Mapping of Social Protection Services in...

Mapping of Social Protection Services in Montenegro

November 2013 Podgorica

Find out more about the work of Institute Alternative at:www.institut-alternativa.org

Mapping of Social Services in Montenegro

November 2013Podgorica

This document is the abridged version of the original report, published in its entirety in Montenegrin language.

2

Report on “Mapping of social

protection services

in Montenegro”

Title of the publicationMapping of Social Protection Services in Montenegro

(abridged version)

PublisherInstitute Alternative

Ul. Đoka Miraševića (“Kroling”) 3/3, Crna GoraTel/fax: (+382) 020 268 686

E-mail: [email protected] site: www.institut-alternativa.org

For publisherStevo Muk

President of the Managing Board

EditorStevo Muk

AuthorDragana Radović

TranslatorNemanja Tepavčević

Design and layoutStudio Mouse

DonorThe making of this publication was supported by the Commission for the Allocation

of the part of Revenues from the Games of Chance

The Commission bears no responsibility for opinions expressed in this document. this document represents the views and opinions of the author who is solely respon-

sible for all stated matters.

3

Report on “Mapping of social protection services in Montenegro”

CONTENTS

About the project ......................................................................................................................................5

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................7

1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................10

2. NATIONAL NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION SERVICES - PAST AND PRESENT................................................................122.1. Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’

No. 78/05) .................................................................................................................................122.2. Strategy for the development of the social and child protection system

for the period 2008-2012 ...................................................................................................122.3. Project ‘Reform of the social and child protection system

- enhancing social inclusion’ .............................................................................................132.4. Obstacles for the development of social protection services

before the 2013 Law .............................................................................................................142.5. Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’

No. 27/13) .................................................................................................................................18

3. NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SERVICES ............................203.1. Types of services....................................................................................................................203.2. Sub-types of social protection services........................................................................23

3.2.1. Support to community life .....................................................................................233.2.2. Social-educational and counseiling-therapeutic services ........................233.2.3. Shelter services ...........................................................................................................24

3.3. Service providers ...................................................................................................................253.3.1. Number and territorial distribution of service providers .......................26

3.4. Structure of services according to providers ............................................................283.4.1. Structure of sub-types of services of support to community life

according to providers .................................................................................................283.4.2. Structure of sub-types of social-educational and

counseiling-therapeutic services according to providers ............................293.4.3. Shelter services according to providers/contractors ................................30

3.5. Target (beneficiary) groups .............................................................................................303.5.1. Children ..........................................................................................................................313.5.2. Persons with disabilities.........................................................................................323.5.3. Elderly.............................................................................................................................333.5.4. Victims of violence ....................................................................................................333.5.5. Youth ...............................................................................................................................343.5.6. Family .............................................................................................................................34

3.5.6.1.Families at risk ..............................................................................................353.5.6.2. Parents .............................................................................................................353.5.6.3. Single parents ...............................................................................................35

3.5.7. Psycho-active substance users .............................................................................353.5.8. Roma and Egyptian population ...........................................................................363.5.9. LGBT persons ..............................................................................................................36

4


protection services

in Montenegro”

3.5.10. Other target (beneficiary) groups ....................................................................363.6. Number of beneficiaries .....................................................................................................373.7. Inter-sector cooperation in service provision ..........................................................383.8. Obstacles for the development of the social protection services .....................39

4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................41

4. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................44

5


About the project

Prevention of accommodation in institutions and the development of social protection services which support community life and meet the needs of population represent some of the basic principles of the social and child protection system reform. Since 2011, the reform of this area in Montenegro has focused on stimulating extra-institutional forms of protection and encouraging a greater role of non-state actors in securing their availability.

On the basis of the principle of social and child protection reform and the nor-mative framework which introduced, for the first time, the institute of ‘social protection services’, Institute Alternative launched the project of ‘Mapping the extra-institutional social protection services in Montenegro’1. The emphasis of our research was on the availability of social protection services defined in the Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montene-gro’ No. 27/13). Data which were not incorporated in this research are those related to the access to social welfare payments via centres for social work or via competent local administration bodies, services of immediate intervention and services of assessment and planning which fall under the exclusive compe-tence of the centres for social work, as stipulated by the Law. The research also excluded institutional forms of accommodation, i.e. services of accommodation in institutions.

The general objective of this project is to enhance the development and avail-ability of the network of social protection services in local communities, through partnership and cooperation with all relevant social stakeholders.

Particular objectives of the project are:

to establish the availability of social protection services across local self-government units;

to establish the structure of services and service providers across local self-government units;

to produce a map (catalogue) of social protection services and service provid-ers per local self-government units;

to better inform decision-makers, social protection service providers and ben-eficiaries about the types and availability of social protection services;

to provide guidelines for future activities of the relevant stakeholders at the na-tional and local levels, through a set of recommendations, in order to enhance the development and availability of social protection services through joint efforts.

The research report on ‘Mapping the extra-institutional social protection services in Montenegro’ contains a separate overview of the state of play per each local self-government unit, and on that basis, we identified the obstacles which prevent or slow down the development of the social protection services. In the annex to the analysis of the state of play at the local level, for the first time, a catalogue of social protection services and service providers available in the period 2012-2013 has been produced, and was intended for use by service providers in order to secure timely information for the beneficiaries with a view to accessing adequate social protection services.1 This project was supported by the Commission for the allocation of the part of revenues from the

games of chance

6


protection services

in Montenegro”

The catalogue may be useful for decision-makers in developing those social protection services which are lacking and are necessary for the local population. In the end, the catalogue of social protection services will better inform (potential) beneficiaries about the service providers and the availability of services, thereby facilitating their choice of service. That way, the goals of the reform will be promoted and achieved, while the awareness of the need to reduce the number of beneficiaries of institutional forms of protection will be raised.

An integral part of the report is the state of play at the national level and a set of recom-mendations for decision-makers, but also for the social protection service providers, whose goal is to enhance the development of this area.

7


Summary

In June 2013, the Law on social and child protection entered into force in Montenegro. On the basis of that Law, social protection services are defined as a separate right for the first time. Research participants still fail to identify and to distinguish between the right to services and the right to social welfare payments. With a view to decentralis-ing the competences in the field of social protection services, apart from the centres for social work, the services of support to community life, social-educational and counseling-therapeutic services, as well as the shelter services may be provided by other stakeholders from both public and private sectors. The research topic, within the framework of the project on ‘Mapping of social protection services in Montenegro’, is the availability of precisely these services.

In the period 2012-2013, a total of 284 services were available in Montenegro, pro-vided by 175 providers to 27.587 beneficiaries. The most available services are those of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic character (58.8 %), while the least available are shelter services (2.8 %).

Of 175 service providers, non-governmental organisations are the most represented (80.5 %). Municipal organisations of the Red Cross make up 9.7 %, while public insti-tutions represent 8.5 %.

All types of services are mostly provided by non-governmental organisations (80.2%). Municipal organisations of the Red Cross provide 13.3 % of services, while public institutions provide 5.6 % of services. Local self-governments provide two services of support to community life: service of shelter, i.e. soup kitchen for all socially vul-nerable categories. The role of local self-governments in providing services is more to coordinate, i.e. the local self-government unit decides on the provision of certain services on the basis of adopted strategic documents, which should meet the needs of local population in this area.

If we are to measure the availability of services by the number of beneficiaries, the largest local self-governments (Podgorica, Nikšić, Bar, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Herceg Novi) provide the largest number of services and contain the largest number of benefi-ciaries. Services are mostly developed for children ( 28.12 %). The available sub-types of services for children are: daycare centres, assistance at home, assistance, personal assistance, creative workshops, counselling, education, therapy, SOS hotline, teaching assistance, mediation. For children victims of violence, the services of providing shelter are available, while single mothers benefit from the shelter services provided by only one non-governmental organisation in Montenegro.

The second largest target group (based on the number of services) are persons with disabilities. They have 62 services at their disposal (21.83 %): daycare services, (per-sonal) assistance and assistance at home. Among the social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, they may benefit from the counselling services, education and mediation with the purpose of employment.

Elderly persons have 49 services at their disposal (17.2 %): assistance at home (71.4 %), daycare for elderly, free daily meal, procurement of assistance tools and personal assistance. As regards social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, they may benefit from counselling.

8


protection services

in Montenegro”

There are 22 services available to the youth (7.74 %). Services are mostly social-edu-cational (86.3 %), with an emphasis on counselling and education, while the service of support to community life is only available in the form of housing with support (two services – in Podgorica and Bijelo Polje) and only for the youth without parental care.

Victims of violence may benefit from 21 services (7.39 %). This is the only target group for which all types of services are available: SOS hotline, counselling, therapy, free legal aid, provision of a confidant, marriage counseling. From among the services of support to community life, only one service is available – assistance at home – provided by one NGO. Five shelter accommodation services are available and provided by 4 NGOs and one public institution. Shelter service in two local self-governments (Podgorica and Nikšić) is carried out in partnership between the local self-government and NGOs.

For psychoactive substance users, we mapped 8 services (7.74 %). Regardless of the number of services, it is important to emphasise that for this target group, programmes involving numerous sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services have been launched. It should be noted that, with the goal of ensuring protection of beneficiaries, these services are not only social but also healthcare services, having in mind that they include medical consultation, education about healthcare, prevention of diseases, etc. These services are also available to the families of this target group, who may benefit from psycho-social support services.

Other target groups identified in this research include services for family, Roma and Egyptian population, LGBT persons, sexual workers and homeless. When discussing this research, in part relating to differentiation between target groups and services for each of them, it must be noted that many services include several target groups (e.g. daycare service includes both children and youth, including their families).

When analysing the state of play at the local level, we have established that most local self-governments have strategic plans in place, which identify the needs of the local population. The strategic framework for the development of services at the local level is reflected in the preparation of plans for enhancing social inclusion. In the period 2011-2013, such a plan was adopted or its preparation was underway in almost all municipalities, the exceptions being small local self-governments (Andrijevica, Žabljak) which lack strategic framework for the development of services. In other local self-governments, there are separate action plans targeting persons with disabilities, chil-dren, youth, Roma and Egyptian population and other target groups. For certain target groups, although they are identified as priority, no services have been developed. The main reason for this are the budgetary limitations of local self-governments. During the research, it was not possible to determine the level of financial resources spent from the local budgets in the area of development of services. This was hampered by the manner of classification of expenses in budget decisions and final accounts of local self-governments and by the fact that many local self-governments responded by stat-ing that they do not allocate any resources for the development of services.

The sustainability of services is one of the key questions directly linked to the issue of securing funds, and hence to the issue of securing expert capacity for providing the adequate quality of services. It is necessary to establish a permanent and durable source of funding as soon as possible, which would support – first and foremost – the already established services supported by the project of ‘Reform of social and child protection system – enhancing social inclusion’.

Local self-government has been identified as a coordinator of the process of planning and developing social protection services. It is necessary to enhance this role by setting up a coordination body which would monitor the implementation of local plans for

9


this area and which would perform the assessment of the quality of services provided. The key precondition for the establishment of such a body is to enhance cooperation between all relevant local stakeholders. The lack of cooperation is reflected not only in the fact that local stakeholders are insufficiently informed, but also in the inability of beneficiaries to exercise their right to services.

10


protection services

in Montenegro”

1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The basic research method used in this project is a questionnaire. Participants of this research were centres for social work and other public institutions dealing with social and child protection, local administration bodies in charge of social protection, Red Cross organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Two different questionnaires were prepared for the research participants: one for direct service providers – public institutions dealing with social and child protection, NGOs and Red Cross organisations, and another one for the contractors of social protection services at the local level – local administration bodies in charge of social protection.

Through this project, we initially planned to cover 174 stakeholders. However, upon submission of questionnaires, 5 NGOs provided feedback stating that they did not deal with the provision of social protection services (Svetionik, Povjerenje, Svjetlost na horizontu, Inter mont and Centre for anti-discrimination - Ekvista), while we failed to get in contact with three municipal organisations (Žabljak, Ulcinj and Rožaje) of the Red Cross. The questionnaires were delivered to 166 social stakeholders, of which 118 responded.

Number of sent and responded questionnaires according to research participants

Public institutions dealing with social and child protection, local administration bodies in charge of social protection and municipal organisations of the Red Cross were contacted on the basis of data available on the official webpages of the Ministry of labour and social welfare, Association of Mu-nicipalities and the Red Cross of Montenegro, while NGOs were chosen on the basis of the Financial Report of NGOs for 2010, CRNVO network and

the database of UNDP in Montenegro.

During the analysis of the state of play at the national and local levels, the relevant strategic documents, decisions and reports of the competent local administration bodies were taken into account, including performance reports, statutes, and work programmes of public institutions and of the Red Cross of Montenegro. For the descrip-tion of demographic characteristics, data from the Statistics Agency ‘Monstat’, extracted from the 2011 population census, were used.

