Governance of social services in the Czech Republic

in a comparative perspective

(Crucial trends and changes in social services in the CR in comparison to DK, GER and the UK in the last decade)

P. Horák, M. Horáková and T. Sirovátka

Main focus (research question)• to identify key TRENDS and CHANGES (social

innovations) in social services in the Czech Republic in last ten years (2000-2010)

• compare them to other countries surveyed (DK, GER and the UK)

• in field of childcare, elderly care and employment services

• in four dimensions of governance (financing, regulation and delivery, accessibility and quality of social services)(the countries surveyed represent different welfare state tradition (models): Nordic or social-democratic (Denmark), Christian Democratic/conservative (Germany), liberal (UK) and post-communist hybrid (Czech Republic)

Link to the main objective of the project

• how different approaches to regulation, financing and delivery of social services are related to the overall development of services provision in terms of accessibility and quality of service and similarly how employment in social services has developed in quantitative as well as qualitative aspects

Methods1. concept of governance - two modes of interpretation

• a static concept that represents the activities of organisations and actors at supranational and national levels (Rosenau 1995; Salomon 2002, 2005; Potůček et al. 2007; Kaufmann and Kraay 2007; Kaufmann, Kraay and Mastruzzi 2010),

• a dynamic concept which includes the implementation process and actors engaged in the formation, administration and implementation of particular public programmes and social services, not only at supranational and national levels, but also at regional and local levels (Winkler 2009, 2011; van Berkel, de Graaf and Sirovátka 2011; Horák 2012).

Methods• dimensions (and sub-dimensions) observed:

financing (kind and level of financing), regulation (rules; management, coordination and control); delivery (level of governance; partnership and networks of actors; implemented programmes and services),

• dimensions observed in this presentation: 1. FINANCING, 2. REGULATION AND DELIVERY and 3. ACCESSABILITY AND QUALITY

2. quantitative and qualitative data (OECD and Eurostat databases above all; empirical studies, ministerial reports and academic papers focused on governance in the countries surveyed)

The rationale for the choice of the topic• studies on the development of social and employment

services document some similarities across countries, although the welfare regimes still bear their specific traits(cf. Ahonen 2006; Jensen 2008, 2009; Seeleib-Kaiser 2008; Dingeldey et al. 2009; Wollman and Marcou 2010; van Berkel et al. 2011; Sirovátka 2013)

• most of EU countries have implemented governance reforms in recent years to make their welfare services more effective – apparent changes: centralization/recentralization, marketization and contractualization, new public management, activation, individualization of services, network governance, inter-agency cooperation or organizational innovation at the local level etc. (cf. van Berkel, de Graaf, Sirovátka 2012)

The rationale for the choice of the topic

• these changes have brought specific changes leading to a split of the functions of regulation, financing and delivery of services (Seeleib-Kaiser et al 2008, Simonazzi and Ranci 2008), i.e. functions of governance which are newly met with different “extent”, “modes” and “kind of actors”

• we are deliberately comparing different fields of social services in order to examine to what extent similarities in the trends in governance emerged in these different policy fields

Key trends and changes in governance of particular social services

in the CR, DK, GER and the UK

I. FINANCING of social services observed

1. The expenditure on childcare, elderly care and employment services has been the lowest in the CR in the last decade from all countries surveyed and bellow OECD/EU average (together with GER in the childcare and with exception of services for children in pre-school age (3-5/6) that has been in the CR at the EU average).

