SPRU expert for EU peer reviews

Caroline Glendinning has been asked to be an independent expert for two peer reviews of the European Union in respect of social protection and social inclusion. Peer reviews are an event where a host country presents a policy or institutional arrangement (good practice) to a selected group of decision-makers and experts from other countries, to stakeholders' representatives and European Commission officials. The review feeds into the process of policy exchanges and mutual learning known as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). This is a mechanism that hopes to promote the identification and exchange of good practices in the field of social inclusion policies throughout the European Union.

Combining choice, quality and equity in social services' provision: advantages of voucher type models and other market instruments

Country: Denmark

Caroline will be the independent expert for the peer review process involving Denmark. The peer review is exploring the move from a direct provision, or from financing external providers of social care, towards innovative instruments such as vouchers or personal budgets. The financing of service provision via the users in this way allows for greater involvement of the user and is clearly related to the issue of users' empowerment. It raises various questions which the review will explore:

What are the main advantages/risks of this option (from the perspective of public auhorities, users, service providers)?
Where does the balance lie between the impetus for a more rational use of resources and the maintenance of a high level of quality in the provision of social services?
Is a greater involvement of the user in the purchase of the service accompanied by a greater incidence of market arrangements? Is the right to free choice for the user a way to improve quality in the provision of social services?
Does the use of personal budget or vouchers in teh provision of social services result in higher administrative costs?
Would moving from directly providing the services to a more user influenced system raise problems related to teh service supply?
In case vouchers/personal budget do not cover the entirety of the costs, how to ensure that the direct costs to be born by the user do not create an obstacle to service access?
How to support the capacity of the most vulnerable to make informed choice?
How to ensure, using vouchers or personal budgets, that social services are provided in order with the purpose of these services set by authorities?

Publication:

Glendinning, C. (2009) Combining Choice, Quality and Equity in Social Services Provision, Synthesis report. Denmark, European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Luxembourg.

Long-term care: How to organise affordable, sustainable long-term care given the constraints of collective versus individual arrangements and responsibilities

Country: The Netherlands

As part of another peer review process Caroline will travel to The Hague as the academic expert in the British Government delegation to discuss issues around long-term care provision within Europe. The host country, The Netherlands, says of this debate:

"In the Netherlands (as in many EU countries) the question of how to keep long-term care affordable is a burning issue. For such care to be not only affordable but sustainable, accessible and of good quality requires a number of conditions to be met:

There needs to be a careful balance between collective and individual arrangements and responsibilities which is not easy to achieve Individuals can be involved in collective arrangements (through co-payments; or personal budgets) while local authorities can help people cope independently with long-term care.
Clear boundaries need to be drawn between long-term care and related schemes like subsidised housing or home-help, so people are aware of what services they are entitled to and how this is decided.
Qualified personnel are as important as funding being available, while balancing supply and demand needs to take account of demographic and, labour market factors.

In the Netherlands, a public debate is underway about the future of the long-term care system and in these challenging times, the government considers it important to reflect compare and exchange views with other governments in the EU."

The countries involved in the peer review will be: Austria - Belgium - Estonia - Germany - Hungary - Poland - Romania - Slovenia - Sweden - United Kingdom