All social protection services provided during 2012 and in the first half of 2013 were incorporated in the catalogue of social protection services. In addition to services – provided in the reporting period - listed by the participants of this research, the cata-logue included projects supported by the Commission for the allocation of the part of

7 Reporton“MappingofsocialprotectionservicesinMontenegro”

Local self‐government has been identified as a coordinator of the process of planning anddeveloping social protection services. It is necessary to enhance this role by setting up acoordinationbodywhichwouldmonitor the implementation of localplans for thisareaandwhichwouldperformtheassessmentofthequalityofservicesprovided.Thekeypreconditionfor the establishment of such a body is to enhance cooperation between all relevant localstakeholders.Thelackofcooperationisreflectednotonlyinthefactthatlocalstakeholdersareinsufficiently informed, but also in the inability of beneficiaries to exercise their right toservices.

1.RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

Thebasicresearchmethodusedinthisprojectisaquestionnaire.Participantsofthisresearchwerecentresforsocialworkandotherpublic institutionsdealingwithsocialandchildprotection, localadministrationbodiesinchargeofsocialprotection,RedCrossorganisationsandnon‐governmentalorganisations(NGOs).Two different questionnaireswere prepared for the research participants: one for direct serviceproviders – public institutions dealing with social and child protection, NGOs and Red Crossorganisations,andanotheroneforthecontractorsofsocialprotectionservicesatthelocal level–localadministrationbodiesinchargeofsocialprotection.Throughthisproject,weinitiallyplannedtocover174stakeholders.However,uponsubmissionofquestionnaires,5NGOsprovidedfeedbackstatingthattheydidnotdealwiththeprovisionofsocialprotection services (Svetionik, Povjerenje, Svjetlost na horizontu, Intermont andCentre for anti‐discrimination ‐ Ekvista), while we failed to get in contact with three municipal organisations(Žabljak, Ulcinj and Rožaje) of the Red Cross. The questionnaires were delivered to 166 socialstakeholders,ofwhich118responded.Numberofsentandrespondedquestionnairesaccordingtoresearchparticipants

Public institutions dealingwith social and childprotection, localadministration bodies incharge of social protectionandmunicipalorganisationsof the Red Cross werecontacted on the basis ofdataavailableontheofficialwebpagesof theMinistryoflabour and social welfare,Association ofMunicipalities and the RedCross of Montenegro, whileNGOs were chosen on thebasisoftheFinancialReport

91

18 15 21 21

166

56

11 14 19 18

118

Sent

Responded

11


revenues from the games of chance for the period 2011-2012, the commissions of local self-governments for the allocation of funds to NGOs at the local level for the period 2012-2013, as well as the projects supported by the Fund for active citizenship. Data which were not publicly available were gathered on the basis of requests for free ac-cess to information.

Bearing in mind that the institute of social protection services has been introduced for the first time in the Law of 2013, that the Rulebook on minimum standards for the provision of services had not been adopted during this research, and that not all service providers participated in the research, the data presented in this report should not be treated as an exact census of services in Montenegro. This is particularly relevant for the catalogue of local social protection services, in which the sub-types of services are classified on the basis of answers provided by the research participants themselves. We would like to highlight the classification of sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, and underline that the project activities of the research participants combined several different sub-types of services. For all these reasons, we believe that the data presented in this report may represent a basis for a better defini-tion of sub-types of services and for establishing criteria for the provision of services and the assessment of their quality.

12


protection services

in Montenegro”

2. NATIONAL NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL PROTECTION SERVICES

– PAST AND PRESENT

2.1. Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’ No. 78/05)

The Law on social and child protection from 2005 did not contain any provisions on the institute of social protection services.

This Law only identified the right to social work services 2 which included ‘the ap-plication of expert and scientific knowledge with a view to providing expert assistance to individuals, to families and social groups, in solving life difficulties or assistance in organisation of local and other communities for the prevention of social problems and mitigation of consequences.’3.

Social protection services boiled down to institutional forms of protection, i.e. to services of institutional accommodation and services provided during the stay of beneficiaries, in line with the Law and the act on establishment of the institution in question.

The only social protection service providers, as stipulated by this Law, were the insti-tutions for the accommodation of children without parental care, institutions for the accommodation of adults and elderly with disabilities, and institutions for recreation4, while the social work services could have been provided only by centres for social work.

In order to enhance the reform of social and child protection, the Law foresaw the es-tablishment of a Centre for counselling, research and expert affairs which ‘monitors, studies, analyses and proposes measures and activities’5 in this area. However, up to date, this institution has not been founded.

2.2. Strategy for the development of the social and child protection system for the period 2008-2012

The term of ‘social protection service’ is mentioned for the first time in the norma-tive framework of Montenegro in the Strategy for the development of social and child protection for the period 2008-2012. “Focus on the development of support services for vulnerable groups, based on the principle of decentralisation and sound management at the level of local community’6 represents one of the fundamental approaches in the preparation of this Strategy.

2 Article 64 of the Law: The right to social work services shall be exercised by all citizens. Social work services (hereinafter: services) are preventive activities, diagnostics, treatment and counselling-therapeutic work.

3 Article 64 of the Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’, No. 78/05)4 Article 69 of the Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’, No. 78/05) 5 Article 72 of the Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’, No. 78/05)6 Strategy for the development of social and child protection for the period 2008-2012, Ministry of

labour and social welfare

13


Extra-institutional services are defined in this Strategy for the first time as services which support beneficiaries to remain in family environment. The following types of extra-institutional services are identified:

daycare for children with physical and mental development difficulties, daycare for elderly,

family accommodation (apart from the kinship accommodation present in most local self-governments),

specialised foster-care for children and youth with developmental difficulties, children and youth with behavioural problems,

capacity for urgent accommodation: reception centres, safe house for victims of ill-treatment and trafficking in human beings, capacity for temporary ac-commodation of elderly,

housing with support for elderly with developmental difficulties, and for children and youth without parental care who are about to complete their schooling.7

For the first time, the Strategy indicated the importance of developing local social protection services, as well as the need for decentralisation whereby the local self-governments would play a greater role in developing and financing social services:

‘The role of the local self-government is to actively create and implement social policy and social protection at the local level with a view to providing support to vulnerable groups and guaranteeing social justice and safety of life in a community.’

Some of the long-term priorities in the field of social and child protection are preven-tive approach, pro-active approach of beneficiaries in solving their own unfavourable situation and the pluralism of service providers.

One of the fundamental strategic guidelines for the development of social and child protection is the switch from a centralised system and institutional forms of protection to services which support life in a community managed at the local level.

The Strategy promotes the welfare mix model, based on participatory approach of all relevant social stakeholders in planning, implementing, financing and monitoring of the application of social policy. Similarly, in the domain of social protection services, this Strategy underlines the importance of cooperation and exchange of experience and the importance of establishing local councils for social planning, as mechanisms of cooperation between all social actors, who will coordinate and plan the development of social protection services. Furthermore, the Strategy highlights the need to introduce social innovations, i.e. new forms of social protections services based on the needs of the population, which requires research activities and establishment of mechanisms for monitoring those needs.

2.3. Project ‘Reform of the social and child protection system – enhancing social inclusion’

The second component of the project entitled ‘Reform of the social and child protec-tion system – enhancing social inclusion IPA 2010’, financed by the European Union through the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro, placed the emphasis of

7 Strategy for the development of social and child protection for the period 2008-2012, Ministry of labour and social welfare, p.11

14


protection services

in Montenegro”

the social protection reform to the development of local social protection services.8

The Ministry of labour and social welfare, in cooperation with UNDP in Montenegro, initiated the preparation of local plans for the development of social protection services in three municipalities: Bar, Bijelo Polje and Nikšić. Previously, UNDP produced an as-sessment analysis for each of the three municipalities on the needs of local population, along with the recommendations for developing social protection services.9

Project activities within the framework of social protection reform include strengthen-ing of institutional mechanisms and capacities which will allow for the development of local social protection services, based on the following principles of EU practice in the area of social protection services and mechanisms of social inclusion:10

1.Adjustment of services to the needs; 2. Decentralisation of services; 3. Diversity of service providers; 4. Effectiveness and efficiency of services; 5. Transparency of work and reliability of services; 6. High quality of services with mechanisms for learning and identifying good practice; 7. Adjustable services.

***

Results of the implementation of the project in the area of social protection reform 2011-2013:

In 2011, the process of drafting of Local plans for the development of social protection services began in Bar, Bijelo Polje and Nikšić. UNDP financed 12 ser-vices in these municipalities through the funds available within the framework of this project;

In 2012, the activities in drafting of local plans expanded to Ulcinj, Mojkovac, Šavnik, Plužine, Cetinje and Podgorica, while the number of funded social pro-tection services rose to 17;

At the last call for the allocation of funds for the support to the development of social services (July 2013), a total of 23 services were supported, while the drafting of Local plans for the development of social protection services began in Berane, Budva, Pljevlja, Kolašin, Plav and Tivat;

In 2012, UNDP carried out mapping and analysis of social protection services in all Montenegrin municipalities and created a database of local social protection services (www.inkluzija.me)

Manual on single approach to the process of drafting, adopting and implementing local plans was produced and distributed to all municipalities in Montenegro.

2.4. Obstacles for the development of social protection service before the 2013 Law

Centralised system of social and child protection

The Strategy for the development of social and child protection for the period 2008-2012 foresees a greater role of the local self-governments in managing the development of social protection services. However, the role of the state in this segment remains predominant. The state is still the main finance- and service

8 For the reform of social protection (component II), EUR 1.180.400 was allocated from the IPA 2010 funds, while UNDP contributed with additional EUR 118.040. UNDP is responsible for the implementa-tion of component II.

9 Findings and recommendations for the development of social services in local communities, UNDP 201110 Ibid.

15


provider, through its centres for social work and other public institutions dealing with social and child protection. The legislative framework from 2005 left only the possibility for local self-governments to secure additional forms of protection in case they had the necessary funds. The financing and planning system for the social protection system is centralised. Almost all rights and services provided by public institutions which belong to the social protection system, are funded from the state budget, except for a small portion secured by local self-governments for one-time financial assistance.

Different economic power of local self-governments

Different economic power is reflected in an unequal availability of social protection services among the local self-governments in the north, south and in the central region of Montenegro. This has a direct impact on the impossibility to implement financial decentralisation of social protection services because the modest budget of local self-governments, especially those in the north, cannot meet the needs of local population.

Lack of adequate normative framework which would regulate the area of social protection services

Although foreseen, the measures from the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy for the period 2008-2012, related to the establishment of accreditation, licensing and introduction of standards for the quality of social protection services, have not been implemented. The realisation of these measures is foreseen by the Law from 2013 and by the strategic framework for the development of social and child protection for the period 2013-2017. The system of licensing and accredita-tion is to be established by 2015.

Non-alignment of the legislative framework with the identified long-term pri-orities in the strategic framework for social protection

The strategic framework for the period 2013-2017, which would define long-term goals and priorities for social and child protection, was not adopted immediately upon cessation of validity of the Strategy for the period 2008-2012. Instead, the Law was adopted first. Hence, the Strategy will continue to be based on the provisions of the 2005 Law which is not in line with the reform in this area.

Insufficient exchange of experience and cooperation between relevant social stakeholders

The dominant role of the state in securing social protection led to the failure to recognise the importance of a greater involvement of non-state actors, especially NGOs as initiators of extra-institutional forms of protection, in the process of plan-ning, implementation and monitoring of social policy. Reluctance of the Ministry of labour and social welfare to cooperate with NGOs, and the ‘top-down’ implementa-tion of the decentralisation process, are confirmed both in the research conducted by Institute Alternative within the project ‘Challenges of developing the welfare mix in Montenegro’11, as well as by the Progress Report on Montenegro’s accession to the EU (September 2012), in which the European Commission assessed that the Ministry had to improve cooperation with the NGO sector.

11 This publication is available for download at: http://institut-alternativa.org/izazovi-razvoja-kom-binovane-socijalne-politike-u-crnoj-gori/

16


protection services

in Montenegro”

Insufficient financial support from the state and from the local self-governments to NGOs’ project activities

The development of new forms of social protection requires greater allocation of funds from the state and local budgets, as well as a greater support from interna-tional donors. It is particularly important to establish a special fund at the central and local levels which would finance projects and services in order to support projects of NGOs and other service providers, thereby ensuring sustainability of services provided via these projects. Such a fund has not been established nor is its establishment foreseen by the 2013 Law.

Lack of control mechanisms

Lack of efficient mechanisms for the evaluation of funded project results, lack of standards for the provision of services, lack of records on services and service providers additionally hamper the development and sustainability of local social councils. An increasing withdrawal of international donors, as well as the insuf-ficient involvement of social stakeholders to secure additional funding through project proposals, contributes to this phenomenon.

Lack of research, expert analyses and statistics on social needs of the local population

The centre for advisory, research and expert affairs has not been established, nor has the Ministry of labour and social welfare established a functional relationship between the implementation, monitoring of needs and reporting. An aggravating circumstance is also reflected in the lack of a single database in the social and child protection system, non-standardised record-keeping system of the centres for social work and local self-governments, whereby the reliability of data is questioned, while the reporting activities boil down to an overview of statistical data without expert analysis. It is only with the entry into force of the 2013 Law that the establish-ment of an Agency for social and child protection is foreseen. Its role is to oversee and control the development of the social protection services and to monitor and analyse social phenomena and problems in order to meet the needs of population.

