19/03/2010 Време за четене: 65 минути

QUALITY OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES IN BULGARIA (2008)

1. INTRODUCTION

In the sphere of social services present-day Bulgaria bears a heavy legacy of the totalitarian centralized state – the social institutions. The reform towards a more active deinstitutionalization – in the manner and understanding of current European regulations and practices – is inevitably bound to include the following processes:

Elaboration of a national system for community-based social services as an alternative to institutional social care;
Change of public attitudes and activation of community in support of community-based social services;
Establishment of reasonable criteria and quality standards for delivery of social services; setting up of mechanisms for control of the quality of social services and protection of basic human rights of users;
Introduction of pilot community-based social services and promotion of good practices;
Overcoming the indolence and proclivity of municipal authorities to keep the existing social institutions because they come along with a secured funding from the national budget and guaranteed jobs;
Reforming of the existing social institutions;

The availability of accessible and, especially, of good quality community-based social services is an important precondition for overcoming the social isolation of disadvantaged groups, and for the reform of the existing institutional model of social services provision.

The present analysis is focused on exploration of the legal regulation of community-based social services related to their quality, providers, mechanisms for control and efficiency of control. The conclusions drawn below are based on examination of various normative documents and the existing legislative practice. Last but not least the authors have opted to present the considerations of various stakeholders (controlling authorities, providers, users) in order to present most convincingly the present conditions for delivery and control of community-based social services in Bulgaria and the challenges they bring forth .

II. COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL SERVICES

Legal framework. Public policies related to social services system

The change of public policies in the field of social services and the related legislation has its justification in a number of international agreements to which Bulgaria has signed, that is: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the EU Antidiscrimination Law. The basic principles underpinning these international acts, as well as the established international quality standards of social services have been considered and reflected in the amendments of Bulgarian legislation, and in the process of designing strategic policy documents of the Bulgarian government.

The legal framework within which are provided community-based social services is based on the Social Assistance Act and the Regulations for its application (SAA and RFASAA). The Child Protection Act (CPA), the Regulations for its application (RFACPA) and the Ordinance on criteria and standards of social services provided tochildren (OCSSSPC) arerelated to social services for children.

The CPA gives a legal definition to “services” as “social services in the usual home environment”.

The amendments of social legislations made in 2003 set the principle that social services will be provided by social institutions as a final possibility, and only after all available community-based social services have been provided. The RFASAA refines upon the various kinds of community-based social services and those provided by social institutions.

According to the RFASAA the menu of community-based social services includes the following:

Personal assistant;
Social assistant;
Household assistant;
Home social patronage;
Day Care centre;
Centre for social rehabilitation and integration;
Family shelter;
Temporary shelter;
Centre for social support;
Centre for work with street children;
Centre for professional training of social workers;
Crisis Centre;
Foster Care;
Temporary Housing;
Protected Housing;
Supervised Housing;
Mother and Baby Unit;
Homes for the elderly (Adult Foster Care);
Soup kitchen.

It is important to note that community-based social services are not exhaustively listed in the RFASAA. Other social services can be offered as well, if necessary and according the needs of the population in the municipalities.

According to the RFASAA the person who needs specific social service, including community-based social service, should file a petition (giving their current home address) with the head of the Social Assistance department if the required social service is a state activity delegated to the municipality (i.e., is funded by the state through a delegated budget to the municipality). The petition should be filed with the mayor if the required social service is provided by the municipality (i.e., is funded under the municipal budget), or respectively with the governing body of a private organization when the service is provided by a private operator who does not have public funding for his social activities.

Practices and conclusions

The impression from the day-to-day provision of community-based social services as an alternative to those provided by social institutions is that they do not cover the neediest target groups because their needs haven’t been properly determined;
The municipal administrations demonstrate preference for all new community-based social services to be provided as “a state delegated activity” because of the secured state funding going along with them. It is not realistic to expect that all community-based services will be funded under the state budget. This type of financial support contradicts the principle of decentralization of funding and management of social services;
Along with the above mentioned comes up a new trend which is common to all types of social services – more emphasis is given to the role of social services for protection of users rather than to development of models for avoiding the institutionalization of social services;
The social service practice in a number of European countries and in the USA proves that community-based social services are much cheaper than the institutionalized social services, and answer to a greater extent to the needs of the target groups. This conclusion is confirmed by the new alternative types of social services introduced in the country after the legislative changes from 2003.

Preconditions for successful organization of good quality community-based social services

The First basic principle of the efficient community-based social services is that they should be provided where the users live, close to their families and friends.

What does the practice of social services in Bulgaria show?

A number of municipalities haven’t made a realistic assessment of the need for specific types of social services. No assessment is made of the needs of target groups within the municipality too. Many of the municipal strategies are worked out just for the sake of appearance without taking in consideration the real needs of the population. Paradoxically this does not bring to reform or termination of existing but ineffective social services while new ones which do not have any users are introduced. The offer of community-based social services on the territory of the municipality is uneven because of inaccurate assessment of the needs of local population.
Besides that potential users of social services quite often do not have at their disposal accurate information about the existing social services (offered on the territory of the municipality, including also private providers) and about which of the menu of available social services would be the most appropriate for them.

The Second important precondition for provision of successful and good quality community-based social services is that the specific social service should be organized in such way that the user can manage their life alone and avoid becoming dependent on social care and on the specific service.

