The Steady Path of Deinstitutionalization? Lessons from Serbia.

Danilo Vuković

Social Innovation Fund

Introduction: basic characteristics

• Network of public social services: centers for social work, residential institutions, plus day care centers, clubs, etc.

• Good geographical coverage, decent tradition, no group is systematically left out (perhaps except Roma)

• Non-state actors exist: self-help associations, private service providers

• Developed foster care (• School of social work, School for special

education

…

• Postponed post-socialist transformation: decade of poverty and deterioration of public services

• Residential institutions: low quality of services, ineffective and inefficient, not client oriented and paternalistic approach

• Centers for social work: low outreach of community services, focus on administrative work

• Network of other services is underdeveloped • Professional standards and licensing system

inadequate or non-existent

Financing mechanisms

• National level: residential institutions, foster care, cash benefits, partly centers for social work

• Local level: alternative (community based) services, e.g. day care, home care and help, shelters, clubs, etc. Not obligatory

Strategies

• National “plan” for the transformation of institutions, 2003-2004.

• National Strategy for the Development of Social Protection, 2005.

• High expectations. E.g. general mid-term transformation plan and for each institution,

• Goals only partly achieved

The process

• Plan for the transformation of the institution: moratorium, closing down, developing new services. Unclear lead role

• Development of alternative forms of care. Lead roles: ministry, local self-governments, Social Innovation Fund, FOPD

• Higher mid-term costs, SIF as a transitory mechanism

• Individual treatment plans for beneficiaries in institutions (for the beginning, children without parental care) as a tool

Implementation approaches (1)

• SIF: 212 local projects in 4 years. Development of community based services. Good coverage, broad focus. Bottom-up

• New services developed, incomplete geographical distribution

• Lack of national policy guidance• High dependence on local self-

governments

Implementation approaches (2)

• Ministry and SIF: Local social policy planning. 104 municipalities (⅔), strong involvement of local administrations

• Funding the implementation of the local strategic plans and establishing community based services

Implementation approaches (3)

• Ministry: moratorium for children without parental care younger then 3 years, ITPs, network of foster families (campaign, recruitment, education)

• SIF: 13 transformation projects (62% of RI applied, 45% covered by projects). Development of foster care, kinship care, specialized foster care, new service in the institution (day care, supported and independent living), support to natural families etc.

Results of the 13 transformation projects

• Motivation of professionals

• New services developed, new foster families recruited, preventive programs

• Transformation, but incomplete

• Resistance in the institutions

• Mixed massages from national level

• Uncertain future of the program in 2008

New approach

• National planning. Apartments for independent living and day care centers (from NIP, “software” from SIF). Top-down approach

• Regional centers for foster care (state budget and SIF)

• Transformation?

Summary

• Several strategies, visible but incomplete results

• Vibrant and motivated social sector

• Stronger involvement of local self-governments, lack of incentives

• Policy discussion and decision needed: role of public and private sectors, role of CSW (entitlements and direct service provision)