Lack of local coordination bodies which would manage the development of social protection services

Local councils for social planning have not been established at the local level, although their establishment was planned in the 2008-2012 Strategy. These are local working bodies which would manage the development of social protection services as an institutional form of cooperation between different social stakeholders. Although their establishment had been planned even prior to the expiration of the Strategy for the period 2008-2012, it was only in late 2012 that improvised mechanisms for planning of the development of social protection services were established, in the form of a working group for the preparation and a working group for monitoring of the implementation of the local plan for enhancing social inclusion.

Passive position of beneficiaries

Programmes for placement on the labour market of able beneficiaries – benefiting from social welfare payments – have not been established, although this activity had been planned in the Action Plan of the Strategy. Beneficiaries have no possibility to participate in finding the most favourable solution for overcoming an unfavourable situation. There was no possibility of choosing neither a service nor a service pro-vider. The very possibility of using extra-institutional forms of protection depended

17


on how much the beneficiary was informed about the activities (projects) of NGOs which were the main service providers. The role of beneficiaries boils down to ac-cessing and exercising the right to social welfare payments.

Bureaucratisation of centres for social work

Being burdened by administrative procedures and facing a large number of requests for exercise of certain rights, in addition to the lack of staff, renders centres for social work unable to respond to the beneficiaries, within their existing capacity, in the sense of planning and undertaking activities for securing adequate social protec-tion services. The IT system of social welfare has not been established yet which further affects the ability of the centres for social work to respond to the needs of beneficiaries. By simplifying administrative procedures, there will be a possibility for expert workers to become more involved in assessment and planning of social protection services and also to introduce contemporary work methods.

Unevenness in the knowledge and approach in providing services

This phenomenon is present both in the centres for social work and in the private non-profit sector. Services are provided by persons without adequate professional and academic credentials. There are no standards for service providers and for the quality of services provided. This is why the licensing system, prescribed by the new Law, is extremely important. The Law foresees the license both for NGOs and for expert workers in the centres and other institutions of social and child protection.

18


protection services

in Montenegro”

2.5. Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’ No. 27/13)

The right to social protection service appeared for the first time in the social and child protection system upon entry into force of the Law on social and child protection in 2013.

Rights stemming from social and child protection

Article 11

Rights stemming from social and child protection shall be: 1) basic social welfare benefits; 2) social and child protection services.

The Law defines the necessary preconditions for the development of a network of social protection services which meet the needs of population and allow for their availability. The Law further enables organisations, entrepreneurs and natural persons to provide social protection service, in case they fulfill the conditions for performing such activi-ties and obtain a license. Such an approach promotes the principle of pluralism among service providers and among services.

According to the Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’ No. 27/13), social protection services, which may be provided by stakeholders other than centres for social work, encompass services of support to community life, social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services and accommodation services.

Services of support to community life are: daycare/centre, assistance at home, hous-ing with support, shelter, personal assistance, interpretation and translation to and from sign language and other services of support to community life.

Counselling-therapeutic and social-educational services include: counselling, therapy, mediation, SOS hotline and other services whose goal is to overcome crisis situation and to foster family relations.

Accommodation is a service which includes the stay of beneficiaries in: family accom-modation-foster-care, family accommodation, social and child protection institution, reception centre – shelter and other forms of accommodation. In this research, only the shelter/reception centre form of accommodation was covered as an extra-institutional form of protection.

The Law foresees the establishment of an Agency for social and child protection, as a special sector at the Ministry of labour and social welfare, which would carry out advisory, research and expert affairs in the field of social and child protection, monitor the quality of expert work and services in institutions, provide expert supervisory support with a view to enhancing the expert work and services in social and child protection, perform licensing activities for expert workers and issue work license, carry out expert and orga-nizational affairs in the accreditation procedure for training programmes, i.e. programmes for provision of services which ensures expert training for expert workers and associates and service providers, adopt Code of Ethics for employees in the area of social and child protection, research social phenomena and problems, activities and effects of social and child protection, develop a system of quality in social and child protection, coordinate the development of standards of services and propose to the competent state administration body to enhance the existing and introduce new standards, participate in preparation, implementation, monitoring and assessment of the effects of application of strategies, action plans, laws and other regulations related to the development of social and child

19


activities, organise expert training for expert workers and associates, prepare and pub-lish monographs, magazines and work collections, expert manuals, guides, information studies and examples of good practice, inform wider public about the implementation of social and child protection, indicate the needs and problems of beneficiaries, especially of beneficiaries from vulnerable social groups, etc.

The Law stipulates that (extra-institutional) services are financed from the state budget, municipal budgets, by performance of activities of service providers – via beneficiaries’ participation, via donations, gifts, endowments, legacies, establishment of endowment funds and foundations, etc. However, it is not defined how this will take place, which remains to be regulated by a special bylaw.

Greater accountability of the local self-government in financing social protection services is also foreseen. These services include: assistance at home, day care, soup kitchen, recreation of children, housing with support, accommodation in reception centre – shelter, housing for vulnerable persons and other services in line with the financial ability of the local self-government.

Development of social and child protection

Article 156

For the purpose of developing, i.e. financing social and child protection services, funds shall be extracted from the state budget, municipal budgets, donations, games of chance and other sources in line with the law. Funds from paragraph 1 of this ar-ticle shall finance: 1) social and child protection services for which there is a need in municipalities; 2) innovative services and social and child protection services which are of special importance for the state.

The amount of funding for services from paragraph 1 of this article, criteria for their allocation per municipalities, criteria for participation of local self-government and the dynamics of the transfer of funding shall be determined by the competent state administration body.

Therefore, if local self-governments are unable to secure funding for the aforementioned services, the state will participate in their financing.

The Law also defines the adoption of special bylaws which are significant for the de-velopment of social and child protection services, which will regulate:

Licensing and accreditationDatabase – record-keepingCriteria for determining the price of social and child protection servicesBeneficiaries’ participation in covering the cost of services

***

On the basis of typology established by the Law, the following section of this report presents an overview of the state of play according to each local self-government unit in terms of availability of social protection services along with a catalogue of services for each local self-government. With a view to analysing the state of play, we analysed the situation at the national level and prepared a set of recommendations for increas-ing the availability of a network of social protection services which allow for the least restrictive environment for the beneficiary (family, local community), thereby reducing the number of beneficiaries using the institutional forms of protection.

20


protection services

in Montenegro”

3. NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL PROTECTION SERVICES

3.1. Types of services

Graph 1. Share of service types in total number of services

According to the Law on social and child protection, types of social pro-tection services are: support to com-munity life, social-educational and counselling-therapeutic and accom-modation services.12 In the reporting period, we mapped 284 social pro-tection services. Social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services

represent the vast majority of services provided (167), which make a share of 58.8% in the total number of services. We mapped 109 services of support to community life, which makes a share of 38.3% and 8 shelter services which make a share of 2.8% in the total number of services.

Graph 2. Territorial distribution of social protection services – number of services

Graph 3. Territorial distribution of social protection services – share of services at local level in the total number of services

12 As mentioned in the introductory part of the report, assessment and planning services, urgent inter-ventions and services of accommodation in institutions of social and child protection were not covered by this research.


3.NATIONALOVERVIEWOFTHESOCIALPROTECTIONSERVICES

3.1.Typesofservices

Graph1.Shareofservicetypesintotalnumberofservices

According to the Lawon social and childprotection, types of social protectionservices are: support to community life,social‐educational and counselling‐therapeutic and accommodationservices.12 In the reporting period, wemapped 284 social protection services.Social‐educational and counselling‐therapeutic services represent the vastmajority of services provided (167),whichmakeashareof58.8%inthetotalnumber of services. We mapped 109services of support to community life,which makes a share of 38.3% and 8

shelterserviceswhichmakeashareof2.8%inthetotalnumberofservices.

Graph2.Territorialdistributionofsocialprotectionservices–numberofservices

Graph3.Territorialdistributionofsocialprotectionservices–shareofservicesat local level inthetotalnumberofservices

12Asmentionedintheintroductorypartofthereport,assessmentandplanningservices,urgentinterventionsand services of accommodation in institutions of social and child protection were not covered by thisresearch.

114 15

34

1 12 419

3 9 724

7 127

77

11 1 9 7 1

38,30%

58,80%

2,80% Supporttocommunitylife

Social‐educationalandcounselling‐therapeutic

Accommodationservices

0,34,9 5,3

12,0

0,34,2

1,4

6,6

1,1 3,22,5

8,5

2,5 0,3

9,5

27,1

3,80,3

3,22,5 0,3



3.1.Typesofservices







114 15

34

1 12 419

3 9 724

7 127

77

11 1 9 7 1

38,30%

58,80%




0,34,9 5,3

12,0

0,34,2

1,4

6,6

1,1 3,22,5

8,5

2,5 0,3

9,5

27,1

3,80,3

3,22,5 0,3



3.1.Typesofservices







114 15

34

1 12 419

3 9 724

7 127

77

11 1 9 7 1

38,30%

58,80%




0,34,9 5,3

12,0

0,34,2

1,4

6,6

1,1 3,22,5

8,5

2,5 0,3

9,5

27,1

3,80,3

3,22,5 0,3

21


Territorial distribution of services indicates that the number of available social pro-tection services is in correlation with the size of local self-governments (Graphs 2 and 3). The largest number of social protection services is available in the biggest local self-governments in Montenegro (Podgorica, Bijelo Polje, Pljevlja, Nikšić, Herceg Novi, Berane and Bar).

Table 1 Coverage of target groups by social protection services – territorial distribution

Local self-government No. of persons 65 + No. of service

beneficiaries 65+ %

Andrijevica 852 0

Bar 5574 331 5,94%Berane 4528 120 2,65%Bijelo Polje 5681 210 3,70%Budva 1918 42 2,19%Cetinje 2573 95 3,69%Danilovgrad 2569 125 4,87%Herceg Novi 15445 113 0,73%Kolašin 1426 35 2,45%Kotor 2009 117 5,82%Mojkovac 1207 100 8,29%Nikšić 9768 290 2,97%Plav 1739 65 3,74%Plužine 719 0

Pljevlja 5645 123 2,18%Podgorica 19952 350 1,75%Rožaje 1864 65 3,49%Šavnik 411 50 12,17%Tivat 1781 80 4,49%Ulcinj 2869 0

Žabljak 692 0

Total 89 222 2311

Greater number of available services does not necessarily imply better coverage of target groups by social protection services, i.e. the focus of services to meeting the needs of priority target groups. The research results show that in many local self-governments, local action plans which identify concrete target groups have been adopted; however, regardless of the availability of a greater number of services (compared to other local self-governments), none of the services is focused on that particular priority target group.

Table 1 on the territorial coverage by social protection services of persons aged over 6513 demonstrates that, on average, 3.39% of this target group is covered by social

13 In order to better explain that the size of the local self-government (population-wise) does not nec-essarily mean better focus and alignment of the social protection services with the needs of target groups, we compared the number of members of one target group and the number of beneficiaries of all mapped services for that target group. As a sample target group, we took persons aged over 65 because this target group represents the largest share of population in all local self-governments and also because the data on these beneficiaries were largely available, because there is a small number of sub-types of services and almost all mapped services target persons aged over 65. For the sake

22


protection services

in Montenegro”

protection services at the local level14. If we look at the data for Podgorica with the greatest number of persons older than 65 (19.952) and Šavnik with the least number (411), we can see that the coverage by these services of this target group is greater in Šavnik (12.1%) compared to Podgorica where the coverage of this target group by social protection services amounts to only 1.8 %.

Table 2 Coverage of the target group by social protection services – national overview

Local self-

government

No. of persons aged 65+ in Montenegro

No. of service beneficiaries

aged 65 +

% of beneficiaries from the total number of persons aged 65 + in Montenegro

Andrijevica 89222 0 0,000%Bar 89222 331 0,371%Berane 89222 120 0,134%Bijelo Polje 89222 210 0,235%Budva 89222 42 0,047%Cetinje 89222 95 0,106%Danilovgrad 89222 125 0,140%Herceg Novi 89222 113 0,127%Kolašin 89222 35 0,039%Kotor 89222 117 0,131%Mojkovac 89222 100 0,112%Nikšić 89222 290 0,325%Plav 89222 65 0,073%Plužine 89222 0 0,000%Pljevlja 89222 123 0,138%Podgorica 89222 350 0,392%Rožaje 89222 65 0,073%Šavnik 89222 50 0,056%Tivat 89222 80 0,090%Ulcinj 89222 0 0,000%Žabljak 89222 0 0,000%Total 899222 2311 2,590%

The total number of persons aged over 65, who are beneficiaries of the social protection services, is 2.311. Compared to the total number of this target group, which according to Monstat data is 89.222, this represents only 2.59%. Therefore, at the national level, only 2.59% members of this target group are covered by the social protection services. Reasons for this may be several: different socio-economic position of members of this target group in different local self-governments; many local self-governments do not consider persons aged over 65 as a target group requiring particular focus of social protection services, or they do but the services have not been developed.

of comparison, we used data from Monstat from the 2011 census which provides exact data on the number of persons aged over 65 for each local self-government.

14 Average coverage by social protection services per local self-government unit was obtained by divid-ing the total sum from column 4 (% of the total number of target group in a local self-government) – 71.11% - by the number of local self-governments in Montenegro.