The SAA lays emphasis on the role of the social services to give more possibilities to the users for an independent life which come with the legal definition of “social services”. Unfortunately in the legal regulation of community-based services and social institutions the principle of active participation of the user in the delivery of social care and the assessment of their exact needs is still undeveloped. Bulgarian social legislation makes a provision for development of individual plan for social services which is offered by social institutions, and for long-term community-based social services, but this legal regulation does not encourage the user’s active participation.

Analysis of the regulations under art.40g and 40d of the RFASAA shows that the provider of social service has the active role in developing the individual plan and controlling its implementation. In the regulation under art.40g, par. 5 of the RFASAA there is a potential conflict of interests – providers of social services self-assess the implementation of the individual plan every six months and update it if necessary. Once again the role of the user as a recipient of service is lost.

Practices and conclusions

The present system of social services in Bulgaria relies on the “self-assessment” of the user, who in accordance with the current legislation initiates the procedure of provision of social services by filing a petition with the respective authority or provider without having an independent consultation or support of any kind.
In practice the usual passive approach of users leads to an effective restriction of the access of disadvantaged people to social services because often people with particularly grave problems and serious needs do not have capacity and information to choose the right social service, and to file a petition for requesting it. Therefore these people too often have the most limited access to the services they need.
In the perspective of the above mentioned both providers and users understand the delivery of social services, including the community-based ones as being focused primarily on the specific service, which does not require participation of the user.

On the Third place the successful arrangement of community-based social services supposes a more active civic participation in the process of their provision and control.

Some of the most reliable and competitive providers of social services are undoubtedly the nongovernmental organizations – their commitment to non-profit activity are akin to the social aspect of the services, they work in the community, know well the problems and needs of users, they are flexible, and last but not least – they often manage to raise additional funds to improve and diversify their services. Then again the advocacy campaigns initiated by persons and organizations in support of disadvantaged people have a positive effect on public attitudes. Furthermore the NGOs are often the initiators of “public control” over provision of social services and protection of user’s rights.

Practices and conclusions

A lot has to be done in Bulgaria to change public attitudes and overcome the stigmatization of disadvantaged people. This is the right place and time to encourage civic participation and strong advocacy activity. A good example provides an emblematic case study: in 2004 Dryanovo municipality offered a new community-based social service (which is a state delegated activity) to the municipality – Protected housing for elderly persons with intellectual disabilities. The inhabitants of the existing Shelter for adults with intellectual disabilities were to be moved to the Protected housing. Local community started protests after these plans were announced. People were anxious that among them will leave persons that could create problems and could be dangerous. This reaction showed a complete lack of understanding and lack of information about people with intellectual disabilities. To solve the problem the municipality started active information campaign with local media, consultants and representatives of the population. The aim was to explain the nature of this social service and its target group, and speak about the needs of these people. The information campaign helped for the resolving of the problems, the Protected housing service has been offered to the community and is functioning successfully.
The so called “social contracting” (meaning the contracting of social services) is still posing challenges. Despite the good legal framework less than 20% of the municipalities in Bulgaria have announced public calls, and do offer social services under public-private partnerships with NGOs.

The Fourth precondition for a successful management of the social services system is the availability of qualified and committed personnel.

Development and training of human resources in this sphere is an important prerequisite to the delivery of good quality social services. The essence of social service is social work. This understanding underlies the philosophy of SAA and should be consistently applied in the regulation and the daily practice.

In the RFASAA the professional qualification of the human resources is mentioned only in connection with the criteria and standards for supporting personnel, as an element of the overall quality of social services. Regrettably the requirements for professional qualification of human resources are too formal and no measurable criteria have been set up for assessment of the experience and skills of personnel.

Practices and conclusions

Along the years financial standards for social services funding have been established on the basis of the number of employed staff with the presumption that certain staff numbers would ensure quality services. Even now, when single financial standards are being introduced for funding of social services which are state delegated activity, the existing indolence can’t be defeated. Managers of the specialized social institutions and providers of long-term community-based social services continue to speak in terms of job positions instead of working out flexible schemes for enlisting part-time qualified staff.
In the questionnaires of the Agency for Social Assistance – which were completed by inspectors from the Inspectorate to the Executive director of the Agency -the need for trained and committed personnel in the sphere of social services is indicated as the main precondition for improving the quality of social services.

Certainly we can’t speak of good quality community-based social services without setting up measurable standards for quality assurance of particular services, and efficient mechanism for control of their practical application.

One matter of principle comes up when we consider the quality standards for social services – How can be defined the quality of a service? A social service is of good quality when it influences positively the well-being of its users and has a real impact on the quality of their life. Therefore, in order to assure the standard of quality of particular services is necessary to be defined measurable indicators for the ways in which social care influence the quality of life of users. Quantitative indicators, as for example the size of the funding, number of staff and others should be combined with qualitative indicators which measure the “outputs” of the service. The size of funding, and staff numbers do not always guarantee a good quality social service.

What criteria and standards for quality assurance of social services are envisaged and how are they regulated?

The analysis of current regulation comes to the conclusion that in Bulgaria, like in other countries from Central and Eastern Europe, standardized indicators for quality assurance of social services have been defined primarily for services for children. The OCSSSPC defines the criteria and standards for social services provided to children and the control over their observance in child protection activities.

Standards have been defined for the following social services for children:

Social services for children delivered in the usual home environment or close to it;
Standards for providing of foster care;
Standards for social services given to children in social institutions;

The OCSSSPC has a separate section specifying the control of social services for children and whether they meet the respective standards. Criteria for the compliance of social service provided to children with the relevant standards have also been defined. The compliance of a single social service with the standard is assessed through measurable indicators.

