Using Structural Funds to support independent living learning

  • Slides: 15
Download presentation
“Using Structural Funds to support independent living – learning from mistakes” Event: Seminar on

“Using Structural Funds to support independent living – learning from mistakes” Event: Seminar on ESF and ERDF investment supporting Deinstitutionalisation and Community based care Date: October 6 th 2016, Warsaw Kamil Goungor ENIL Youth / Chairman i-living Greece

Using SF to support the right to live in the community 1/2 • Member

Using SF to support the right to live in the community 1/2 • Member States can use the European Social Fund (ESF) to support: – Development of services, including early intervention, family support, foster care, personal assistance, rehabilitation, community-based residential support, independent living schemes and supported employment – Development of qualified workforce – Management of the change process – Capacity building of NGOs

Using SF to support the right to live in the community 2/2 • Member

Using SF to support the right to live in the community 2/2 • Member States can use the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to support: – Targeted investments in mainstream health and social infrastructure, education, housing and specialised services where necessary – Making existing infrastructure accessible to people with disabilities

Lessons learned 2007 - 2013 • Lack of clear direction on developing alternatives to

Lessons learned 2007 - 2013 • Lack of clear direction on developing alternatives to institutional care • Residential institutions reconstructed, expanded and built • Lack of transparency • Restrictive interpretations of the rules for Structural Funds • Poor monitoring and evaluation • Barriers faced by smaller to mid-size NGOs when applying for and implementing SF projects

Lack of clear direction on developing alternatives to institutional care Bulgaria: The building of

Lack of clear direction on developing alternatives to institutional care Bulgaria: The building of Small Group Homes (SGHs) as the only alternative to institutional care. The DI project for children – funded by ERDF and ESF - consisted of building 149 group homes for 12 children each, with an additional two “emergency placements”. Hungary: The Human Resources OP allows for investments into institutions for up to 25 persons. The OP states that “this size is only allowed for those who need 24 -hour care, and whose needs are assessed by individualised assessments”.

Slovakia: A significant problem from the previous programming period was that the projects under

Slovakia: A significant problem from the previous programming period was that the projects under the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) were not co-ordinated with those under the Employment and Social Inclusion Operational Programme (ESIOP), the calls for proposals for capital investments under ROP being issued 1 ½ years before those under the ESIOP (covering crucial activities to support staff in implementing the deinstitutionalisation process).

Bulgaria: The service of “personal assistant” and “social assistant”, funded partly by the Human

Bulgaria: The service of “personal assistant” and “social assistant”, funded partly by the Human Resource Development OP, have as their main objective “to provide care in a family environment for disabled people (or seriously ill people living alone) by hiring unemployed people to work as personal and social assistants”. More specifically, the personal assistant service “aims to provide employment for unemployed relatives, who are engaged in care of a disabled member of their family”

Romania: Enormous funding was invested in employing people with disabilities on the open labour

Romania: Enormous funding was invested in employing people with disabilities on the open labour market through training, with very limited success (€ 43, 7 million spent on employing 116 persons with disabilities). Hungary: Two projects focused on improving the accessibility of institutions, namely “The Social Care Home for Psychiatric Patients” for 80 residents in Baja (€ 42. 750) and “The Social Care Home for People with Disabilities” for 102 residents in Pásztori (€ 135. 600).

Residential institutions reconstructed, expanded and built Romania: A total of € 33 million (of

Residential institutions reconstructed, expanded and built Romania: A total of € 33 million (of which € 24 million were SF) has been targeted to renovate/expand institutions for people with disabilities. This money has been allocated to 44 projects, awarded to 28 local authorities. Slovakia: A total of € 209, 36 million in SF was allocated to 136 projects in September 2010. Nearly half of this amount (€ 99, 36 million) was allocated to 47 projects for building new large-scale social welfare institutions.

Lack of transparency Lithuania: In 2009, over € 1 million in SF was spent

Lack of transparency Lithuania: In 2009, over € 1 million in SF was spent on renovating one social care home. The overall goal of this project was to “increase the efficiency of energy resource use, and to reduce negative environmental impact” and the specific goal was “to reduce the energetic resource use” in the buildings. It estimated that such work would lead to annual savings of € 41, 200, which could be utilised for “improvement of the patient care and personnel working conditions, performance of routine renovations, etc. ”.

Operational Programmes 2014 – 2020 – anticipating problems 1/2 • Lack of strategic vision

Operational Programmes 2014 – 2020 – anticipating problems 1/2 • Lack of strategic vision – Not all MS have DI strategies in place – Measures for DI are often not framed within the context of a strategic vision for independent living • Proposed measures indicated planned investments in institutional care, rather than seeking to eliminate it – Intentions to develop, for example, facilities for up to 25 people • Little analysis of the situation of people with disabilities – MS fail to carry out adequate assessment of those in institutional care (including children and older people) and those at risk of institutionalisation

Operational Programmes 2014 – 2020 – anticipating problems 2/2 • Lack of clarity on

Operational Programmes 2014 – 2020 – anticipating problems 2/2 • Lack of clarity on the planned range of services, with insufficient attention given to promoting social inclusion – Few MS plan to develop personal assistance schemes, even though they are referred to specifically in A. 19 CRPD – Measures for social housing, housing that is physically accessible, or home adaptation schemes are rarely included • Failure to put the partnership principle into practice – MS should set out how they plan to ensure the involvement of people with disabilities (and their families, where relevant) in the planning and implementation of deinstitutionalisation strategies and measures

Investments that support IL • Investments that support the implementation of comprehensive DI Strategies

Investments that support IL • Investments that support the implementation of comprehensive DI Strategies – in line with Article 19 CRPD - based on a proper assessment of the situation in the region/country • Investments that support social inclusion – not just housing and care/support, but also active participation in society (through education, employment etc. ) • Investments that help create a range of services, to suit people’s support needs and preferences • Investments that are planned, implemented and monitored with the involvement of people with disabilities and their representative organisations

Resources • Reports and briefings on the use of Structural Funds for DI (2009

Resources • Reports and briefings on the use of Structural Funds for DI (2009 – 2016) • Shadow report on the implementation of Article 19 CRPD in the EU (2014) • Response to the European Ombudsman’s inquiry into the use of SF (2015) www. enil. eu/reports/

Thank you for your attention! Kamil Goungor kamiloulis@gmail. com

Thank you for your attention! Kamil Goungor kamiloulis@gmail. com