1 / 21

Ministry of Labor and Social Policy SOCIAL POLICY COUNCILS

Ministry of Labor and Social Policy SOCIAL POLICY COUNCILS Dragica Vlaović-Vasiljević Sophia , 2-6th July 2007 Assistant Minister. Coordination bodies in local self-governments.

denis
Télécharger la présentation

Ministry of Labor and Social Policy SOCIAL POLICY COUNCILS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ministry of Labor and Social Policy SOCIAL POLICY COUNCILS Dragica Vlaović-Vasiljević Sophia, 2-6th July 2007 Assistant Minister

  2. Coordination bodies in local self-governments Coordination bodies formed in the 90-ies dealt particularly with the issues of juvenile delinquency and prevention of drug abuse Since 2001 the formation of coordination bodies has been supported through projects or adopted strategies and developmental plans on the national level

  3. Projects supporting the formation of coordination bodies in the local community • “Development of the integral social welfare model in the local community” (MSP and NMFA 2001 -2003) • “Social Policy Reform in Serbia” (DIFID 2002-2005) • “Support to Implementation of the Social Welfare Development Strategy” (DIFID and NMFA ongoing)

  4. Strategies and National Plans • Poverty Reduction Strategy • Social Welfare Development Strategy • National Action Plan for Children

  5. Coordination bodies in local self-governments – the essence • The principle of partnership or creation of coalitions for purposes of easier solving of specific problems, meeting planning needs or service provision

  6. Brief overview of names of coordination bodies • INTEGRAL SOCIAL WELFARE COUNCIL (Development of integral social welfare model in the local community) • MUNICIPAL CIVIL-SOCIETY COORDINATION TEAM (Social Policy Reform in Serbia (DFID) • POVERTY REDUCTION COMMITTEE (PRSP) • SOCIO-ECONOMIC COUNCIL • FORUMS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

  7. Names and substance • Although named differently, all these models basically address the same issues: planning, implementation and monitoring (depending on the available capacities) of different initiatives/activities

  8. Similarities and differences between the two currently relevant coordination bodies • Integral Social Welfare Council (ISWC) • Municipal Civil-Society Coordination Team (MCSCT)

  9. Roles • ISWC: preparing initiatives, proposals and documents on creation and implementation of integral social welfare policy in the local community • MCSCT: creating new models for solving social problems in the fields of health, employment, education and social welfare, based on partnership between institutions and NGOs

  10. Members MCSCT: Representatives of: • Municipality • National employment agency • Centre for social welfare • Health sector (health centre and hospital) • Education • Civil society (NGOs and associations) Key partner – municipality

  11. Members ISWC Representatives of: • Social welfare system • Health care system • Education system, including pre-school education • Labour market and employment system • Judiciary system • Interior affairs system • Culture and information system • Non-governmental sector • Local self-governments • Service users Key partner: CSW

  12. Activities MCSCT • Working on sustainable social policy development strategy; • Development of municipal action plans based on the analysis of needs of most vulnerable population groups; • Encouraging partnership on municipal-level; • Collecting data on poverty and social exclusion (geo-mapping and analyses); • Development of strategic social policy plans; • Collecting funds for solving social problems.

  13. Activities ISWC • Analysing citizens’ needs, current system of services and coverage of needs by services; • Appraising the quality and efficiency of the current service system; • Identifying «uncovered areas»; • Analyzing local potentials for establishment of integral service system; • Defining short-term and long-term priorities; • Preparing and adopting strategic plan for the area; • Giving concrete proposals for introducing new services; • Monitoring the implementation of planned activities.

  14. Activities: similarities and differences • Great overlapping of activities • ISWC activities are usually specific and lead to the introduction of specific integral social welfare service in the local community • MCSCT activities aimed at municipal action plans

  15. Additional means at ISWC disposal Specially designed instrument for assessment of the situation and projection of needs - MAPS for: • Appraisal of coverage of needs by services within the current activities and programs of state institutions, non-governmental and private sector; • Appraisal of the quality of existing services; • Appraisal of local potentials (material and staff resources) for establishing new services; • Setting priorities in introduction of new services and reorganization of existing ones.

  16. ISWC uses the following as an instrument for system networking • Protocol on cooperation as a mechanism for development and establishment of coordinated, harmonized multi-sectoral approach in planning and implementation of most adequate services in view of the available capacities.

  17. Key conclusions • Coordination bodies on the level of local communities proved to be a good practice • Although the analyzed coordination bodies are focused on social welfare or social policy, their work has contributed to more systematic program implementation in all similar areas in municipalities where they have been established

  18. Key conclusions -challenges on municipal level- Large number of coordination mechanisms in Serbian municipalities, even within a single sector (e.g. social welfare) Unclear role of CSW – whether it is the initiator and leader or the main “advisor” to the local self-government Duplication of bodies in municipality – which leads to exhaustion of already weak capacities Different modalities – legal, program, functional, financial The sustainability of bodies is problematic Local self-governments and other stakeholders do not get clear messages from the central level and donors

  19. Key conclusions -challenges on the central level- Lack of coordination on the central level (including donors) has adverse consequences on local level coordination Unclear messages “sent” to local self-governments from the central level (MCSCT, integral social welfare councils, socio-economic councils, forums for sustainable development etc.)

  20. Recommendations • Better coordination between different strategies and bodies on the national and local level • Clarify legal framework for local level coordination and establishment of coordination bodies

  21. RECOMMENDATIONS Within the ongoing project in social welfare area “Support to Implementation of Social Welfare Development Strategy”(DFID and NMFA), advance coordination mechanisms on the local level using all previously acquired experiences from similar projects and initiatives

More Related