We can conclude that the regulation of social services provided to children is rather detailed with respect to standards and criteria for quality of services. In current legislation of social service provided to children a distinction is made between a quality standard an indicator for measuring the quality. Despite these positive developments the quality of social services provided to children does not influence the quality of life of users. Still the impact of these services is measured on a national scale by quantitative indicators as number of children in social institutions, degree of reintegration, but no assessment is made of the effect of the service on a particular child.

Criteria and standards of social services for adults are specified in art. 40e, and the following of the RFASAA. Criteria and standards for services to elderly people are regulated as social services of general interest, provided by social institutions, and community-based social services. The regulation includes the following requirements:

Requirements for localization and necessary equipment of social institutions (accessibility, adequate dormitories, living-rooms and other spaces allowing social contacts, canteens, special guiding signs and facilities, etc.);
Requirements for providing food (healthy and nourishing regular diet based on the nutritional needs and personal preferences of users, etc);
Requirements for health care (dental care and other health services, assistance for taking prescribed medicines, assigning an assistant responsible for keeping the standards for health care);
Requirements for educational and information services (providing assistance for participation in educational programme according to the age and personal choice of users, providing an access to information);
Requirements for management of the free time of users and ensuring that they keep their personal contacts (assisting users to plan their free time, meet with family members, friends and other persons, plan cultural, sport and other activities, walking tour, etc.);
Requirements for the assisting personnel (adequate numbers, experience and qualification for the particular service, regular staff performance assessment, ensuring opportunities for development of professional social care skills).

The RFASAA does not make any distinction between standards and criteria for quality assurance of social services. Measurable and identifiable criteria for quality assurance of social services provided to elderly people have not been established.

Practices and conclusions

Indicators, if any, are used mainly for measuring of material needs (equipment, food, guiding facilities, etc.) The abovementioned standards do not consider by any means the need for active psychological and social work. Besides, the regulation of standards for social services, including those provided to children, do not envisage an assessment of the resources spent to gain certain quality of service. Here resources stand not only for financial means but also for the qualification of personnel and the cost of their employment.
Control over the quality of social services is based primarily on formal criteria for material needs, defined in the RFASAA, and is focused on the accounting aspects of spending and the compliance with the rules for budget spending. There is no defined mechanism for assessment of the sufficiency of spending and whether it suffices for the size and quality of services.
Standards and criteria for quality assurance of services for elderly people do not use measurable indicators.
Standards and criteria for quality assurance of community-based social services are developed as one with those for services provided by social institutions.
No standards and criteria for quality assurance of different types of social services have been developed.

Following the current regulations, and in addition to the RFASAA and the Ordinance on criteria and standards, the Agency for Social Assistance (ASA) has developed specific methodology for social service delivery. Pursuant to the current legal regulation the delivery of services (for which methodology has been developed) is defined comparatively well and detailed. But yet this regulation suffers some important shortcomings:

Methodologies do not have a normative effect. In current legislation they are not setting legal obligations and respectively they are not binding in effect, especially for the providers which are not registered with the ASA, or do not offer social service as a state delegated activity. In this sense it’s impossible to control if providers apply these methodologies, and in case of failures to impose sanctions.
Almost all methodologies are developed in the context of the state delegated activities.
There are no elaborated methodologies for even a single local activity – home social patronage, clubs for handicapped persons, etc. This means that the eventual criteria for carrying out of these activities are supposed to be set up on a local level. But having no guidance how to do that would give rise to various practices thus making the unbiased control of their quality impossible.

III. PROVIDERS OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Who can provide social services?

Pursuant to the current legislation in Bulgaria providers of social services in the country are:

The state;
Municipalities;
Physical persons of Bulgarian nationality, registered under the Commercial Law, and legal entities (trade companies, cooperative societies, non-profit legal entities (NPO);
Foreign physical persons or legal entities from EU countries or from other countries – parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, registered as traders according to their national legislation.

Concerning the “foster care” social service it is explicitly stated that a “provider” could actually be the Social Assistance department. The latter is part of the Agency and for that reason should be included in the category of “state” providers.

Requirements for the providers

Registration with the ASA

Generally providers of social services fit into two main groups: public providers – the state and/or the municipalities (or rather their structures and units), and the so called private providers. If private providers – both physical persons and legal entities, Bulgarian or foreign, want to deliver social services they are obligated to register with the ASA, and in cases when they offer services to children under the age of 18 they need to be licensed. In order to be registered as private providers they have to hand in an application form to the executive director of the ASA with additional documents attached. Physical persons who will provide services to children under the age of 18 submit along with the application form a legalized copy of the license.

The register has several entries:

Data about the person and their representation;
Types of social services that are provided, and the license registration number (for services to children);
Data about failure to deliver services to the rules;
Date of delisting of the registration and justification for doing so;
Any changes made;
Comments on the entered data;

In 7 days time of the date of filing the application form the executive director of the ASA or an authorized staff person issues a certificate for registration or gives a justified denial of registration in written. When some of the necessary documents of the applicant are not submitted they are given a 7 days time to present them. Envisaged is a procedure for lodging an appeal against an eventual denial of registration. Registered persons are obligated to inform the ASA in written of all changes in 7 days of their occurrence.

