The chapter covers several aspects of how the scope of social services can be clarified. First, based on Spanish national literature and international definitions, the chapter presents proposals to improve the scope of social services. Secondly, there are proposals to address protection gaps based, on the one hand, on the analysis of regional catalogues and, on the other hand, on international good practices in the areas of prevention and inclusion services, home and residential services, legal aid, and services for families and child protection. Thirdly, the chapter discusses measures to strengthen central government funding.
Modernising Social Services in Spain
Designing a New National Framework
Report
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
7. Clarifying the scope of social services in Spain
Abstract
Several experts consider the scope of social services in Spain to be unclear. This stems in part from a lack of definition in the Constitution, which focuses on social assistance for specific groups, without defining the functions that the services should assume. The explicit reference in the 1978 Constitution in this area is limited to social assistance (in Article 148 (1) (20)). However, the 1978 Constitution does impose certain obligations on the public authorities that can only be fulfilled with a system of social services. The declaration in Article 1 (1) of the Constitution that Spain is a social state is essentially embodied in a generic mandate contained in Article 9 (2) of said Constitution and in various specific obligations grouped together in chapter Three of Part I. This state action to remove obstacles to real equality is the basis for all social interventions. This typical social state clause encompasses all social interventions, therefore justifying the granting of generic responsibility to the central government to establish and maintain a minimum standard in this respect for the whole of Spain.
In addition to this generic mandate, the Constitution contains a chapter on the principles governing social and economic policy, which impose much more specific obligations. As such, the Spanish public authorities must ensure: the social protection of the family (Article 39 (1)); the protection of children (Article 39 (4)); more equitable distribution of regional and personal income (Article 40); the enjoyment by all of decent and adequate housing (Article 47); the protection of young people (Article 48); a policy for the welfare, treatment, rehabilitation and integration of people with physical, sensory or mental disabilities (Article 49); and the welfare of older citizens (Article 50).
7.1. Clarifying the definition of social services
7.1.1. Possible definitions in the national and international context
Given the demographic changes that have occurred and that are to come, a new framework will be required for defining social services that is flexible and adaptable to new developments and needs. As discussed in Chapter 6, a new national law to define the minimum social services to guarantee equality of rights across the country is an opportunity to define more clearly the scope of social services. This would mean that objectives and functions, and perhaps beneficiary groups, would have to be defined more concretely. According to Manuel Aguilar, “the identification of functions should make it possible, to an extent, to define much more clearly the boundaries that separate and connect social services from and to other areas, such as health, education, guaranteed incomes and access to employment”. (Aguilar Hendrikson, 2013[1]) It would also allow for a more efficient use of services and an increase in the knowledge and technical capacities of the services as a whole.
This challenge is not unique to Spain; indeed, it is found in many European Union countries. Similarly, there is no agreed definition of social services in Europe. The concept of social services originated as personal care services in the Anglo-Saxon tradition and is defined as personal care in situations requiring a response from the authorities because citizens lack the autonomy to perform it themselves. (Portillo and Arroyo, 2016[2]) Belgium is among the countries that continue to use this type of terminology (Article 5 (II) of the 1980 Act on Institutional Reform: assistance for people). While some European countries have a single national legal framework, many others have separate legislation for each type of service. Several countries define social services according to need, but also by population group and function or service. In France, social services focus on vulnerable people. However, the tendency is to avoid defining services by group in order to reduce fragmentation, as can be seen in the recent law adopted by the Community of Valencia. (EAPN, 2021[3])
Within the European framework, there is a definition of social services of general interest (SSGI) (Huber and Maucher, 2008[4]). A 2007 communication of the European Commission on social services of general interest gives examples of these services aimed at individuals, which play a role in prevention and social cohesion and provide personalised assistance to facilitate individuals’ inclusion in society and ensure that their fundamental rights are realised. They include, firstly, services that meet critical needs, particularly those of vulnerable people. Secondly, they cover activities aimed at helping people tackle immediate life challenges or crises. Thirdly, they supplement and support the role of families in providing care, particularly for the very young and for older people. Activities aimed at ensuring the inclusion of people with long-term care needs owing to disability or health problems also form part of these services. Fourthly, they include social housing, which provides access to housing for people with low incomes. These social services were set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
7.1.2. Proposed areas on which social services should be focused
The European definition aligns with the proposals of several Spanish experts with regard to the focus of the framework for social services, except in the area of social housing. According to Aguilar, social services should focus to a lesser extent on social welfare and the distribution of minimum income benefits. (Aguilar Hendrikson, 2013[1]) The experts’ proposals focus on a social services approach to personal care for (i) dependent people (or the promotion of autonomy); (ii) support for social integration for people at risk of poverty and/or help for groups with certain social difficulties, such as disability; and (iii) protection or guardianship for families experiencing conflict, survivors of gender-based violence and children requiring protection. Fantova even defines the purpose of social services as preventing or alleviating dysfunction in the field of human interaction, or, more precisely, providing support for family and community interaction in order to promote personal autonomy and integration. (Fantova, 2008[5]) Therefore, while social services need to understand a person’s economic and employment situation, they should focus on the phenomena or situations that create an imbalance between personal autonomy and relationship support.
