Danilo Vukovic Belgrade University Institutional Capacities, Social and Human Capital and The Application of Law: Reforms of the Local Social Welfare Services in Serbia Danilo Vukovic Belgrade University

Overview Introduction: social welfare system and current reforms Community based services Overview of the current situation Application of the law in the local context Conclusions

Social welfare under reform Key local actors: Centers for social work – CSW Residential institutions – RI Civil society organizations – CSO Local self-government - LSG Local welfare service - opened, managed and financed by local actors Key reform processes – transformation of residential institutions and setting up community based services (CBS), local coordination and financing

Community based services Programs and project that supported CBS Joint logic: setting up a service → building capacity → failed in securing sustainability Then, shift to local self governments: In depth assistance Co-financing, plus New institutional infrastructure – coordination, political pressure, wide participation (service providers and beneficiaries) Coordination bodies Strategies

Local social services Service Coverage 2010 One time material assistance 98% Home care for elderly 71% Day care center for children with disabilities 42% Home care for PWD 39% Support to young offenders 28% Club for elderly 25% SOS telephone line 23% Shelter house 19% Day care centers for PWD Supported housing for youth 16% Day care center for elderly 12% Personal assistance for PWD 11% Youth club 9% Supported living for PWD 2%

Local social services

Coordination bodies Municipal body in charge of planning and monitoring of social welfare/policy is established 77% Municipal body had at least 3 meeting during 2010 47% Municipal body has assessed social welfare situation in the municipality in 2010 39%

Strategies Local self-government has adopted municipal social welfare strategy 83% Action plan for 2010 was adopted 75% The municipality is financing the action plan for 2010 64% Local self government has procedures for purchasing of welfare services 45% Financial resources were disbursed through public procurement procedures in 2010 40%

Shift to qualitative analysis Issues with the application of the law Preliminary qalitative analysis in 4 municipalities Interviews: LSG, CSW, RI Five questions: What does law really require? Roles of local institutions How to apply a law? How to initiate a service? How to sustain a service?

The content of law Question 1: What does law really require? All services or some or those that can be afforded Cash benefits vs. social services Pressure from beneficiaries: cash benefits more than services Reliance on benefits – institutional culture or reflection of actual division of responsibilities?

Roles Question 2: Roles of institutions CSW is the central local institution, not LSG CSW has expertise and statutory powers CSW active, LSG passive

Application of law Question 3: How to apply a law? Culture of noncompliance Additional effort, not automatism. Lobbying, informal networks, pressure.

Establishing services Question 4: How to initiate a service? Reliance on informal networks Weak institutions, strong individuals Question 4: How to sustain a service? Informal networks again Strategies, coordination bodies, and even the law are not taken seriously

Conclusion Imprecise regulation Social environment: disbelief in the importance of law, strategies and new institutions; non-application of law; reliance on informal procedures; dominated by powerful and influential individuals Issues with human capital and institutional capacities: low pressure Contradiction between law and social and institutional practices