The registration is withdrawn:

If requested by the registered person;
In case of liquidation of the legal entity and when a physical person registered in the Commercial register under the Commercial Law has been delisted from the register;
When services fail to meet established criteria and standards for delivery. The withdrawal of registration is proposed by a competent body after an inspection is made;
If the registered person has not delivered any services within one year of registration;
If the registered person has not submitted an annual report of it’s activity in one year time;
When the license for social service delivery to children under the age of 18 has expired or has been withdrawn.

The executive director of the ASA issues an order for delisting, which is subject to appeal. Persons delisted from the registry are obligated to bring back the certificate for registration.

Another form of control is the report of delivered services which registered persons are obligated to submit to the ASA by the 31 of May each year.

Giving license for services to children

Private providers that wish to deliver services to children under the age of 18 receive a license by the State Agency of Child Protection (SACP). The Chairperson of the Agency issues the license upon a proposition of a committee comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP), Ministry of Education and Science (MoES), Ministry of Healthcare (MH), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA), Ministry of Justice (MoJ), State Agency for Child Protection (SACP), and the Agency for Social Assistance (ASA). The license is personal, is given for a period of 3 years, and cannot be assigned to somebody else.

The candidate should be:

Provider of services who is eligible for registration with the ASA;
Should not be declared bankrupt or be filed for bankruptcy;
Is not in a process of liquidation;
Has not been convicted of criminal offence, and for the legal entity this applies to members of their boards;
Offers social services compliant to the standards defined in the RFASAA.

The Chairperson of the SACP issues a license or denies such in two months time after the application form has been filed with him. The Chairperson can suspend a license for delivery of social services to children if the provider:

Does not offer any services within 12 months after being granted a license;
Does not adhere to the standards for delivery of social services to children;
Violates the conditions upon which the license is granted;
Does not provide information on changes in the conditions of its activity (in 14 days time of their occurrence) as described in the documents attached to the application form for receiving a license;

By the decision of the Chairperson of SACP the provider of services to children might be given adequate time to eliminate irregularities. It cannot be longer than 6 months. New license can be issued a year after its suspension. Denial and suspension of license are subject to appeal. Licensed persons can deliver services to children only after getting registered in compliance with the SAA. Upon occurrence of changes in the conditions described in the documents attached to the application form the provider of services to children is obligated to inform in written in 14 days time the Chairperson of the SACP and to submit the necessary documentation.

The issuance and renewal of license is charged with 50 lv fee which is paid in the Social Assistance fund.

The law is explicit that specialized social institutions which are state or municipal legal entities are not subject to license procedures.

Specialized providers

Legislation has explicitly differentiated one category of providers – the so called specialized enterprises or cooperatives of people with disabilities. They are registered only as traders under the Commercial Law (CL), or as cooperatives, and produce goods or deliver services. Part of their members is people with disabilities, as follows:

In specialized enterprises or cooperatives of blind people or people with sight deficiencies the members with disabilities should be no less than 20 percent of the personnel;
In specialized enterprises or cooperatives of people with hearing deficiencies the members with disabilities should be no less than 30 percent of the personnel;
In specialized enterprises or cooperatives of people with other disabilities they should be no less than 50 percent of the personnel;
Are registered in a special register.

Specialized enterprises and cooperatives of people with disabilities are registered with the Agency of people with disabilities (APD). The register gives an overlook of their activities under various projects and programmes. Registered enterprises and cooperatives of people with disabilities are obligated in a 14 days time to inform in written the APD of all changes in the conditions of their work, as described at the time of registration. The Council of Ministers approves the list of goods and services contracted to the specialized enterprises and cooperatives of people with disabilities under the Public procurement Law.

Besides as providers of services, some regulations stipulate the “interaction” of state authorities and private persons in a number of activities which are not directly related to the provision of social services (as defined by the SAA) but with the realization of other activities described in broad terms as social. For example – organization of events for children (“an activity, organized and carried on by state and municipal authorities, legal and physical persons, at places with unlimited access” as stipulated by the Ordinance on the special protection of children at public places (OSPCPP). The legal regulation of these cases is not very specific which does not actually limit the possibilities for interaction of partners.

Practices and conclusions

The state, (or more precisely its structures) in most cases does not directly provide social services but supports financially some of them (the so called “delegated state activities”); In practice municipalities manage and/or contract services with public funding.
The registration and licensing practices – being legal techniques – in principle aim to strengthen the control over quality of service/services that are subject to registration, and/or licensing. In this connection the registration and licensing practices, stipulated in the social legislation, should contribute to a more efficient control of the activity of providers and the delivered services; as well as to guarantee that services meet legal requirements and established quality standards. In the country registration and licensing practices do not achieve this effect, because they are obligatory only for the private providers.
Despite the fact that legislation presumes (in the spirit and philosophy of the social reform) equal interest of all providers (private and public), only private providers are subject to a closer control as they have to register and receive a license (and respectively to present an annual report of the implemented activities). Current legislation preconditions another inequality in regards to foreign providers. In practice, according to the current law, only those foreign providers that are registered as traders are allowed to deliver social services in Bulgaria. Under this ordinance (OSPCPP) non-profit organizations, registered abroad are completely excluded of this market of services (unless they register a Bulgarian non-profit legal entity), which goes contrary to the European practice (in all European countries the predominant number of providers are non-profit organizations).
The above mentioned providers may deliver services “in cooperation” as is defined in the law, i.e. by forming public-private partnerships. In practice this can be realized only by applying the mechanism of social contracting according to which the mayor of the municipality can contract the delivery of social services to external providers as a delegated state activity or as municipality activity. The law explicitly states that even in this case the contracting of services should be done in compliance with the established criteria and standards.
The Child Protection Act declares that private persons can be treated not only as potential providers of services but also as partners to state authorities in their child protection activities. Both parties should “collaborate”. However this remains just wishful thinking as no legal possibilities (in the sense of mechanisms) are defined; also no specific spheres of work and activities in which this partnership could be realized are determined.
In a very small number of communities private and public providers work effectively in a partnership bringing benefits to both parties. In most cases the “joint actions” are reduced to vague support of local authorities or activities of the providers that come once in a while and within the projects they work on. In some cases local authorities have no idea how many and what kind of providers work on the territory of the municipality and what is their potential.