In this regard, it is worth highlighting the proposed new social services law of the Community of Madrid, which is along the same lines as the proposals highlighted by the experts. Indeed, the proposed law includes a definition of the scope of action and focuses on providing support and guidance to individuals (rather than processing financial benefits), as well as concentrating on prevention and community action. The specific proposal is that the central task of social services is to co‑ordinate and guide processes that incorporate people at risk of losing, or who have lost, their autonomy and who require guidance and guardianship, and people in difficult life situations. It also focuses on three areas: (i) personal autonomy; (ii) positive parenting, family life and support for minors, guardianship and protection; and (iii) social inclusion.
7.2. Addressing gaps in social protection in certain areas
As Spain embarks on a process of strengthening social services through setting basic conditions throughout the country, it will need to define a common minimum catalogue of services that is the same across all regions. In this process, Spain can either rely on setting a catalogue based on services and benefits, which are already in place in many regions as discussed in this section. In addition, if Spain wishes to set a more ambitious catalogue of minimum services and address shortcomings in the current offer in most regions and have a more future‑proof catalogue, several options are discussed in Section 7.3 based on international practices.
As indicated in Chapter 3, several services and benefits are currently not available in the regions. In addition, a high proportion of laws contain a form of conditional or non-guaranteed benefits or services, the effective provision of which depends not only on the applicant’s fulfilment of the relevant regulatory requirements, but also on the availability of the necessary budget. Even the essential services on information, guidance and assessment are only guaranteed in just 10 of the 14 autonomous communities that have a draft portfolio/catalogue. Many prevention and family support services are guaranteed in just half of the autonomous communities.
It would therefore be desirable to extend the services and financial benefits that constitute subjective rights. Considering the number of autonomous communities where they are already guaranteed, the minimum guaranteed benefits could include the following:
Information, assessment and monitoring in relation to basic and specialised care, as well as the recognition of rights.
In the area of autonomy and home care: home care and support for households; remote assistance; daytime and night-time care for older people, people with disabilities and dependent people; prevention of dependency and the promotion of personal autonomy. With greater financial effort, occupational centres and psychosocial care for survivors of gender-based violence could also be guaranteed.
In terms of family support, it appears that under current conditions, it is only possible to guarantee social and therapeutic support and, with greater financial effort, family mediation, which is guaranteed in just 5 of the 11 autonomous communities that include it in their catalogues.
In the area of child protection, care for minors at social and family risk, residential and family foster care for minors, and early care should be guaranteed. Adoption and post-adoption support, guaranteed in 7 of 12 autonomous communities, could also be guaranteed.
It seems feasible to guarantee residential care for survivors of gender-based violence and dependent older people, and it would also be desirable to guarantee it for people with disabilities and people in need of emergency housing, yet it is guaranteed in just autonomous communities 5 and 6, respectively.
Very few autonomous communities guarantee prevention services. However, the promotion of participation and social inclusion, socio‑educational interventions and guidance could be strengthened further, since those types of service reduce the subsequent use of other types of service and benefit.
Financial benefits for dependent people and assistance for survivors of gender-based violence.
7.3. Considering more comprehensive services based on international practice
Beyond the possibility of a minimum catalogue based on existing benefits and services at the regional level, the importance of adapting social services to a new reality of socio-demographic change (job insecurity, inequality, family diversity, immigration, population ageing) has become essential. All this leads to new, more complex user profiles that require person-centred services with tailored and adaptable plans. According to Uribe, adopting such person-centred care and an approach that addresses social exclusion through interaction would necessitate more comprehensive change to portfolios of services, with a stronger focus on community support and home services, along with de‑institutionalisation and less focus on residential services (Uribe Vilarrodona, 2019[6]). An approach that gives greater weight to preventive, comprehensive elements is also needed.
7.3.1. Increasing the importance of preventive services
Spain could consider offering a broader range of services intended to prevent the loss of autonomy and promote active ageing. According to the Economic and Social Council, preventive benefits are currently scarce. (Consejo Economico y Social, 2020[7]) Analysis of the autonomous communities’ catalogues reveals that active ageing services exist in Andalusia and Aragon but are conditional, and they are guaranteed subject to conditions in Castile‑León and Catalonia. They are guaranteed only in the Communities of Valencia and Navarre.
