement public funding Growing recognition of the role of the “social economy” – Not-for-profit providers such as social cooperatives and other types of social enterprises – Ensuring that these new organisations are both effective and transparent 6

Social services in Macedonia The main responsibility for the administration of social services rests with the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare – The Social Protection Department within the Ministry supervises the work of the Institute of Social Affairs; 27 Centres for Social Welfare; social protection institutions; kindergartens However, relatively few social services are provided by the state for vulnerable population groups, such as the elderly, orphans, individuals with special needs, or minors with behavioural problems. 7

Decentralisation and social services Social services are better provided locally as they bring services closer to local people, expect when there are ‘spill-overs’ across municipalities However, in transition countries, capture by local elites argues in favour of centralisation Ohrid Agreement 2001 set out framework for decentralisation in Macedonia Subsequent legal framework does not oblige municipalities to provide social services Finance follows the institutions, not the functions 8

9 Proportion of respondents who wish service to be provided by: Education services Services for the elderly Services for children Services for the disabled Central government 69%61%63%69% Local government 28%32%30%23% Private providers 2% NGOs 1%5% 6% Who do you consider would do the best job in providing the service? (Source: PCA report 2009, Table 6)

Education - Sincere and complete decentralization of power. - The need for curriculum reform in Education towards a more pluralistic approach. - The need for social integration programs versus fragmentation and isolation. - The need for equal representation in all levels in society. - The need for prejudice reduction programs and the promotion of an inclusive society. - The need for public access to government decision- making, and a lack of information (that is, the need for public debates over certain decisions that impact different ethnic groups). 10

Inter ethnic relations Ethnic structure Registration period (April 2011) Policies (Ohrid Framework Agreement, 2001) “Conflict” awareness 11

12 ( Source: PCA Report 2009, figure 36)

Recent developments in social services Strategy for Deinstitutionalization ( ) – developing non-institutional services Law on Social Protection 2009, – makes municipalities, as well as the state, responsible for providing social services National Programme for Social Protection – municipalities should adopt their own programmes that respond to people’s needs 13

Conclusions Promote social cohesion and improve quality of life: – Reduce unemployment, poverty, and discrimination Improve the quality of social services and education: – Benchmarking – Increase user involvement – Outsource services to the not-for-profit sector including social cooperatives Strengthen local accountability – Organise public hearings on items of local public expenditure – Set up complaints systems – institutionalise opinion polls and client experience surveys 14