I. FINANCING of social services observed 2. There is a tendency to mixing public and private

resources for financing of social services:

a. financial participation of service users on public child- and elderly care services is mostly symbolic/small in the CR (as in Germany), about 20-25% of the total cost. Privately provided services and public long-term care institutions are most expensive (f.e. 50 % of total costs in homes for the elderly)

b. the share of private co-financing by service user is not negligiblespecifically in child and elderly services in all countries

c. the countries differ in the extent to which they support the entitled population by specific benefits or tax reliefs (better in DK and to some extent in the UK but worse in GER and CR)

Ad1. FINANCING OF CHILDCARE • the expenditure on pre-school care for children 0-2 is very low in the CR (as in GER) compared to

EU average; the largest spending in DK (EU 0,25% of GDP, CR 0.12%, GER 0,06%, UK 0,45%, DK 0,85%) in 2008)

• the expenditure on services for children in pre-school age (3-5/6) is almost at the same level in the CR as the EU average (0.33 % of GDP in 2008, when the average of EU countries was 0.39% of GDP)

Ad1. FINANCING OF ELDERLY CARE

• government expenditure on publicly provided elderly care services stagnated in the CR since 1989

• the CR spends the lowest expenditure on elderly (long-term) care from the observed countries (0,81% of GDP in the CR, 1,84% EU, 4,5% DK, 1,43% GER, 1,97% UK)

Ad1. FINANCING OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

• although an increase of the expenditure on active labour market policy and employment services in the CR In last decade it is bellow EU average (0,54% of GDP in EU, 0,23% in the CR on ALMP in 2010; 0,24% of GDP in EU, 0,12% in the CR on ES in 2010)

Ad2. PULBIC-PRIVATE FINANCING – CASE OF CHILDCARE

II. Trends and changes in CHILDCARERegulation and delivery (CR)1. large number of publicly provided childcare facilities (nurseries and

kindergartens) have gradually disappeared in the last two decades due to the low birth rate (the opposite trend to the other countries surveyed)

2. growing birth rate in recent years increased interest of the Czech government in childcare discussions (still only a proposal of Act on child groups (nurseries) from 2012)

Accessibility and quality (CR)3. small number and high financial costs of private sevices (nurseries

and child minding) available especially in big cities4. almost zero availability of nurseries impel kindergarten to admitt

children under three years of age5. the quality of childcare services is at a very good level/EU/OECD

average

Ad1. and Ad3. ACCESSIBILITY OF CHILDCARE • the percentage of children using nurseries (age -3) is very small in the CR and it

increased only little compared to the other countries observed (6,4% CR in 2009; 28,2% EU, 66% DK)

• the enrolment rate of children between 3 and school age is close to the EU averagein the CR, however the lowest from the countries surveyed (EU 71,9%, CR 72,5%, other countries about 90% in 2010)

• the enrolment fees are too high in (public and private) nurseries, in private kindergartens and in private child minding in the CR while public kindergartens are cheap for parents (6,6% of net family income in the CR, 11,8% EU, 8,9% DK, 11,1% GER and 40,9% UK)

III. Trends and changes in ELDERLY CARERegulation and delivery (CR)1. home care for the elderly prevails to the elderly care in the

institutions in the CR2. the implementation of new legislation on social services in 2007

(Act. 108/2006 Coll. on Social Services and Decree No. 505/2006 Coll) has brought three crucial changes:

a) the introduction of active participation of service users (participation in planning community services - setting individual intervention services (individual plans) and - the introduction of the care allowance (care allowance) to allow pay for the services of domestic / informal or professional carers

Accessibility and quality (CR)b) the introduction of quality standardsc) categorization of various kinds of social services and the possibility

of connecting them and use them by different target groups of clients

III. Trends and changes in ELDERLY CARE

Accessibility and quality (CR)3. the actual capacity of elderly care services delivered in the CR is not

sufficient (limited public funding), there are differences among regions (insufficient resources and political support in small municipalities), while quality of residential social services and home care services improves, quality of long-term health facilities not sufficient (not enough staff, poorly paid nurses and social workers)

Ad1. DELIVERY OF ELDERLY CARE

• the scope of elderly care in the Czech Republic exceeds slightly the EU average (as well as the scope of care provided in Germany and in the UK)

• home care prevails greatly to the care in institutions (10,9%/2,2% in the CR, 4%/8,2% in OECD, 4,5%/12,4% in DK, 4,2%/6,9% in UK, 3,8%/7,6% in GER)