Capacity of the providers for delivery of high quality social services
Publicprovidersofsocialservices
Social service reform is based on two main priorities included in all strategic documents and regulations – decentralization and deinstitutionalization of services. Decentralization comprises of financial decentralization and decentralization of the way specific services are offered (management). Decentralization is to be carried out in two stages: the first stage – delegating of administrative functions and power of central authorities among local authorities; and the second stage – contracting out functions and obligations from local authorities (administration) to external private providers.
In their turn local authorities have an ambiguous legal status. Municipalities can be a provider and contractor at the same time. This leads to mixing of roles and presupposes inequality of providers. Local authorities desire to achieve decentralization of rights and responsibilities from central authorities, but once they are empowered to take decisions for further decentralization they are prone to keep the financial and human resource management within their responsibilities, as well as to keep the status quo of the existing social services. Some municipal administrations make all efforts to keep the status quo of the existing services, as well as their management by the municipality; private providers are rather contracted for introducing new and alternative social services. This approach complicates the reform of existing services. In practice the newly offered services meet more successfully the requirements for quality, and problems arise mostly in connection to the existing community-based services and special institutions.
Real decentralization presumes that local authority has the right to self assess the needs for social services and to determine “the best” ways for satisfying them, and also be responsible for that. The mayor has no incentive (and is not obligated) to strive for a better and more efficient management of services and to contract private providers, who in a competitive conditions could offer better performance.
The inequality of providers is a fact also regarding the control of their social care activity. Municipalities as providers of social services hold a more privileged position compared to private providers. As mentioned above, private providers are obligated to register with the ASA, and those offering services to children have to apply in advance for a license from the SACP. These requirements do not apply to municipalities that are direct providers of social services. In this way no public information is given about the quality of social services delivered directly by the municipalities, and in reality double standards are being applied in the process of control. Compulsory administrative measures that can be imposed by inspectors in cases of established violation of social legislation are defined in art. 34 of the SAA. Withdrawal of registration can be imposed as measure only to private providers of social services, and has serious legal implications which in reality deprive the provider of the possibility to continue lawfully to offer services before eliminating the irregularities and registering again in due form. While in cases when municipalities provide services as local activity (funded under the municipal budget) the only other two compulsory measures can be applied: 1) giving compulsory prescripts for elimination of established irregularities, and 2) suspending the implementation of unauthorized decisions. But basically these measures do not bring to suspension of direct delivery of social services, even though they do not conform to the standardized quality.

Practices and conclusions
1. In the conditions of the strongly centralized state of the last sixty years have been created attitudes which are difficult to influence and transform in the short run. Despite the current legal provisions for putting into effect the decentralization (including the financial one) we still can not speak of real and successful decentralization and transference of social service delivery from central to local authorities. Formally and de jure the management of almost all types of services is transferred from central to local authorities (despite the fact that they are financed by the state budget), but in reality the efficiency of management and striving for positive results are not recognized by municipalities as their responsibility and duty. Naturally, this is reinforced also by the very few encouraging policies of the central authorities in that field.
In the second place – the second stage of decentralization – the transfer of delivery of services to external providers is advancing with difficulties and problems arise not so much because of the legal framework (in that sphere it is adequate), as because of the so called “attitude problem”. Social contracting is still sporadically used by some municipalities, despite the efforts and the responsibilities they have taken under various donor programmes.
2. In reality local authorities are a privileged provider – they have an a priori access to secured financial resources (state budget or local budgets), exceptional authority (independent management even of the delegated state activities), and are not bound to register or seek license along with the other providers.
3. In practice among the controlling bodies prevails the understanding that municipalities are yet better providers of social services. Most of the physical and legal persons are allegedly unfamiliar with the standards for social services. Nevertheless municipalities are not assessed as “perfect” providers. Among their most common irregularities are:

Equipment that is in bad condition;
Neglected social and individual work with users of social services. Labour therapy is reduced to cleaning of dormitories and the grounds of the social institution;
Personnel, (mainly those in specialized institutions) are not familiar with the regulations. Qualified staff is inadequate, and the available one is indifferent and unwilling to work in bad conditions and low payment;
It is still not unusual to have cases of “saving” of considerable part of the allowances for social service users and reallocating them with decision of the Municipal Council for “other municipal activities”, which have nothing to do with the state appropriation.
In the rare cases when municipalities do not take the role of a direct provider but of contractor of social services to private providers, (and therefore they control the activity of the provider and the quality of delivery) they check basically the spending of financial resources in compliance with the accounting regulation. They do not have mechanisms for quality assurance, but also do not check whether the funding spent and resources invested in specific service ensure the necessary quality. Foreign practice is rarely adopted and used even when it is well known.