23


3.2. Sub-types of social protection services

3.2.1. Support to community life

Sub-types of support to community life, as stipulated by the Law on social and child protection, are: daycare/daycare centre, housing with support, assistance at home, shel-ter, personal assistance, translation and interpretation to and from sign language. The Law allows sufficient room for incorporating other services under this sub-type, which is why we also mapped the services relating to the development of volunteer service, provision of transportation, assistance (procurement of orthopaedic and other tools).

According to the research results, a total of 109 services of support to community life are available in Montenegro. At the national level, all sub-types identified by the Law are available. However, not all sub-types are equally developed and evenly distributed at the local level. The most widespread sub-type of services of support to community life is assistance at home.

Table 3. Number and share of sub-types of services of support to community life

Sub-types of services of support to community life Number of services %

Daycare/centre 16 14,6Housing with support 3 2,7Assistance at home 41 37,6Personal assistance 20 18,3Development of volunteer service 11 10,9Assistance 13 12Translation and interpretation to sign language 2 1,8Shelter (soup kitchen) 3 2,7

3.2.2. Social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services

According to the Law on social and child protection, social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services include: counselling, therapy, mediation, SOS hotline, and other services whose goal is to overcome crisis situations and to enhance family relations.

We excluded services provided by the centres for social work from the category of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, because counselling, educa-tion, mediation and the social work service represent obligatory services that must be provided by the centres for social work as primary institutions of social protection, as stipulated by the Law.

24


protection services

in Montenegro”

Table 4 Sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services

Sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services

Number of services %

Counselling 14 8,38%Teaching assistance and mediation 3 1,79%

Creative workshops 9 5,38%Therapy 4 2,39%

Education 25 14,97%SOS hotline 10 5,98%

Counselling and therapy 48 28,74%Mediation 2 1,19%

Counselling and education 18 10,77%Counselling, education and therapy 6 3,59%Counselling, therapy and mediation 5 2,99%

Counselling, education and mediation 7 4,19%Counselling and mediation 1 0,59%

Counselling and SOS hotline 4 2,39%Counselling, education and creative workshops 1 0,59%Counselling, education, therapy and mediation 6 3,59%

Education, therapy and mediation 1 0,59%Counselling, creative workshops and therapy 1 0,59%

Counselling and creative workshops 1 0,59%Counselling, therapy, SOS hotline and mediation 1 0,59%

According to the research results, a total of 167 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services are available in Montenegro, which repre-sents 58.8% of the total number of services. Only 66 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services (39.5%) include only one sub-type. Generally, such services include a combination of two or more sub-types of this service, mostly counselling and therapy (28.7%).

3.2.3. Shelter services

Since our research topic deals with extra-institutional social protection services, from among the accommodation services, we only mapped the shelter service and excluded the service of institutional accommodation.

According to the research results, a total of 8 shelter services are available in Montenegro.

25


Table 5 Shelter services

Reception centre for victims of violence

Centre for support to children and family Bijelo Polje

SOS shelter for women and children victims of violence Nikšić – Social

service for women

SOS hotline for women and children victims of violence Nikšić

Homeless shelter Human Rights Action Podgorica

Shelter for victims of domestic violence Social welfare secretariat in cooperation with SWH Podgorica

Shelter for LGBT persons LGBT Forum Progres PodgoricaShelter for single under-age mothers Dom nade Podgorica

Shelter for victims of trafficking in human beings Montenegrin Female Lobby Podgorica

Safe Women’s House Open Centre Bona Fide Pljevlja

3.3. Service providers

Service providers are NGOs, public institutions and the Red Cross organisations. Lo-cal self-governments appear as contractors for social protection services provided by NGOs or local Red Cross organisations.

According to the Law on social and child protection, greater accountability of the local self-government in financing the social protection services is foreseen: assistance at home, daycare, shelter, housing for socially vulnerable persons and other services in line with the financial situation in a given local self-government.

Local self-government plays the role of a contractor of social protection services. Ac-cording to the research results, local self-government mostly contracts the service of assistance at home for elderly and the shelter service. In the reporting period, local self-governments contracted 17 services of assistance at home for elderly via local pub-lic works. Two local self-governments (Cetinje and Podgorica) provide free-of-charge daily meal for socially vulnerable persons, in line with the criteria established by the Decisions on social and child protection. This also represents the only form of service directly provided by local self-governments to the beneficiaries.

It is important to underline that the majority of accommodation services is provided in partnership between NGOs and local self-governments (Podgorica, Nikšić, Pljevlja), while two accommodation services are contracted by the state (Ministry of internal affairs and the Ministry of labour and social welfare)15. However, direct service provid-ers are NGOs.

According to the research results, one local self-government provides the service of housing with support, in partnership with an NGO.16 Local self-government appears as the founder of public institutions of social and child protection, but the services

15 Shelter for victims of trafficking in human beings, provided by the Montenegrin Female Lobby, con-tracted by the Office for the prevention of trafficking in human beings (Ministry of internal affairs) and the Homeless Shelter, provided by the Human Rights Action, contracted by the Ministry of labour and social welfare.

16 Social welfare secretariat of the Capital City in cooperation with the Centre for the rights of the child.

26


protection services

in Montenegro”

are provided by public institutions, while the local self-government plays the role of a contractor.

Graph 4 No. of services (LS as service contractor) Graph 5 No. of services (LS as service provider)


Localself‐governmentplaystheroleofacontractorofsocialprotectionservices.Accordingtotheresearchresults,localself‐governmentmostlycontractstheserviceofassistanceathomeforelderlyand the shelter service. In the reporting period, local self‐governments contracted 17 services ofassistance at home for elderly via local public works. Two local self‐governments (Cetinje andPodgorica)providefree‐of‐chargedailymealforsociallyvulnerablepersons,inlinewiththecriteriaestablishedby theDecisionson social and childprotection.This also represents theonly formofservicedirectlyprovidedbylocalself‐governmentstothebeneficiaries.

ItisimportanttounderlinethatthemajorityofaccommodationservicesisprovidedinpartnershipbetweenNGOsand local self‐governments (Podgorica,Nikšić,Pljevlja),while twoaccommodationservicesarecontractedbythestate(MinistryofinternalaffairsandtheMinistryoflabourandsocialwelfare)15.However,directserviceprovidersareNGOs.

According to the research results,one local self‐governmentprovides the serviceofhousingwithsupport, in partnership with an NGO.16 Local self‐government appears as the founder of publicinstitutionsofsocialandchildprotection,buttheservicesareprovidedbypublicinstitutions,whilethelocalself‐governmentplaystheroleofacontractor.

Graph3No.ofservices(LSasservicecontractor)Graph4No.ofservices(LSasserviceprovider)

Withregard to thedevelopmentof socialprotection services, coordinationandmanagementare themain roles of local self‐governments, rather than having local self‐governments asdirectserviceproviders.

Thiswasconfirmedbytheresearchparticipants.Outof116respondentswhoprovidedananswertothe question ofwho shouldmanage the process of development of social protection services,mostidentifiedlocalself‐governmentinthatrole(42).

Graph 5 Coordinator of the development of social protection services – research participants’answers*

15 Shelter for victims of trafficking in human beings, provided by the Montenegrin Female Lobby, contracted by the Office for the prevention of trafficking in human beings (Ministry of internal affairs) and the Homeless Shelter, provided by the Human Rights Action, contracted by the Ministry of labour and social welfare. 16 Social welfare secretariat of the Capital City in cooperation with the Centre for the rights of the child.

228 38 16 2

80,20%

13,30% 5,63% 0,70%NGO RedCross PI LS

217

228 16 21

76,40% 0,70% 9,85% 5,63% 7,39%

With regard to the development of social protection services, coordination and management are the main roles of local self-governments, rather than having local self-governments as direct service providers.

This was confirmed by the research participants. Out of 116 respondents who provided an answer to the question of who should manage the process of development of social protection services, most identified local self-government in that role (42).

Graph 6 Coordinator of the development of social protection services – research partici-pants’ answers*


*Under‘Agency’werefertotheAgencyforsocialandchildprotection

3.3.1.Numberandterritorialdistributionofserviceproviders

As we may assume that the greater number of inhabitants means greater number of socialprotectionservices,wemayalsoassumethatthegreaternumberofservicesmeansgreaternumberofserviceproviders.

Table6Structureofserviceprovidersperlocalself‐governmentunit

42 3517 13

4 1 1 1 1

LS CSW LSandCSW

Team Newworkingbody

MLSW LSandAgency

CSWandAgency

NGO

LS No.ofproviders NGO RC PI LS

Andrijevica 1 1

Bar 7 6 1

Berane 11 10 1

BijeloPolje 15 11 1 3

Budva 1 1

Cetinje 8 6 1 1

Danilovgrad 4 2 1 1

HercegNovi 15 13 1 1

Kolašin 3 1 1 1

Kotor 7 5 1 1

Mojkovac 5 4 1

Nikšić 13 10 1 2

Plav 4 2 1 1

Plužine 1 1

Pljevlja 16 13 1 2

Podgorica 43 39 1 2 1

Rožaje 8 7 1

*Under ‘Agency’ we refer to the Agency for social and child protection

3.3.1. Number and territorial distribution of service providers

As we may assume that the greater number of inhabitants means greater number of social protection services, we may also assume that the greater number of services means greater number of service providers.

27


On the basis of research results, a total of 175 providers provide services in Montenegro, mostly NGOs. We mapped a total of 141 NGOs (80.5%) which provide 70 services of support to community life, 151 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services and 7 shelter services. A total of 17 munici-pal Red Cross organisations took part in our research (9.7%) which provide a total of 38 services, mostly support to community life. Red Cross provides 9 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services. A total of 16 services are provided by 15 public institutions of social protection (8.5%). Two local self-governments (1.1%) provide services of support to community life.

Table 6 Structure of service providers per local self-government unit

LS No. of providers NGO RC PI LS

Andrijevica 1 1

Bar 7 6 1

Berane 11 10 1

Bijelo Polje 15 11 1 3

Budva 1 1

Cetinje 8 6 1 1

Danilovgrad 4 2 1 1

Herceg Novi 15 13 1 1

Kolašin 3 1 1 1

Kotor 7 5 1 1

Mojkovac 5 4 1

Nikšić 13 10 1 2

Plav 4 2 1 1

Plužine 1 1

Pljevlja 16 13 1 2

Podgorica 43 39 1 2 1Rožaje 8 7 1

Šavnik 1 1

Tivat 6 5 1

Ulcinj 5 4 1

Žabljak 1 1

TOTAL 175 141 17 15 2

28


protection services

in Montenegro”

Graph 7 Structure of services according to the type of provider and type of service


64,22%7,33% 26,60% 1,83%

90,40%

4,19%5,30%

87,50%

12,50%

NGO PI RC LS

Shelter

SE‐CT

STCL

Onthebasisofresearchresults,atotalof 175 providers provide services inMontenegro,mostlyNGOs.Wemappeda total of 141 NGOs (80.5%) whichprovide 70 services of support tocommunity life, 151 social‐educationaland counselling‐therapeutic servicesand 7 shelter services. A total of 17municipalRedCrossorganisationstookpart in our research (9.7%) whichprovide a total of 38 services, mostly

support to community life. Red Cross provides 9 social‐educational and counselling‐therapeutic services. A total of 16 services are provided by 15 public institutions of socialprotection (8.5%). Two local self‐governments (1.1%) provide services of support tocommunitylife.

Graph6Structureofservicesaccordingtothetypeofproviderandtypeofservice

Šavnik 1 1

Tivat 6 5 1

Ulcinj 5 4 1

Žabljak 1 1

TOTAL

175

141 17 15 2

3.4. Structure of services according to providers

3.4.1. Structure of sub-types of services of support to community life according to the provider

Table 7 Sub-types of services of support to community life according to the provider

NGO Public institution

Local self-government

Red Cross Total

Daycare/centre 9 7 16

Housing with support 2 1 3

Assistance at home 19 22 41

Personal assistance 16 4 20

Development of volunteer service 10 1 10

Assistance 11 2 13

Translation and interpretation to sign language 2 2

Daily meal 1 2 3

Total 70 8 2 29 109

29


3.4.2. Structure of sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services according to the provider

Table 8 Sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services according to the provider

Sub-types of SE-CT services NGO RC PINo. of sub-

types of services

Counselling 11 2 1 13

Teaching assistance and mediation 2 1 3

Creative workshops 10 10

Therapy 3 1 4

Education 20 1 4 25

SOS hotline 10 10

Counselling and therapy 46 2 48

Mediation 2 2

Counselling and education 15 3 18

Counselling, education and therapy 5 1 6

Counselling, therapy and mediation 5 5

Counselling, education and mediation 7 7

Counselling and mediation 1 1

Counselling and SOS hotline 4 4

Counselling, education and creative workshops 1 1

Counselling, education, therapy and mediation 5 1 6

Education, therapy and mediation 1 1

Counselling, creative workshops and therapy 1 1

Counselling and creative workshops 1 1

Counselling, therapy, SOS hotline and mediation 1 1

Total 151 9 7 167

The share of NGOs in providing social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services is 90.4%. By comparing the total number of sub-types of services and the number of services of the same sub-type provided by NGOs, a total of 44 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services (26.3%) are provided solely by NGOs (*marked in pink).