Ad2b. QUALITY OF ELDERLY CARE

• the ratio of the number of beds in nursing and residential care per 1,000 people over 65 years was in the CR in 2010 slightly lower the OECD average (42,9 in the CR, 45,1 in OECD) and over OECD average in the number of beds in hospitals (7 in the CR, 5.8 in OECD)

IV. Trends and changes in EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

1. unemployment rate (and long-term UR) of all observed countries below the EU average in 2011 (9,7% in EU, the highest in the UK, the lowest in GER; the crisis increased unemployment rate more in DK and in the CR than in the UK and GER, in GER higher LTUR)

Regulation and delivery (CR)2. two attempts to perform systematic change of governance of PES

over the past ten years:a) in 2003-2008: new tools, practices and non-governmental agencies

enabling fulfilment of activation, individualization and contracting out (compulsory IAP to the unemployed after 5 months of unemployment, new management practices associated with processing of ESF projects, the increasing number of non-governmental organizations in ALMP)

IV. Trends and changes in EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

Accessibility and quality (CR)b) in 2011: the reform of Employment Office aimed to save money by

centralization of decision-making, streamlining the overall management, administration and payment of social benefits and services (through cutting the numbers of staff and outsourcing of services to private agencies)

3. inappropriate staffing and training, insufficient financial incentives for private agencies to job mediation, decreasing scope of ALMP measures and within the rigid conditions for the implementation of ESF projects

4. the innovation did not bring more effectiveness in meeting the needs of the clients

5. innovations in the form of individual projects of ALMP financed from ESF carried by private agencies or NGOs (better treatment to the clients than from PES through combining of several tools like diagnostics, counselling, training and job creation)

Ad1. ACCESSIBILITY OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

• Decline of the number of participants that inflow into ALMP in the CR since 2005which was many times less than OECD average in 2010 (1,06% of LF in the CR, 4,12% in the OECD, the highest in DK)

V. CONCLUSION – KEY FINDINGS (Comparison of particular dimensions of governance)

FINANCING DK CZ GER UKUser fees • Rather low

(except institutional LTC)

• Rather low (except institutional LTC and under 3 years childcare)

• Medium and variable (decentralization)

• Rather high (except employment services)

Targeted financial support

• Well accessible and generous

• Less accessible, very selective, low level

• Less accessible, selective, medium level

• Rather well accessible, medium level

REGULATION DK CZ GER UKUniversalism vs. Targeted service

• Explicit universalism, services as right

• Targeted services

• Shift to universalism but accessibility/cost problem

• Targeted services, some shift to universalism

Quality standards

• Strong regulation

• Medium regulation

• Medium regulation but variable (decentralization)

• Medium to weak regulation

NPM methods • More general approach, applied within good/responsible public governance

• Not applied, bureaucratic governance

• Selective application (employment services)

• Strong application

Choice for the client

• High emphasis • Low emphasis • Medium emphasis

• Medium emphasis

DELIVERY DK CZ GER UKMarketization • Medium,

stronglyregulated

• Rather strong, leastregulated

• Strong,regulated

• Very strong,less regulated

Innovation • Systematic approach, complex changes

• Partial attempts

• Mainly public-private mix in delivery, mixing formal-informal services

• Public-private mix in delivery, mixing public-private resources, formal-informal

OUTCOMES in service provision

DK CZ GER UK

Coverage/ accessibility

• Very high in all fields

• Rather stably low (except elderly care –and 3-to-school age -medium)

• Medium, increasing in care services

• Medium in LTC, rather high in childcare, low in employment services

Price/cost of services

• Mostly low (except institutional care)

• Mostly high (except pre-primary childcare and homecare)

• Medium to high

• High (except employment services)

Quality of services

• Workloads low

• Workloads medium in childcare, elderly care, high in employment

• Workloads medium

• Workloads high in childcare, medium to high in employment, medium in elderly care

Děkujeme za pozornostThank you for your attention