Similarly, there is a clear link between mental health problems and social exclusion, (Bergen et al., 2019[8]) and better integration of mental health and social services could help prevent the risk of social exclusion. Joint interventions would be equally useful in relation to people at risk of addiction. Good practices at the international level include the integration of mental health services into social services at the municipal level in Norway, with multidisciplinary teams including psychiatrists, nurses, general practitioners, psychologists and social workers. (OECD, 2012[9]) Inclusion and mental health are also integrated under the Mental Well-being and Inclusion in Multicultural Finland programme, which is an initiative designed specifically to promote social inclusion and mental health among immigrants. (European Commission, 2021[10]) In Spain, the European Union identified the good practice demonstrated by the Mental Health Plan of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. This plan included support and strengthening for co‑ordination between public services, as well as integration programmes for people with mental health problems. However, the lack of resources prevented the plan’s full implementation. (European Commission, 2016[11])
Lastly, it would be important to co‑ordinate social services with areas such as education that facilitate investment in children, support for families with children and women’s access to paid employment.
7.3.2. Strengthening home services and transforming residential centres into supported housing or other community models
Spain should align itself with the recommendations of international organisations and the new care strategy of the European Commission. More specifically, the Commission’s strategy and the OECD’s proposals (Rocard, Sillitti and Llena-Nozal, 2021[12]) recommend strengthening home services, along with assistance from community services, and the joint provision of integrated care by health and social services. The OECD analysis shows that the generosity of current long-term care benefits is below the OECD average. (Oliveira Hashiguchi and Llena-Nozal, 2020[13]) Spain’s recent emergency plan for long-term care constitutes a step in that direction since it proposes a series of measures, such as increasing the hours of care available through the home care service and establishing remote care as a subjective right. There are also plans to improve financial benefits by establishing minimum amounts, increasing maximum amounts and reviewing the co-payment model, as well as to prioritise the direct provision of services.
Even so, a better range of services for non-professional carers in family settings would be needed. Royal Decree‑Law No. 6/2019 was a breakthrough for carers since it reinstated the special agreement and the payment of informal carers’ social security contributions by the general state administration. The emergency plan regulates respite services, but advice, support and respite measures for family carers are currently limited. These services are not usually guaranteed and are rarely offered by many autonomous communities; they are offered only in Andalusia and Aragon, where they are conditional, and in Catalonia, where they are guaranteed subject to conditions.
There is also room for improvement with respect to interventions for people with disabilities. In Spain, as in many other OECD countries, people with disabilities face serious difficulties in obtaining affordable, accessible housing that allows them to live independently. (Plouin et al., 2021[14]) In this regard, few autonomous communities (Aragon, Asturias, Catalonia, Navarre, the Basque Country and Castile‑León, with conditions) guarantee residential services.
Housing provision for people with disabilities should be improved by offering more diverse accommodation options that are integrated with other housing assistance policies. Navarre is an interesting example, where supervised apartments are guaranteed, similar to Catalonia and Valencia where supported housing and supervised apartments are services, which are conditional on funds. Countries such as Sweden have made great strides in the de‑institutionalisation process for people with disabilities and offer personal assistance for living at home, as well as other options such as supported housing. In Finland, support for more independent living for people with disabilities includes transport services, adapted housing and, for those most in need, a personal assistant and community or supported housing.
An integrated approach would also be needed that first provides permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness, coupled with integrated social services. (OECD, 2015[15]) At present, the catalogue features temporary housing services for people experiencing homelessness. It is interesting to note the “housing first” model that provides permanent housing and combines housing services with other social services. The model does not impose prerequisites; rather, the main priority is the provision of housing as quickly as possible, with an emphasis on access to housing as a right. Nor does it impose conditions such as abstinence from alcohol or drugs, nor any obligation to complete subsequent treatment or programmes; it is users who decide which path to follow. (OECD, 2015[15])
The countries using this model include Finland, which adopted it in 2008, achieving a 39% reduction in homelessness within ten years, and a 68% reduction in long-term homelessness (Y-Foundation, 2019[16]). Since 2016, Finland has combined Housing First with an active prevention policy that involves affordable social housing, increased housing benefits and housing advice services. Also noteworthy is the case of Portugal, which in 2009 launched its Housing First programme focusing on people with severe mental illness experiencing homelessness. Some 85‑90% of users remained in the initial housing, and there were improvements in personal safety (98% of users), nutrition (80%) and both physical and mental health (78%). (European Commission, 2019[17])
7.3.3. Strengthening legal aid for vulnerable groups
The legal protection contained in the catalogue of social services covers only child guardianship and custody, adult guardianship and the enforcement of judicial measures for minors. Legal assistance for other vulnerable groups, such as survivors of gender-based violence, or for users of social services in general, is not included. This lack of integration between social services and legal assistance can be problematic, since unresolved problems related to, for example, housing or debt resolution can exacerbate problems of social exclusion. (OECD, 2015[15]) Individuals tend to experience legal problems in connection with other social, economic or health problems, hence the need to integrate legal services into other services such as health, training and housing. Doing so helps eliminate some of the main barriers that the most vulnerable users face when gaining access to legal aid, such as a lack of information, perceptions of risk and cost. (OECD, 2019[18]) What these people often need in the first instance is a service providing information and guidance on legal matters.