The share of services of other providers in the total number of sub-types of social-edu-cational and counselling-therapeutic services is significantly smaller. According to the research results, Red Cross provides 9 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services (5.38%). Out of 7 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services (4.12%) provided by public institutions, three services are provided by the primary healthcare centres with a view to preventing addiction diseases.

30


protection services

in Montenegro”

All types of social protection services are provided mostly by NGOs. Out of 284 social protection services, NGOs provide 217 (76.4%). These services are not provided in formal partnerships or via contracts with other stakeholders, but may involve some form of cooperation. If we include services provided on the basis of contracts, memoranda on coop-eration or any other form of cooperation with the local self-government or the ministry, then the number of services provided by NGOs is even greater – 228 services (80.2%).

3.4.3. Shelter service according to the provider/contractor

Graph 8 Shelter service per provider

Shelter service is provided by 8 NGOs. Four accommodation services are provided au-tonomously, while other four are provided in partnership with the public sector (two with local self-government, two with the competent ministry).

3.5. Target (beneficiary) groups

Based on the research results, target groups benefitting from the social protection ser-vices are children, persons with disabilities, elderly, victims of violence, youth, Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian population, LGBT persons, sexual workers, convicted persons serving prison sentences, gambling addicted persons and homeless.17

Each target group includes several beneficiary groups. Hence, services for children are primarily oriented toward children with developmental difficulties, services for victims of violence toward women and children victims of domestic violence, services for per-sons with disabilities toward hearing impaired and visually impaired persons, services for Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians toward preschool and school children, services for psychoactive substance users toward persons injecting drugs, services for youth toward secondary school pupils and youth with developmental difficulties, while services for families are oriented toward parents of children with developmental difficulties, single parents and families at risk. We underline that the typology criteria for target groups was determined by the cause for using that particular service.18

17 Target groups are listed according to the number of services tailored to their needs, starting from the target group that has the most services at its disposal to the target group for which services are only identified, but very few actually available.

18 Therefore, for example, although the shelter service for underage mothers with children is related to children, the criteria for benefitting from this service lie in the fact that these are single parents who need this service. Although the shelter service is intended for children too, the criterion for using the shelter service for victims of violence is that the child is a victim of violence, not just a child. Also, although services for children are intended for children regardless of their ethnic or any other char-acteristic or orientation, we mapped only those services which are intended for Roma and Egyptian children separately.


TheshareofNGOsinprovidingsocial‐educationalandcounselling‐therapeuticservicesis90.4%.Bycomparing thetotalnumberofsub‐typesofservicesandthenumberofservicesof thesamesub‐type provided by NGOs, a total of 44 social‐educational and counselling‐therapeutic services(26.3%)areprovidedsolelybyNGOs(*markedinpink).

Theshareofservicesofotherprovidersinthetotalnumberofsub‐typesofsocial‐educationalandcounselling‐therapeutic services is significantly smaller. According to the research results, RedCrossprovides9social‐educationalandcounselling‐therapeutic services (5.38%).Outof7social‐educational and counselling‐therapeutic services (4.12%) provided by public institutions, threeservices are provided by the primary healthcare centres with a view to preventing addictiondiseases.

3.4.3.Shelterserviceaccordingtotheprovider/contractor

Graph7Shelterserviceperprovider

Shelter service is provided by 8 NGOs. Fouraccommodationservicesareprovidedautonomously,whileotherfourareprovidedinpartnershipwiththepublic sector (two with local self‐government, twowiththecompetentministry).

Alltypesofsocialprotectionservicesareprovidedmostly by NGOs. Out of 284 social protectionservices, NGOs provide 217 (76.4%). Theseservicesarenotprovidedinformalpartnershipsor

viacontractswithotherstakeholders,butmayinvolvesomeformofcooperation.Ifweincludeservicesprovidedon thebasisofcontracts,memorandaoncooperationoranyother formofcooperation with the local self‐government or the ministry, then the number of servicesprovidedbyNGOsisevengreater–228services(80.2%).

3.5.Target(beneficiary)groups

Based on the research results, target groups benefitting from the social protection services arechildren,personswithdisabilities,elderly, victimsofviolence,youth,Roma,AshkaliandEgyptian

Counselling,educationandcreativeworkshops 1 1Counselling,education,therapyandmediation 5 1 6Education,therapyandmediation 1 1Counselling,creativeworkshopsandtherapy 1 1Counsellingandcreativeworkshops 1 1Counselling,therapy,SOShotlineandmediation 1 1Total 151 9 7 167

3

2

2

1NGO

NGOandMinistryNGOandLS

PI

31


Graph 9 Share of services per target group and number of beneficiaries


population, LGBTpersons, sexualworkers, convicted persons serving prison sentences, gamblingaddictedpersonsandhomeless.17

Each target group includes several beneficiary groups. Hence, services for children are primarilyoriented toward childrenwith developmental difficulties, services for victims of violence towardwomen and children victims of domestic violence, services for persons with disabilities towardhearingimpairedandvisuallyimpairedpersons,servicesforRoma,AshkaliandEgyptianstowardpreschoolandschoolchildren,servicesforpsychoactivesubstanceuserstowardpersons injectingdrugs,servicesforyouthtowardsecondaryschoolpupilsandyouthwithdevelopmentaldifficulties,whileservicesforfamiliesareorientedtowardparentsofchildrenwithdevelopmentaldifficulties,single parents and families at risk.Weunderline that the typology criteria for target groupswasdeterminedbythecauseforusingthatparticularservice.18

Graph8Shareofservicespertargetgroupandnumberofbeneficiaries

3.5.1.Children

Out of 284 services in Montenegro, we mapped a total of 80 services for children (28.1%): 26services of support to community life and 54 social‐educational and counselling‐therapeutic

17 Targetgroupsarelistedaccordingtothenumberofservicestailoredtotheirneeds,startingfromthetargetgroupthathasthemostservicesatitsdisposaltothetargetgroupforwhichservicesareonlyidentified,butveryfewactuallyavailable.18 Therefore, for example, although the shelter service for underage mothers with children is related tochildren,thecriteriaforbenefittingfromthisservicelieinthefactthatthesearesingleparentswhoneedthisservice.Althoughtheshelterserviceisintendedforchildrentoo,thecriterionforusingtheshelterserviceforvictimsofviolenceisthatthechildisavictimofviolence,notjustachild.Also,althoughservicesforchildrenareintendedforchildrenregardlessoftheirethnicoranyothercharacteristicororientation,wemappedonlythoseserviceswhichareintendedforRomaandEgyptianchildrenseparately.

2,46%1,76%

2,80%

2,46%6,70%

7,39%

7,74%17,20% 21,83%

28,10%

1,06%

3,25%2,57%

8,40%

2,35%5,67%

3,21%8,55% 13,40%

51,17%

Other LGBTpersons

PAsubstanceusers

RAE Family Victimsofviolence

Youth Elderly Disabled Children

Beneficiaryshare

Serviceshare

3.5.1. Children

Out of 284 services in Montenegro, we mapped a total of 80 services for children (28.1%): 26 services of support to community life and 54 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services. Services are mostly provided by NGOs (68 services – 85%). The share of children in the total number of service beneficiaries is 50.4%. Below we pres-ent the overview of services for children classified by the cause which made children beneficiaries of those services, with an overview of types of services, providers and number of beneficiaries.

Table 9 Services for children according to beneficiary groups

Beneficiary groups No. of services

Type of services No. of benefi-ciaries

Type of provider

STCL SE-CT Shelter NGO RC PI

Preschool and school pupils* 17 17 12 224 16 1

Children with develop-mental difficulties 48 24 24 1199 42 6

Children victims of peer violence 3 3 36 3

Preschool children of RAE origin 3 3 641 3 6

Children of psychoac-tive substance users 2 2 15 2

Children of sexual workers 1 1 1

Children without parental care 1 1 3 1

TOTAL 75 25 50 14118 68 6 7

* including children from families at risk and children with behavioural problems, because the service includes extended stay and expert treatment in educational institutions

32


protection services

in Montenegro”

For children of preschool and school age, social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services are available, and are related to education and counselling on prevention of addiction diseases and education about healthy lifestyles (15 services). For children with behavioural problems, the service of extended expert procedure in schools is available, while for children from families at risk, the service of extended stay with expert treatment is available.

For children victims of violence three SOS hotlines are available and are provided by three NGOs. Also, for children victims of violence, shelter services are available.19

For children and youth with developmental difficulties a total of 52 services are available, of which 25 are related to support to community life, while the other 27 are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, with an emphasis on coun-selling and therapy. Of the total number of services, 42 are provided by NGOs, while 6 services are provided by public institutions. The total number of beneficiaries of services for children with developmental difficulties is 1199. Service of support to community life, provided by public institutions, include services of daycare for children and youth with developmental difficulties. Besides daycare services, children with developmental difficulties may benefit from the service of personal assistance, creative workshops in which they may develop work and social skills, service or treatment by expert workers (speech therapist, physical therapist, special educator and alike), volunteer assistance with a view to integration in community life, transportation assistance and alike. All these services are provided by NGOs.

For Roma and Egyptian children a total of four social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services are available, with an emphasis on counselling, socio-humanitarian aid and securing access to education. Services are provided by three NGOs and Red Cross organisations in Bar, Bijelo Polje, Plav, Pljevlja, Podgorica and Cetinje. Particularly important activities are carried out by two NGOs ‘Association of Egyptians’ from Tivat and ‘Djeca-Enfants’ from Rožaje, which provide services to children as a priority, and contribute to the inclusion of these children in the educational system.

For children of psychoactive substance users and for children of sexual workers, one NGO provides teaching assistance and mediation with securing expert treatment for those children. Another NGO provides support to children of psychoactive substance users via psychological strengthening and counselling.

3.5.2. Persons with disabilities

We mapped a total of 62 services (21.83%) for persons with disabilities, of which 35 are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, while 27 are services of support to community life. A peculiarity of this target group is that the services are only provided by NGOs, mostly to their members and that the type of service depends on the type of disability. Only one service for persons with disabilities is provided by the Red Cross with a view to securing adequate assistance tools.20 The vast majority are inter-municipal NGOs.

Two NGOs provide daycare services for persons with disabilities (NGO Adria from Bar and Association for assistance to persons with psycho-physical developmental prob-lems from Nikšić). Other available services include personal assistance, assistance in the form of procuring support tools, audio library, transportation and a whole set of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, with an emphasis on counsel-

19 Section 3.5.4. Victims of violence, services relating to victims of violence, including children, are listed.20 We assume that this service targets elderly, but this was not explicitly mentioned in the questionnaire,

so we classified this service in the target group: persons with disabilities.

33


ling and education of persons with disabilities about their rights and mediation whose goal is to facilitate access to rights, and alike. The total number of beneficiaries of these services is 3703 (13.4%).

3.5.3. Elderly

For elderly, we mapped a total of 49 services (17.2%), of which most services are linked to support to community life (44). This is the only target group for which the service of support to community life is better developed compared to social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services. Services for elderly, especially assistance at home as the predominant sub-type of service (35) are mostly provided by the Red Cross (22 services). These include services such as assistance at home intended for elderly over 65 years old who benefit from assistance either via Red Cross volunteers or via geronto-housewives through the local public work entitled ‘Care of elderly’. A large number of Red Cross organisations, with the support of the Italian Red Cross, launched a programme of care for the elderly which involves assistance at home. The programme lasted until March 2012, when only a few local NGOs began implementing that pro-gramme autonomously. Services launched with the support of UNDP, which are of particular importance, target elderly in the rural areas (Bar, Nikšić, Šavnik, Mojkovac, Cetinje). Only three municipal

ities provide the service of personal assistance for elderly, with the support from the Austrian Red Cross (Berane, Bijelo Polje, Mojkovac). Besides these, the Red Cross provides the service of procuring certain support tools for disabled elderly. There was only one case which listed counselling of elderly as a separate form of service. Services provided by Caritas of the Bar Archdiocese need to be emphasised – apart from the care of elderly, Caritas runs a daycare for elderly. This form of protection is also available in Nikšić and this service was launched by the Centre for social work, with the support of UNDP. Through socialization, provision of primary healthcare and animation, as well as through provision of transportation and free meals, these services significantly contribute to social inclusion of elderly. According to the research results, the number of beneficiaries of services for elderly in the reporting period was 2359 (8.55%).

Graph 10 Red Cross services for elderly


intendedforelderlyover65yearsoldwhobenefitfromassistanceeitherviaRedCrossvolunteersorviageronto‐housewivesthroughthelocalpublicworkentitled‘Careofelderly’.AlargenumberofRedCrossorganisations,withthesupportof theItalianRedCross, launchedaprogrammeofcarefortheelderlywhich involvesassistanceathome.TheprogrammelasteduntilMarch2012,whenonlyafewlocalNGOsbeganimplementingthatprogrammeautonomously.Serviceslaunchedwiththe support of UNDP, which are of particular importance, target elderly in the rural areas (Bar,Nikšić, Šavnik, Mojkovac, Cetinje). Only three municipalities provide the service of personalassistance for elderly, with the support from the Austrian Red Cross (Berane, Bijelo Polje,Mojkovac).Besidesthese,theRedCrossprovidestheserviceofprocuringcertainsupporttoolsfordisabledelderly.Therewasonlyonecasewhichlistedcounsellingofelderlyasaseparateformofservice.ServicesprovidedbyCaritasoftheBarArchdioceseneedtobeemphasised–apartfromthecareofelderly,Caritasrunsadaycareforelderly.ThisformofprotectionisalsoavailableinNikšićand this servicewas launchedby theCentre for socialwork,with the supportofUNDP.Throughsocialization, provision of primary healthcare and animation, as well as through provision oftransportationandfreemeals, theseservicessignificantlycontributetosocial inclusionofelderly.Accordingtotheresearchresults,thenumberofbeneficiariesofservicesforelderlyinthereportingperiodwas2359(8.55%).