Private providers
The second category providers – the so called private providers can be divided into two subgroups – traders, and non-profit providers. Around the world the latter prevail primarily in the delivery of social services, as well as in the realization of various supporting social development programmes.

Practices and conclusions
1. Considerable number of organizations provide social services directly to users; the numbers of Bulgarian non-profit organizations which deliver social services have a rated increase compared to other spheres of their activities (about 20%).
2. Providing organizations have a considerable capacity (institutional and human), into which donors of various programmes have invested and developed, but as the source of funding remains external (and for that reason the control too) we can say in short that the activity of this group of providers is not developed to its full potential (as they remain dependent on external funding and have to conform with the objectives of the specific programmes), and in the long run they are not at all that sustainable (because of the unvaried funding sources).
3. Direct financial support from the state and/or local authorities is still insignificant, and the mechanism of social contracting is rarely used which in its turn reflects on the institutional sustainability of these providers, and ultimately on the long-term delivery of services.
4. Private providers (by contrast with municipalities) often have promising practices like using internal regulation of quality assurance of services and monitoring of the delivery.
5. Private providers almost always “copy” foreign methods or practices which undoubtedly is beneficial for the quality and variety of services.
6. Still, private providers (including NGO) are not recognized by state controlling bodies as the most effective providers. Their main sources of funding remain foreign donors and programmes and respectively they are controlled by foreign funding institutions and organizations.
7. In short, the forms of “public-private partnership” consist mostly of NGOs lending logistic and technical support to municipalities, or to state departments and units (staff training, working up methods, standards for social care, strategic papers, programmes, etc.)

IV. CONTROL MECHANISMS

Agencies
The SAA indicates in general that the Council of Ministers is responsible for the elaboration of state policy in the sphere of social assistance. The Minister for Labour and Social policy establishes, coordinates and implements state policy and exercises an overall control of the adherence to the regulation in the sphere of social assistance.

The Social Assistance Agency
The leading state body whose specific aim is to implement the established policies for social assistance is the Agency for Social Assistance. It has executive functions, and is a secondary budgetary spender funded under the Minister of labour and social policy. Country branches of the ASA act as regional departments for social assistance in regional administrative centres and Social assistance Directorates. Within the latter are established “Child protection” departments. The SAA is run by an executive director aided by an Inspectorate.
Rights and responsibilities
The ASA is the main body exercising control over the observance of the established criteria and standards for delivery of social services, and with which social services providers are registered. The ASA prepares general annual reports and analyses of social assistance activities in the country, which are submitted to the Minister for Labour and Social policy.
The Inspectorate is responsible for the specialized control over the observance of regulation of social care activities implemented by territorial branches of the SAA, specialized social institutions, and community-based services, as well as the adherence to the general criteria and standards for social service delivery.
The Inspectorate is reporting directly to the executive director of the ASA.
The following structures and activities come under the control of the Inspectorate:
1. Territorial branches of the ASA;
2. Specialized institutions for social services, and community based social services;

The Inspectorate exercises control over the following:

Observance of criteria and standards for social services delivery;
Social benefits provided in cash and/or in-kind;
Parent’s benefits;
Social rehabilitation and integration of people with disabilities;
Receiving, distribution and reporting of humanitarian aid and donations made to the ASA and its territorial branches;

3. Activities of Child Protection departments within Social assistance directorates;

The implementation of national and international social assistance prgrammes;
The functioning of the social assistance system in the country according to a previously devised plan endorsed by the executive director, or addresses alerts;
Makes inspections jointly with other institutions and organizations, related to the ASA activity;
Analyzes the findings of the inspections and submits to the executive director proposals for elimination of the established irregularities;
Issues administrative acts for violation of social assistance regulation;
Submits well grounded proposals to the executive director of the SAA for punitive measures for culpable violation of social assistance legislation;
Presents a quarterly report on its activities;

Control mechanism

While exercising their controlling functions inspectors have the following rights:

1. To have an unlimited access to social assistance agencies and places of delivery of social care;
2. To make inquiries, ask for information, explanations, files, records, etc;
3. To receive information directly from users of social assistance;

When violation of law is established with evidence of committed criminal offences, the Inspectorate is obligated to inform immediately the prosecutor’s office. State authorities and the entitled personnel are bound to provide information and assist inspectors in the implementation of their duties;

The main activity of the Inspectorate to the SAA is to perform previously planned or ad hoc inspections within the range of the so called preventive, current and follow-up control.

Practices
“We exercise control of the delivery of social services by paying visits to the provider of the service, and depending on the type of inspection, we make an overall performance check of the provider and the quality of delivered service (that is a comprehensive inspection). In this case we go through the entire documentation, required by the regulations, and check whether it is adequate to the given service; we inspect the overall organization of work, and certainly the quality of provided services, and make sure that organization of work follows the established standards and criteria as defined in the regulations for the respective social activity.
A feedback from the users is sought in most of the cases. We use questionnaires to ensure the reliability of information received from users. They allow users to express opinions of the quality of services, and most often to make appropriate suggestions for improvement of their conditions of living.”
Inspector for the SAA

Measures

Inspectors impose the following compulsory administrative measures to prevent or suspend violations of social assistance legislation:

Provide compulsory prescripts for elimination of committed violations;
Overrule unauthorized decisions;
File into the register data of committed violations and make proposals for delisting of providers.