Graph9RedCrossservicesforelderly

3.5.4.Victimsofviolence

Forvictimsofviolence,alltypesofservicesareavailable‐atotalof21services(7.39%)providedto1566 persons (5.67%). Three services are provided by the Centre for support to children andfamily,whiletheother18servicesareprovidedbyNGOs.However,theleastavailablesub‐typesofservicesarethoserelatedtosupporttocommunitylife(1).Itisimportanttonotethatforthistargetgroup, five shelter services are available in four larger local self‐governments in the central andnorthernregion:Podgorica,Nikšić,BijeloPoljeandPljevlja.TwoaccommodationservicesexistonlyinPodgorica,wherethere isaspecialshelter forvictimsof trafficking inhumanbeings.However,thisserviceisprovidedinpartnershipwiththeMinistryofinternalaffairs,i.e.withtheOfficeforthepreventionoftraffickinginhumanbeings,whiletheothertwosheltersarerunincooperationwithNGOs(SafeWomen’sHousefromPodgoricaandSOSHotlinefromNikšić)andwiththecompetentlocal administration body. Cooperation is also reflected in the fact that the local self‐governmentallocatesspaceorlandfortheconstructionofashelter,oritprovidesfundingforitsconstruction,whiletheservicesareprovidedbyNGOs.

Numberofservices

Numberofbeneficiaries

AssistancePersonalassistance Assistanceat

home Counselling

14

221

30 200

1326

35

3.5.4. Victims of violence

For victims of violence, all types of services are available - a total of 21 services (7.39%) provided to 1566 persons (5.67%). Three services are provided by the Centre for sup-port to children and family, while the other 18 services are provided by NGOs. However, the least available sub-types of services are those related to support to community life (1). It is important to note that for this target group, five shelter services are available in four larger local self-governments in the central and northern region: Podgorica,

34


protection services

in Montenegro”

Nikšić, Bijelo Polje and Pljevlja. Two accommodation services exist only in Podgorica, where there is a special shelter for victims of trafficking in human beings. However, this service is provided in partnership with the Ministry of internal affairs, i.e. with the Office for the prevention of trafficking in human beings, while the other two shelters are run in cooperation with NGOs (Safe Women’s House from Podgorica and SOS Ho-tline from Nikšić) and with the competent local administration body. Cooperation is also reflected in the fact that the local self-government allocates space or land for the construction of a shelter, or it provides funding for its construction, while the services are provided by NGOs.

Shelter for the victims of violence does not exist in the south. Instead, protection is provided via activities of the local NGOs in the form of an SOS hotline. SOS hotline exists only in the Municipality of Ulcinj in the southern region, while there is an SOS hotline for the protection of children victims of domestic violence in Herceg Novi. SOS hotline exists in a total of 9 local self-governments. It should be noted, however, that three of these nine are provided in Podgorica by three NGOs (Montenegrin Female Lobby, Safe Women’s House and SOS hotline). Besides SOS hotline, out of 25 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, the most available ones are counselling and therapy.

3.5.5. Youth

Services for the youth are underdeveloped. Only 22 (7.74%) services are available, of which 19 are social-educational services. Services mostly target education of youth about the fight against addiction diseases.

Three services are related to support to community life, two of which concern housing with support for the youth without parental care. 19 services are provided by NGOs and two by public institutions.

For the youth without parental care 3 services are available. Only one NGO (Centre for the rights of the child) provides services to this beneficiary group. Besides a spe-cial club for foster parents, this NGO developed, on a volunteer basis, a youth club for orphans leaving the Children’s Home ‘Mladost’, and in cooperation with the competent local administration body it provides the service of housing with support. Apart from Podgorica, this service was launched by the Centre for social work in Bijelo Polje to assist the youth without parental care to become autonomous after leaving their in-stitutional accommodation.

For Roma and Egyptian youth there is a service of creative workshops provided by one NGO and the Youth Club provided by the Red Cross for displaced Roma and Egyp-tians, with a view to supporting their inclusion in the education system. For youth with developmental difficulties (2) the service of professional rehabilitation – protective workshops – and mediation in employment are available. All these services are provided by NGOs. The total number of beneficiaries of services for the youth is 886 (3.21%).

3.5.6. Family

This research mapped a total of 19 services (6.7%) of support to family and (single) parents. During the research, we mapped 7 services for parents and 6 services for fami-lies at risk and single parents respectively. All services for families as a target group are mostly social-educational and counselling-therapeutic, with the exception of shelter service for single underage mothers. One service is supported by a public institution and by the Red Cross respectively, while the remaining 17 are provided by NGOs. The number of beneficiaries of services for families is 649 (2.35%).

35


Table 10 Services for family according to beneficiary groups

Beneficiary groups

No. of services

Type of service No. of beneficiaries

Type of provider

STCL SE-CT Shelter NGO RC PI

Family at risk 6 6 105 5 1Parents 7 7 130 6 1Single parents 6 5 1 414 6TOTAL 18 18 649 17 1 1

3.5.6.1.Families at risk

From among the services for families at risk, we mapped 3 services related to families at risk of violence and 3 services of support to families of psychoactive substance users. For families at risk of violence, services are provided by one public institution (Centre for support to children and family) and two NGOs (Women for a better future and Association of women and mothers ‘Help’). Services are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic in character.

For families of psychoactive substance users, service of counselling is available and is provided by three NGOs (4 Life, Preporod and Pljevlja Women’s Space).

The total number of beneficiaries of these services is 105.

3.5.6.2. Parents

We mapped a total of 7 services for parents; however, it is important to note that all services for children and youth indirectly include parents, although there is a small number of NGOs providing these services which identify parents as a beneficiary group. This was valid in two cases. These are all social-educational services. Special services targeting only parents with a view to strengthening their parental skills are poorly de-veloped. We mapped only 5 services dealing with family strengthening and enhancing parenthood. The total number of beneficiaries of services for parents was 130.

3.5.6.3. Single parents

Single parents have 6 services at their disposal, one of which is the service of accom-modation for single underage mothers provided by one NGO (Dom nade) in Podgorica. The remaining 5 are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, with an emphasis on counselling and psycho-social support. The number of beneficiaries of services for single parents is 414.

3.5.7. Psychoactive substance users

For the psychoactive substance users, we mapped 8 (2.8%) services provided by 5 NGOs21 and the public institution ‘Kakaricka gora’. According to the research results, we mapped 691 beneficiaries (2.5%). Out of 8 services, 6 are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic, but a whole set of sub-types of services ranging from counselling and therapy, free legal aid, education about health protection, to mediation whose goal is institutional accommodation and exercise of rights in healthcare and social protection institutions, are available. Of the sub-types of services of support to community life, services of two daycare centres are provided by NGOs Juventas and 4 Life. Services provided by Juventas

21 NGO Preporod (Nikšić), Juventas, 4 life and Pozitivne vibracije (Podgorica).

36


protection services

in Montenegro”

involve a developed field work carried out not only in Podgorica, but also in Budva, Kotor, Bar, Ulcinj, Herceg Novi and Tivat. Juventas and 4 Life also provide services to psychoac-tive substance users who are placed in correctional facilities.

We emphasise the social service provided by NGO Preporod whereby a Centre for support to families with addiction problems is under establishment, with the support of UNDP. We also highlight the support service and assistance to social inclusion of psychoactive substance users supported in the last call for proposals published by UNDP, in July 2013. Rehabilitation and re-socialisation of male members of this target group is provided and actively developed by the institution ‘Kakaricka gora’ in Podgorica, which also received support of UNDP, in partnership with the Social welfare secretariat to implement the project ‘Enhancing rehabilitation (work therapy) and re-socialisation services’.

3.5.8. Roma and Egyptian population

During our research, projects of 9 NGOs, and the activities of the Montenegrin Red Cross in Camp Konik, as well as the number of beneficiaries of their services, led us to set a separate target group of Roma, Egyptian and Ashkali population. We mapped 13 social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services for this target group, 6 of which were already mapped within the services for children and youth. The remaining 6 services target prevention of arranged and forced marriages and education about prevention of domestic violence and juvenile delinquency, provided in this reporting period by the Centre for Roma Initiatives from Nikšić. The Red Cross opened a Family Centre in Camp Konik, which provides counselling and psycho-social support to Roma and Egyptian women. The total number of beneficiaries of these services is 2319 (8.4%).

3.5.9. LGBT persons

In Montenegro, 5 services (1.76%) are available, but all types of services are available for LGBT population. Services are provided by two NGOs. Juventas provides a set of services for this population, from daycare to SOS hotline and a special online service for violence and discrimination reporting (‘Report violence! Don’t let it happen again!’) which allows for reporting of discrimination and violence against these persons and provides social-educational information. LGBT Forum Progres provides shelter ser-vice, psycho-social support and free legal aid, in cooperation with the Centre for anti-discrimination ‘Ekvista’ from Podgorica.

In the reporting period, 899 (3.25%) benefitted from these services.

3.5.10. Other target (beneficiary) groups

Among other target groups we included services which are unique and are not available and those which have a small number of beneficiaries. However, this does not imply that those services are less important and that they should be neglected. First of all, here we refer to the homeless shelter launched by the Human Rights Initiative.22 Homeless persons were identified as a vulnerable category for the first time by the state in the Law on social and child protection of 2013, while the service of opening a shelter needs to be defined by a separate bylaw.

For persons serving prison sentence because they committed a criminal offence, a whole set of services is developed through the programme of damage reduction, implemented by Juventas in Podgorica. These are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic 22 There used to be a special shelter in Podgorica, opened by NGO Put nade, which stopped working due

to financial unsustainability.

37


services, which include a combination of all sub-types of services, from counselling to mediation. The number of beneficiaries of this service is 125 (0.45%).

An example of professional activation of beneficiaries of social payments is provided by NGO ‘Alternative’. For the target group of 20 female beneficiaries of social payments, this NGO offered a tailoring and sowing course.

For persons addicted to gambling and for the treatment of this disease, we mapped two services provided by ADP Zid and Youth Initiative for Human Rights.

Two services are available for sexual workers. Only Juventas deals with the develop-ment of services for this target group. According to the research results, 142 sexual workers (0.51%) use the services of a daycare centre, while field work is also present within the framework of the programme for damage reduction, carried out in Podgorica, Budva, Ulcinj, Herceg Novi, Tivat and Kotor. Apart from education about health protec-tion, psycho-social help is also available, mediation in exercise of rights and teaching assistance, including access to expert treatment for children of sexual workers.

3.6. Number of beneficiaries

Graph 11 Territorial distribution of beneficiaries in percentages


Graph11Ratiobetweenthenumbersofproviders,servicesandbeneficiaries

The graph does not include service of two soup kitchens provided by two local self‐governments

Inthereportingperiod,wemapped284servicesinMontenegro,providedby175providersfor27.587 beneficiaries. If we compare the total number of services and the total number ofproviders, on average, every provider provides two services. There is a particularly largenumberofcases inwhichoneNGOprovidesmore than twoservices,especially in largerself‐governments.23

3.7.Inter‐sectorcooperationinprovisionofservices

23 Caritasof theBarArchdiocese,Association forassistancetopersonswithpsycho‐physicaldevelopmentalproblems and Preporod (Nikšić), Juventas, 4life, Safe Women’s House (Podgorica), SOS hotline for theprotection of women from domestic violence (Podgorica, Bijelo Polje, Nikšić), Association of Youth withDisabilities,PIZračaknade‐Pljevlja,PICentreforsupporttochildrenandfamily,BijeloPoljeRedCross,etc.

1,93

28,50

6,67

0,152,67 1,78 1,25

0,90

4,91

0,81

12,00

0,39

8,35

24,64

3,22 0,21

0,77

0,80 0,03

RC

PI

NGO

No.ofprovidersNo.ofservices

No.ofbeneficiaries

1738 2067

15 16 3447141 228

21533

Graph 12 Ratio between the numbers of providers, services and beneficiaries

• The graph does not in-clude service of two soup kitchens provided by two local self-governments


Graph11Ratiobetweenthenumbersofproviders,servicesandbeneficiaries

The graph does not include service of two soup kitchens provided by two local self‐governments

Inthereportingperiod,wemapped284servicesinMontenegro,providedby175providersfor27.587 beneficiaries. If we compare the total number of services and the total number ofproviders, on average, every provider provides two services. There is a particularly largenumberofcases inwhichoneNGOprovidesmore than twoservices,especially in largerself‐governments.23

3.7.Inter‐sectorcooperationinprovisionofservices

23 Caritasof theBarArchdiocese,Association forassistancetopersonswithpsycho‐physicaldevelopmentalproblems and Preporod (Nikšić), Juventas, 4life, Safe Women’s House (Podgorica), SOS hotline for theprotection of women from domestic violence (Podgorica, Bijelo Polje, Nikšić), Association of Youth withDisabilities,PIZračaknade‐Pljevlja,PICentreforsupporttochildrenandfamily,BijeloPoljeRedCross,etc.

1,93

28,50

6,67

0,152,67 1,78 1,25

0,90

4,91

0,81

12,00

0,39

8,35

24,64

3,22 0,21

0,77

0,80 0,03

RC

PI

NGO

No.ofprovidersNo.ofservices

No.ofbeneficiaries

1738 2067

15 16 3447141 228

21533

38


protection services

in Montenegro”

Organisations of the Red Cross are the best informed about the avail-able services (av-erage mark 3.66). As the role of the local self-govern-

ment is to contract, manage and coordinate, the research result according to which these are the least informed stakeholders about the services provided represents a matter for concern (average mark 2.47).

In the reporting period, we mapped 284 services in Montenegro, provided by 175 providers for 27.587 beneficiaries. If we compare the total number of services and the total number of providers, on average, every provider provides two services. There is a particularly large number of cases in which one NGO provides more than two services, especially in larger self-governments.23

3.7. Inter-sector cooperation in provision of services

Research results show that the number of projects in which the centres participated as partners or which they initiated themselves, is higher than reported in the annual performance reports of the centres. As an example of good practice, besides the Centre for social work from Nikšić, we point out to the Centre for social work in Bijelo Polje, which launched a whole set of projects for the development of social services, and participated as a partner with several NGOs in providing services. We would also like to underline the activities of the Centre for social work in Pljevlja which cooperates with NGO Bona Fide in providing shelter services for victims of violence, and the local unit in Ulcinj which provided support to single parents together with NGO New Hori-zon and is also a partner in the ‘SOS hotline’ project initiated by SOS hotline for victims of violence in Ulcinj. Also, the local unit in Šavnik provides the service of protection of elderly in rural areas, in cooperation with the Red Cross. These services/projects are identified by our respondents. However, we must note the uneven level of information, interest and general knowledge of local stakeholders about the importance of developing social services and partnerships for their provision at the local level. This is confirmed by the fact that many local self-governments – which already have the relevant strategic documents for the development of social protection services in place – instead of providing answers on concrete social services available in their local communities, as an answer to the question of the amount of allocation from the local budget for the development of services, they provided information on allocations for one-time social payments, equipment for newborn or other rights to financial benefits.Graph 12 Average assessment of the possession of information on available services

23 Caritas of the Bar Archdiocese, Association for assistance to persons with psycho-physical develop-mental problems and Preporod (Nikšić), Juventas, 4life, Safe Women’s House (Podgorica), SOS hotline for the protection of women from domestic violence (Podgorica, Bijelo Polje, Nikšić), Association of Youth with Disabilities, PI Zračak nade- Pljevlja, PI Centre for support to children and family, Bijelo Polje Red Cross, etc.


Researchresultsshowthatthenumberofprojectsinwhichthecentresparticipatedaspartnersorwhichthey initiatedthemselves, ishigherthanreported intheannualperformancereportsof thecentres.Asanexampleofgoodpractice,besidestheCentreforsocialworkfromNikšić,wepointout to the Centre for social work in Bijelo Polje, which launched awhole set of projects for thedevelopment of social services, and participated as a partner with several NGOs in providingservices.WewouldalsoliketounderlinetheactivitiesoftheCentreforsocialworkinPljevljawhichcooperateswithNGOBonaFide inprovidingshelterservices forvictimsofviolence,andthe localunitinUlcinjwhichprovidedsupporttosingleparentstogetherwithNGONewHorizonandisalsoapartnerinthe‘SOShotline’projectinitiatedbySOShotlineforvictimsofviolenceinUlcinj.Also,thelocalunitinŠavnikprovidestheserviceofprotectionofelderlyinruralareas,incooperationwiththeRedCross.Theseservices/projectsare identifiedbyourrespondents.However,wemustnotetheunevenlevelofinformation,interestandgeneralknowledgeoflocalstakeholdersabouttheimportanceofdevelopingsocialservicesandpartnershipsfortheirprovisionatthelocallevel. This is confirmed by the fact that many local self‐governments – which already have therelevantstrategicdocumentsforthedevelopmentofsocialprotectionservicesinplace–insteadofprovidinganswersonconcretesocialservicesavailableintheirlocalcommunities,asananswertothequestionoftheamountofallocationfromthelocalbudgetforthedevelopmentofservices,theyprovidedinformationonallocationsforone‐timesocialpayments,equipmentfornewbornorotherrightstofinancialbenefits.

Graph12Averageassessmentofthepossessionofinformationonavailableservices

Organisations of the Red Crossare thebest informedabout theavailable services (averagemark 3.66). As the role of thelocal self‐government is tocontract, manage andcoordinate, the research resultaccordingtowhichthesearetheleast informed stakeholdersabout the services providedrepresentsamatter forconcern(averagemark2.47).

It is interesting that thequestionnaire on social protection serviceswas returnedwith concrete answerson services theyinitiated themselvesorparticipated in indirectly, byonly twocentresoutof18 centres and localunitsforsocialworkwhichrespondedintotal(Bar,Nikšić).Thismeansthatthereisalowlevelof information on what social protection services represent. Hence the importance ofpartnershipandcooperationoflocalstakeholdersindevelopmentandmanagementofdevelopment

ofsocialprotectionservices.

Graph12Doweneedadatabaseonservices?

This was recognised by the researchparticipantsthemselveswhoexpressedtheneedfor developing a database (catalogue) ofservices,firstandforemostinordertoimprovethelevelofinformation,exchangeofexperiencedirect beneficiaries to the right service and to

90,90%

100%

85,70%88,80%

94,40%

YES

2,742,47

3,4

3,66

2,92

Averagemark

forallproviders

RC

PI

LS

NGO

39


This was recognised by the research participants themselves who expressed the need for developing a database (catalogue) of services, first and fore-most in order to improve the level of information, exchange of experience direct beneficiaries to the right service and to enhance the quality of avail-able services. Out of 117 respondents, 90.5% said that they considered nec-essary the development of a database (catalogue) of services.

It is interesting that the questionnaire on social protection services was returned with concrete answers on services they initiated themselves or participated in indirectly, by only two centres out of 18 centres and local units for social work which responded in total (Bar, Nikšić). This means that there is a low level of information on what social protection services represent. Hence the importance of partnership and co-operation of local stakeholders in development and management of development of social protection services.Graph 13 Do we need a database on services?

We should not undermine the fact that during the explanation of answers to this question, the catalogue or database was often understood as an establishment of an IT system for social welfare. Research participants who provided a negative answer to this question consider that, prior to establishing a final database on available services, it is necessary to prepare a Rulebook on minimum standards in service provision and to establish a licensing system. They added that the database would be difficult to es-tablish given that the services are mostly provided by NGOs via their project activities which are limited in time and often not sustainable.

3.8. Obstacles for the development of social protection services

This research confirmed that the obstacles identified during the implementation of the Law on social and child protection, relating to the centralised system, insufficient involvement and participation of social stakeholders, lack of clear division of respon-sibilities and a complex administrative procedure, still represent obstacles for the development of a network of social protection services.

Nevertheless, 51% of the respondents identified the lack of funds as the main obstacle, primarily for the local self-government to meet the needs of population and the lack of permanent source of funding, which brings into question the sustainability of the service:


Researchresultsshowthatthenumberofprojectsinwhichthecentresparticipatedaspartnersorwhichthey initiatedthemselves, ishigherthanreported intheannualperformancereportsof thecentres.Asanexampleofgoodpractice,besidestheCentreforsocialworkfromNikšić,wepointout to the Centre for social work in Bijelo Polje, which launched awhole set of projects for thedevelopment of social services, and participated as a partner with several NGOs in providingservices.WewouldalsoliketounderlinetheactivitiesoftheCentreforsocialworkinPljevljawhichcooperateswithNGOBonaFide inprovidingshelterservices forvictimsofviolence,andthe localunitinUlcinjwhichprovidedsupporttosingleparentstogetherwithNGONewHorizonandisalsoapartnerinthe‘SOShotline’projectinitiatedbySOShotlineforvictimsofviolenceinUlcinj.Also,thelocalunitinŠavnikprovidestheserviceofprotectionofelderlyinruralareas,incooperationwiththeRedCross.Theseservices/projectsare identifiedbyourrespondents.However,wemustnotetheunevenlevelofinformation,interestandgeneralknowledgeoflocalstakeholdersabouttheimportanceofdevelopingsocialservicesandpartnershipsfortheirprovisionatthelocallevel. This is confirmed by the fact that many local self‐governments – which already have therelevantstrategicdocumentsforthedevelopmentofsocialprotectionservicesinplace–insteadofprovidinganswersonconcretesocialservicesavailableintheirlocalcommunities,asananswertothequestionoftheamountofallocationfromthelocalbudgetforthedevelopmentofservices,theyprovidedinformationonallocationsforone‐timesocialpayments,equipmentfornewbornorotherrightstofinancialbenefits.

Graph12Averageassessmentofthepossessionofinformationonavailableservices

Organisations of the Red Crossare thebest informedabout theavailable services (averagemark 3.66). As the role of thelocal self‐government is tocontract, manage andcoordinate, the research resultaccordingtowhichthesearetheleast informed stakeholdersabout the services providedrepresentsamatter forconcern(averagemark2.47).

It is interesting that thequestionnaire on social protection serviceswas returnedwith concrete answerson services theyinitiated themselvesorparticipated in indirectly, byonly twocentresoutof18 centres and localunitsforsocialworkwhichrespondedintotal(Bar,Nikšić).Thismeansthatthereisalowlevelof information on what social protection services represent. Hence the importance ofpartnershipandcooperationoflocalstakeholdersindevelopmentandmanagementofdevelopment

ofsocialprotectionservices.

Graph12Doweneedadatabaseonservices?

This was recognised by the researchparticipantsthemselveswhoexpressedtheneedfor developing a database (catalogue) ofservices,firstandforemostinordertoimprovethelevelofinformation,exchangeofexperiencedirect beneficiaries to the right service and to

90,90%

100%

85,70%88,80%

94,40%

YES

2,742,47

3,4

3,66

2,92

Averagemark

forallproviders

RC

PI

LS

NGO

40


protection services

in Montenegro”

‘Key obstacle is the lack of a systemic answer to the problem of funding of these ser-vices. The state is trying to decentralise the provision of services, while simultaneously it is not taking the path of decentralisation and revenues which would enable local self-governments to financially support service providers. Besides, it is necessary to establish the standardisation of services, in order to ensure equal quality of services provided by different providers.’

Organisation of blind persons for Nikšić, Šavnik and Plužine

Research participants’ answers confirm that the lack of funding has a direct impact on securing expert capacity of the service providers, thereby affecting the quality of services. Namely, the answers to the question on the number of employees we submit-ted to the municipal organisations of the Red Cross, centres for social work and public institutions of social and child protection and NGOs, demonstrate that only a small portion of even those institutions which count 20 to 95 employees provide services. Also, we should not forget that 15 service providers, NGOs, do not have any employees. Instead, they operate on a volunteer basis. In addition, 75 out of 95 service providers24 have up to 10 employees: 11 centres for social work, 51 NGOs, 3 public institutions of social protection and 10 Red Cross organisations.

When it comes to the mechanisms of assessment of quality of the service, mechanisms exist in 47.7% of the respondents and are mostly based on the fulfillment of question-naires by beneficiaries, reporting on implemented activities, internal meetings of expert teams and supervision. It should be noted that centres for social work took the ‘assessment of the quality of the service’ to mean the ‘procedure for assessing the need for providing a certain service’ (4 answers) or they failed to answer the question (11 centres and local units), which is why we assume that there are no mechanisms for assessing the quality of services in the primary social protection institutions.

24 This question was submitted to all participants except for local self-governments, while 3 didn’t re-spond.

41


4. Conclusion

The Law on social and child protection (‘Official gazette of Montenegro’ No. 27/13) defines the right to social and child protection services as a separate right. Our research results show that the respondents do not distinguish between this right and the right to social welfare payments, services of social work and socio-humanitarian aid. It is especially worrying that the centres for social work, as primary institutions of social and child protection, and the representatives of local administration bodies in charge of social protection, do not distinguish between these different categories of rights.

In the 2012-2013 period, there were 284 services available in Montenegro, provided by 175 providers for 27.587 beneficiaries. The most available are social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services (58.8 %), while the least available are shelter services (2.8%). Among the sub-types of services of support to community life, the most available is assistance at home (40.36%), while among the sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, the most available is the mix of coun-selling and therapy (28.7%). Unlike services of support to community life, only 39.5% of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services include only one sub-type of this service. This means that it is necessary to pay attention to clear definition and delimitation of sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services when preparing the Rulebook on standards in provision of services (e.g.: whether edu-cation of a certain target group about the manner of exercising their rights is a service, whether mediation involves only family or marriage disputes or if mediation includes the process of facilitating access to a certain right as a separate sub-type of this service, what is exactly meant by therapy, etc.).