The imposed compulsory administrative measures are subject to appeal under the conditions and the procedure of the Administrative Procedures Code.
When a violation of standards and criteria for social services is established, the executive director of the ASA endorses change of the type of social service, of the capacity and/or number of personnel, or the closing down of social institutions and suspending of community-based social services when they are state delegated activities. The change is based on a justified proposal from the Inspectorate. When the proposal concerns the closure of social institution for children, or for suspension of community-based social services to children the Chairperson of the SACP is obligated to take up an attitude to the case. In 14 days time of receiving the proposals the executive director of the SAA issues an order to endorse or deny the opening of a social institution, change of the type of service, of the capacity and/or number of personnel, or to close down social institutions and suspend community-based social services. The order is subject to administrative appeal.
A person committing a culpable violation of social assistance legislation is liable to administrative prosecution regardless of the disciplinary and property liability for the same act. Their first violation is punished by paying a fine of 600 lv, and 1200 lv for repeated violation. The same penalty is imposed to persons that do not fulfill the compulsory prescripts.
Violation is established on the basis of an act drawn up by the inspector. The penalty order is issued by the executive director of the ASA, or by an authorized staff person. Establishment of violation, issuance of penalty order, appeal against the order and enforcement of the penalty orders are all done according the Administrative violations and sanctions Act.

Practices and conclusions

1. Most of the inspections are done according to plan (for example in the first half of 2007 were made over 450 planned inspections); ad hoc inspections are ordered by the executive director of the SAA, and the same goes for addressing alerts, complaints, media publications, etc.
2. Private providers are not subject to substantial control – in most cases they are inspected because inspectors have been alerted to, or because they work on projects funded under the Social Assistance Fund. Common finding of the inspection is that they “are not familiar with the social services regulation and do not keep proper record of their activities, in compliance with regulations.”
3. According to the Inspectorate Regional Social assistance directorates, with few exceptions, do not provide proper methodical guidance and does not exercise control; the latter is inadequate or merely formal. Regional Social assistance directorates do not make in-depth analyses of the inspection findings, and do not point to the reasons and circumstances that bring about repeated irregularities.
4. Inspection reports are brief (about 8 to 10 pages), and very rarely present inside information on certain problems or give suggestions for their resolving.
5. Main deficiency of reports is their vagueness – problems and challenges are presented too generally, as is the analysis of the causes of their emergence. It is not clear how the standards are maintained, and this is reported (if at all) generally as for example: “…comprehensive inspections of community-based social service delivery haven’t established considerable omissions and violations of social service criteria and standards…”, or “…the quality of life of persons accommodated in social institutions has improved…”, or “…the number of community-based social services provided by nongovernmental organizations, which support the social integration of users and work for prevention of their accommodation in social institutions has risen…”
6. Compulsory prescripts are the measures that are taken most often (over 450 in a quarter), and much rarely are imposed sanctions for administrative violations (usually 2 to 3 in a quarter).

State Agency for Child Protection
Except by ASA social services to children are controlled also by the State Agency for Child Protection. The SACP is presented and governed by a Chairperson who is appointed by the Council of ministers.
Besides its other powers the Chairperson prepares and controls the implementation of national and regional programmes for child protection; oversees and analyzes the implementation of state policy on child protection and provides methodical guidance to Child Protection departments within the Social assistance directorates; issues an Ordinance on criteria and standards of social services provided to children and submits it to the Minister for Labour and Social policy; grants licenses for social service delivery to children under the age of 18, and has other activities in this sphere.

The Chairperson of the Stare Agency for Child Protection exercises:
1. Control over the observance of quality standards for social service to children under the conditions and the procedure of the Ordinance on criteria and standards of social services provided to children;
2. Exercises control over the observance of children’s rights by all state, municipal and private schools, kindergartens, support units, healthcare establishments, Social assistance directorates, providers of services to children, and non-profit legal entities working in the field of child protection;

3. Oversees and exercises control over specialized institutions for upbringing of children with respect to the observance of children’s rights;

Control is exercised through:
1. Regular inspections on previously prepared plan endorsed by the Chairperson of the State Agency for Child Protection;
2. Addressing alerts for abuse of children’s rights;
While conducting the inspection the authorized persons from the State Agency for Child Protection exercise the following rights:
1. To have an unlimited access to buildings and other sites where social services are provided;
2. To make inquiries, ask for information, explanations, files, records, etc.;
3. To receive information directly from the child or his parents or from people taking care of his needs;

When offences are established the Chairperson of SACP make compulsory prescripts for their elimination. If providers of services fail to fulfill the prescripts, authorized staff of the SACP report immediately to the supervisory body or to the governing body of the inspected person. The Chairperson of SACP has the power to propose to the governing body of the inspected person to impose an administrative punishment to the persons that failed to fulfill their duties which respectively led to the violation of child’s rights.

Measures
Unlicensed providers of social services are punished by imposing a property sanction or paying a fine to the amount of 1000 to 1500 lv. To persons that fail to fulfill their duties under this law is imposed a fine of 100 to 500 lv for first violation, and 500 to 1000 lv for repeated violation, in case the later is not subject to a heavier administrative punishment pursuant to special regulation, or the act is regarded as criminal offence.
Personnel that fail to fulfill their duties are punished by paying a fine to the amount of 200 to 1000 lv for first breach of duty, and 300 to 1500 for repeated failure, in case the latter is not subject to a heavier administrative punishment pursuant to special regulation, or the act is regarded as criminal offence.
If breach of duty is found out the staff of SACP and social workers can seek police assistance from the Ministry of internal affairs.