Out of 175 service providers, the vast majority are NGOs (80.5%). Social protection services are developed through project activities which are limited in time. Projects in the area of service development are mostly initiated by NGOs, which is understand-able given the fact that projects are the main source of funding. NGOs provide about 80.2% of all services.

Local self-government provides two services – temporary shelter, i.e. soup kitchen for all socially vulnerable categories of population. The role of local self-government in provid-ing services is to coordinate, i.e. to contract the provision of certain services on the basis of adopted strategic documents which should meet the needs of the local population in this area. This is confirmed by a large number of projects whose contractor is the local self-government, but the direct service provider is an NGO. Hence, at the last call for proposals for the allocation of UNDP funds, local self-governments were awarded 5 proj-ects (Mojkovac, Podgorica, Cetinje). The overview of availability of services at the local level reveals the need to enhance the process of planning and developing social protec-tion services. In some, mostly smaller local self-governments, this process has not even started yet. In the largest local self-governments, a larger number of services is available, and a larger number of beneficiaries is present. However, this does not mean that the services are developed in a way to meet the needs of the local population. In almost all local self-governments, strategic documents which identify certain target groups which require development of certain services have been adopted. Our research results at the local level show that, even though a particular target group was identified as priority, no single service has been developed (e.g. Bar – service for victims of violence does not exist). For the research on social needs of local population, data from centres for social work, as primary institutions which beneficiaries address when requesting assistance, are of extreme importance. On the other hand, performance reports of centres for social

42


protection services

in Montenegro”

work, especially inter-municipal, do not contain an analysis of concrete problems in lo-cal communities, which would serve as a basis for planning the measures for their sup-pression. None of the local self-governments published information on the state of play and problems in the area of social protection on their official websites, which should be compiled by the centres. Although local stakeholders operate in the same area – area of social protection – the level of cooperation, exchange of information on the contents of services and on activities is not sufficiently developed, which has an impact on the fact that the level of information on available services in a local community is extremely low. Lack of cooperation can be compensated by forming working bodies within local self-governments which would deal with planning, developing and enhancing the quality of social protection services, and which would be coordinated by local self-governments or an expert team composed of relevant local stakeholders. Additionally, official websites of the local self-governments generally do not contain a list of active NGOs, or local strategic documents relevant for the area of social protection, or information on the state of play and problems in the area of social protection, decision on forms of social and child protec-tion or decision on allocation of funds for NGO projects. Publishing and updating data is of extreme importance not only for the transparency of local administration but also for improving the level of information, first and foremost among the centres for social work and other service providers, in order to provide beneficiaries with adequate information on available protection services.

Municipal organisations of the Red Cross make up a share of 9.7% of all service pro-viders. Out of 13.3% of the services they provide, 76.3% of services are related to support to community life – mostly assistance at home (75.8%). Red Cross services target elderly, displaced Roma and Egyptian population and children and youth with developmental difficulties.

Public institutions represent 8% of all service providers. Out of 5.4% of services they provide, they equally provide the service of support to community life and social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services (46.6%). Only one public institution provides a shelter service for victims of violence.

Services are most developed for children (28.1%). The available sub-types of services for children are: daycare, assistance at home, assistance, personal assistance, creative workshops, counselling, education, therapy, SOS hotline, teaching assistance, mediation. The service of accommodation in a shelter for underage single mothers with children is also available, and it represents a unique shelter service in Montenegro. Children may also benefit from the service of shelter for victims of violence in Bijelo Polje, Podgorica and Nikšić.

The second largest target group (according to the number of available services) are persons with disabilities. They have 62 services at their disposal (21.83%). The shelter service is not available. Available services are daycare, (personal) assistance and assis-tance at home. From among the social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, the following are available: counselling, education and mediation for the purpose of employment. In the reporting period, the share of persons who are beneficiaries of services for persons with disabilities was 13.4% of the total number of beneficiaries.

Elderly have 49 services (17.2%) at their disposal, and these are used by 17.2% of the total number of beneficiaries. The most available service is assistance at home (71.42%). Among other sub-types, the following are available: daycare for elderly, free daily meal, procurement of assistance tools and personal assistance. As regards social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services, elderly may benefit from the counselling service.

For the youth, there are 22 services available (7.74%). However, the share of this beneficiary group in the total number of beneficiaries is only 3.21%. These are mostly

43


social-educational services (86.3%), with an emphasis on counselling and education. With regard to services of support to community life, the only available one is housing with support (two services – in Podgorica and in Bijelo Polje) for the youth without parental care.

For victims of violence, there are 21 services available (7.39%) which are used by 5.67% of the total number of beneficiaries. This is the only target group for which all types of services are available, the majority of which are social-educational (71.4%), with an emphasis on SOS hotline (60%). Among the services of support to community life, the only available service is assistance at home, while 5 shelter services are available. The shelter service is provided in two local self-governments (Podgorica and Nikšić) in partnership between local self-governments and NGOs.

For psychoactive substance users, we mapped 8 services (2.8%). The share of service beneficiaries in the total number of beneficiaries is 2.5%. However, regardless of the number of services, we emphasise that a number of sub-types of social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services are available for this target group, through a variety of programmes that have been launched. IN order to secure protection for beneficiaries, these services are not only social, but also healthcare services, bearing in mind that they include medical consultation, education on healthcare, prevention of diseases and alike. These services are also available for the beneficiaries’ families, usually the service of psycho-social support.

Other target groups which were identified in this research include services for families, Roma and Egyptian population, LGBT persons, sexual workers and homeless. When reading this report, in part relating to the separation of target groups and services for each of them, it should be noted that many services cover several target groups (e.g. the service of daycare covers children, youth and their families).

Lack of funding is the major obstacle for the development and availability of services at the local level, according to the research participants. Funding from the local budgets, intended for projects of NGOs, had not even been allocated in some local-self-govern-ments in the reporting period. Funding allocations are generally limited and uneven, which depends on the economic power of local self-governments. When attempting to determine the degree of funding of services from the local budgets, an obstacle was identified in the impossibility of tracking the expenses from the budget due to the lack of transparency of budget decisions and final accounts of the local self-governments. Namely, in the final accounts and decisions on budget, it was impossible to track the trend of allocations for the implementation of local strategic documents or the transfer of funds to NGOs. The Law on social and child protection failed to define explicitly the source of funding for services, but it foresaw the possibility of transferring funds from the state budget to those local self-governments which may not have the ability to fund services. At the national level, it is necessary to establish a permanent and sustainable source of funding, especially for those services that are supported through component II of the project ‘Reform of the social protection system – enhancing social inclusion.’

In order to enhance the quality of the existing services, the key task is to adopt the quality standards for social protection services and to license service providers. The quality of services is further affected by the lack of expert capacity due to financial limitations, as well as by the lack of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for social protection services.

In the end, the research results demonstrate that it is important to establish a database on available services and their providers as soon as possible, not just to increase the level of information and to enhance the quality of services, but also to be able to com-pare which services are needed and are yet to be developed.

44


protection services

in Montenegro”

5. Recommendations

Local level

• Local self-governments should publish calls for proposals for the allocation of funds to projects of NGOs and make their payments regularly;

• The list of all NGOs active in a particular local self-government, the decision on allocation of funds to NGOs, the decision on forms of social and child protection, local action plans relevant for the area of social protection, reports on monitoring and evaluation of implemented measures from the local action plans and the information on the state of play and problems in the field of social protection should be made publicly available at the official web presentations of all local self-governments;

• Local self-governments should amend their decisions on forms of social and child protection in line with the Law on social and child protection of June 2013;

• The database (catalogue) of social and child protection services should be made available at the official web presentation of all local self-governments, in order to better inform the citizens on available services in their communi-ties; media campaigns should be organised to inform beneficiaries and raise their awareness on social protection services, their importance and manner of exercising this right;

• Consult beneficiaries on the needs for social protection services. Different mechanisms may be put in place in order to check what services are needed to the beneficiaries: debates in small groups, regular meetings, beneficiary focus groups, questionnaires, panel discussions with service beneficiaries and others. This way, beneficiaries may provide input on their own needs in order to contribute to a wider strategic assessment of the future needs or should provide feedback on how to enhance the existing services in order to better meet their needs;

• In cooperation with local social protection stakeholders, it is necessary to analyse the level of achievement of strategic goals and objectives, and the pos-sibility of preparing new strategic documents and action plans based on the previously assessed needs for services at the local community level (prepara-tion of a social overview);

• Establish planning and monitoring mechanisms for the provision of services – intensify the work of working groups for monitoring the implementation of local action plans or working bodies (local councils/working bodies for the develop-ment of social protection services which would operate on a volunteer basis);

• Intensify activities of the local self-governments in collecting donor funds; implement projects in partnership with NGOs and other relevant social protec-tion stakeholders;

• Define the model of funding for social services as soon as possible, especially at the local level. Funds allocated to NGOs must be distributed appropriately, in a way that would allow for the implementation of quality projects related to provision of services.

• Local budgets should contain funds for the implementation of measures from action plans of local strategic documents in the area of social protection;

45


• Establish special budget lines for funding social protection services in order to monitor expenditures in this area. As regards the development of services for the local population, we recommend to open budget lines for specific services, thereby ensuring transparency of the degree of budgetary allocation of local self-governments for these services;

• Strengthen inter-municipal cooperation in the area of planning and developing social protection services. NGOs operating at the inter-municipal level should initiate more project activities in smaller local self-governments in which they do not have their seat but whose area is covered by their field of activities;

• Enhance cooperation through mutual exchange of information between social stakeholders, but also between the social and healthcare sectors, police and civil society, about the beneficiaries, their needs, contents of services and activities;

• At the level of local communities, initiate and sign protocols on cooperation in the field of service development, which would define precisely and clearly the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders and the contents of their cooperation;

• In their performance reports, centres for social work, especially the inter-municipal ones, should supplement their statistical data on the number of beneficiaries with an analysis of social issues in their local communities, with clearly defined priorities in terms of target groups and types of services that should be developed or further enhanced.

National level

• Organise seminars on innovations foreseen by the legislative framework with a special emphasis on the licensing system for service providers and the mod-els of social protection service provision. Since the Law on social and child protection foresees new institutes of contracting and providing services, it is necessary to educate all social stakeholders, especially local self-governments on public-private partnerships and on public procurement of services as a model of service provision;

• In terms of sustainability of services launched via the project ‘Reform of the social and child protection system – enhancing social inclusion’ it is important to define the continuation of these services and their funding for the next year as soon as possible, since these projects will end in April 2014;

• Through the relevant bylaws on standards in provision of services, it is neces-sary to clearly define sub-types and criteria for the provision of services, with a particular emphasis on social-educational and counselling-therapeutic services;

• Meet the deadline set by the Law on social and child protection (‘Official ga-zette of Montenegro’, No. 27/13) and establish the Agency for social and child protection by the end of 2014; until then, support research activities of social stakeholders with a view to establishing and revising the records of services, service providers and the number of services at an annual level;

• Records of services should be made publicly available through continuous en-hancing of information on the already established internet presentation www.inkluzija.me in order to raise the level of information and to reduce the burden on centres for social work as institutions which the beneficiaries primarily address.

46


protection services

in Montenegro”

47


About us

Institute Alternative (IA) is a non-governmental organization, established in September 2007 by a group of citizens with experience in civil society, public administration and business sector.

Our mission is to contribute to strengthening of democracy and good governance through research and policy analysis as well as monitoring of public institutions performance. Our objectives are to increase the quality of work, accountability and transparency, efficiency of public institutions and public officials; to encourage open, public, con-structive and well-argument discussions on important policy issues; raising public awareness about important policy issues, strengthening the capacity of all sectors in the state and society for the development of public policies. The values we follow in our work are dedication to our mission, independence, constant learning, networking, cooperation and teamwork.

We function as a think tank or a research centre, focusing on the overarching areas of good governance, transparency and accountability. Our research and advocacy activi-ties are structured within five main programme strands: i) public administration, ii) accountable public finance, iii) security and defense, iv) parliamentary programme and v)social policy.

On the basis of our five programmes, we monitor the process of accession negotiations with the EU, actively participating in working groups for certain chapters. Our flagship project is the Public Policy School, which is organized since 2012.

In our hitherto work, we had joint projects with Center for monitoring and research (CEMI), Centre for Civic Education (CGO) and European Movement in Montenegro. When it comes to international partners, we have cooperated with Centre for Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) from Geneva, Support for Improvement in Governance and Management (SIGMA), a joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, European Policy Center from Brussels, Center for International Studies (CESPI) from Rome, Center for Study of Democracy – Sofia, etc.

Managing of the organization is divided between the Assembly and the Managing Board. President of the Managing Board is Stevo Muk. Research Coordinator is Jovana Marović, PhD.

www.institut-alternativa.org

48


protection services

in Montenegro”

Mapping of Social Protection Services in Montenegro

November 2013 Podgorica

Find out more about the work of Institute Alternative at:www.institut-alternativa.org

Mapping of Social Protection Services in...

Documents

Transcript of Mapping of Social Protection Services in...