Practices and conclusions
1. The Inspectorate to the ASA and the staff of the SACP are the two bodies controlling the quality of social services.
2. The rights and responsibilities of the controlling bodies have a relatively clear regulation except for the mechanism of their interaction and the instances when it is demanded. Therefore the control could be uncoordinated, ambiguous and inconsistent.
3.When municipalities act as providers of social services (as local activities) they are subject to prescripts and administrative sanctions, but the delivered services can not be suspended regardless of their quality.
4. It can be concluded that both controlling bodies – ASA and SACP are obligated with serious and even too ambitious controlling powers. Pursuant to the law they should control the quality of social services provided by all types of providers. This is not ensured with either serious human resources (indeed the SAA has an Inspectorate, but its personnel is inadequate compared to the number of potential objects of control) or an appropriate financial resources.
An example for the above mentioned is the following: Priority area N 4 of the National Programme for Child Protection for 2007 is: “Monitoring of the observance of children’s rights and standards for quality of services delivered to children.” The envisaged general measures are: “A systemic monitoring of the observance of children’s rights by all state, municipal and private schools, kindergartens and nursery schools, support units, specialized institutions and healthcare establishments, Social Assistance directorates, providers of services to children, and non-profit legal entities working in the field of child protection”, and “Monitoring of the quality of services provided to children”. The Chairperson of the SACP bears responsibility for the realization of these activities within the allocated budget. The abovementioned makes clear that priorities are set in general while no specific measures or resources are provided which makes them to a great extent pointless.

Public control
Nation-wide
To make possible the collaboration among state agencies, local authorities and non-profit organizations working in public interest in the social sphere, is established a Social Assistance Council which is a public consultative body to the Minister for Labour and Social policy. It comprises of representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social policy, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Healthcare, Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, National association of municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria; members of nationally represented organizations of employers and employees
Under the jurisdiction of the State Agency for Child Protection is established a National council for child protection which is a consultative and coordination body comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Ministry of Healthcare, Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Finance and the Chairperson of the State Agency for Youth and Sports, National Social Security Institute, Central commission for combating juvenile delinquency, and of the National association of municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria, as well as of representatives of the non-profit legal persons active in the field of child protection. The National council too has only consultative powers.

Locally
• Public councils
Bulgarian legislation makes explicit provisions allowing any municipal council to establish a Public council under the jurisdiction of the municipality which will control the delivery of social care. The Public council shall:

Assist the implementation of social assistance policy on the territory of the municipality;
Consider and discuss regional strategies, programmes and projects related to social assistance;
Assist the coordination of delivery of social services by providers which are physical persons registered under the Commercial Law, as well by legal persons;
Exercise control over the quality of social services on the basis of the established criteria and standards;
Take up an attitude to the opening or closure of specialized institution for social services on the territory of the municipality;

The Public council comprises of at least three and not more than nine members who represent institutions, physical persons, registered under the Commercial Law, and legal persons related to social assistance activities.
In case of determined negligence or received alerts for irregularities in the delivery of social care activities Public councils inform in written the chairperson of the Municipal council and the Inspectorate to the Agency for Social Assistance.

• Users’ Councils
To safeguard the interests of social service users and to exercise public control are established Councils of social service users, or councils of their guardians.
Users’ Councils have consultative functions about the delivery of social care, and also observe their quality. If violations are found out Users’ Councils inform in written the Inspectorate to the Agency for Social Assistance.

Child Protection Commission
A Child Protection Commission can be established under the jurisdiction of every Social assistance directorate. It has consultative powers and comprises of representatives of municipal administration, Social assistance directorate, Regional Police directorates, Regional Inspectorates of education to the Ministry of Education and Science, regional healthcare centres, local commissions for combating juvenile delinquency, as well as representatives of non-profit legal persons and others who implement child protection activities. As chairperson of the commission stands the Head of Social Assistance directorate. Members of the commission are appointed by the Head of Social Assistance directorate.
The Child Protection Commission has the following functions:
• Supports the Social assistance directorate in the preparation of municipal programme for child protection according to the needs of children and their families living on the territory of the municipality;
•Supports the Social assistance directorate in the collaboration, coordination and the exchange of information among competent bodies and legal persons in the implementation of child protection activities on a municipal level;
• Is engaged in other activities defined in the regulations.

Practices and conclusions
All consultative bodies are allowed to admit to membership representatives of civic organizations active in the social sphere. But the regulation of consultative bodies on a national level is too general and in reality their activity is not well developed and relatively ineffective.
Consultative bodies acting locally have stricter and more detailed regulation but in reality their activity is very rarely effective (supporting local authorities with their knowledge and capacity, or serving as independent public regulator of local social services). Often they do not represent fully the civic society in the given municipality (usually these consultative bodies include formally organizations that are not acknowledged by the local NGO environment and providers as representatives of the local community).

V. Conclusion
It can be concluded that the transition from social services delivered by social institutions to delivery of community-based social services is a lengthy process which requires adequate legal basis, national and local policy, and qualified human resources.
The first important amendments to social legislation are already a reality. The practical experience gained in enforcement of legal acts and decrees must be considered in order to continue the work on their improvement, the advancement of decentralization of social services and their successful standardization. More efforts are necessary for the development and regulation of adequate indicators for the specific types of social services, and for the efficiency of spending.
This approach would allow the optimization and more effective management of invested funds in order to get better quality services for the same amount of invested resources.
Yet an extremely important challenge is still the elaboration of national strategy and local strategies for development of community based social services to answer the real needs of population and target groups.