A good practice in terms of expanding legal assistance in social services is the integration of several services into one‑stop shops. These single spaces grant users access to the services of social workers, health professionals (including mental health specialists), employment specialists and legal advisors, among others. They give users access to services in different areas, as well as helping facilitate co‑operation among different professionals ( (OECD, 2015[15])). In France, multiservice information and mediation points facilitate access to various public services and sources of social assistance, including legal assistance. Most of these points are state‑funded. (OECD, 2019[18])
Examples of good practice can also be found in legal assistance for survivors of gender-based violence, as provided for in Article 20 of the Istanbul Convention. This integrated approach has been implemented in countries including, since 2019, Cyprus, where the Women’s Houses programme brings together the work of social workers, psychologists, medical professionals and legal advisors, in a multidisciplinary way. (German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, 2020[19])
7.3.4. Expanding the range of inclusion interventions to go beyond emergencies
Over-indebtedness among vulnerable people can have many consequences, including physical and mental health problems, family stress, barriers to employment and exclusion from basic financial services. In the light of this situation, different countries have developed debt-management services, ranging from advice to financial guarantees, loans and mediation with financial institutions. In Finland and Denmark, debt management is the responsibility of local authorities, which offer services such as social loans and debt counselling that are available to all citizens, free of charge. (ECDN, 2017[20]) In 2007, Sweden adopted a law on debt relief for over-indebted people unable to pay their debts over a period of many years. The law provides for payments in instalments over five years, and mechanisms to render payments more flexible. In addition, all municipalities in Sweden offer debt-counselling services. (ECDN, 2017[20]) In Germany, debt assistance services are integrated with psychosocial support, and the service includes financial counselling, crisis intervention, psychosocial counselling and legal advice. This includes four objectives: preventing debt problems, rehabilitating debtors, freeing debtors from spirals of consumption and over-indebtedness, and empowering debtors. These services are controlled by the public sector, but are often carried out by the private sector. Debt counsellors are qualified for social, legal and financial work. According to a 2017 evaluation, debt counselling for a period of eight months reduced debt size by 33% and increased people’s income by 83% (ECDN, 2017[20]). Certain interventions in Spain are also worth highlighting; for example in Castile‑León, a network has been created to protect individuals and families who are most socially or economically vulnerable, and new subjective rights have been created, such as the comprehensive support service for families at risk of eviction due to mortgage debt, as well as economic benefits to address mortgage debt.
Nevertheless, most services in the catalogue and the most tangible inclusion co‑ordinated by the autonomous communities relate to emergency housing, food delivery or basic needs programmes. However, the latest inclusion plans highlight the need to create new specific measures, to adapt existing measures to better respond to absence from the labour market and the precariousness of the social and labour market, and to have a multidimensional understanding of inclusion. Autonomous communities, such as the Basque Country, Navarre and Asturias, highlight the fragmentation and lack of financial resources in this area. It is also necessary to have a clear framework for most of the activities that are carried out by the third sector and better differentiation for more personalised schedules. In terms of recommendations for the catalogue, it would be important to combine social integration with insertion into the labour market in order to ensure sustainable inclusion in employment while promoting subsidies for employment in the social economy supported by a training and career guidance plan (OECD, 2021[21]). Likewise, inclusion should not focus exclusively on employability, but should also integrate other dimensions, such as volunteering or other community or social interest activities. The Basque Country, for example, is committed to increasing home‑ and community-based interventions, providing them with stronger social support and socio‑educational and psychosocial interventions (Gobierno Vasco, 2018[22]).
7.3.5. Closing gaps in family and child protection services
Family support and child protection encompass an important set of services that is already quite comprehensive in Spain. Family support services include domestic violence prevention programmes, family mediation services, and social and therapeutic support. Family mediation services are out-of-court and voluntary proceedings to prevent and resolve family conflicts in the field of private law. Family support programmes are directed at parents and adolescents and seek to teach families how to properly look after minors in their care, who are at risk of neglect and drug addiction, among other things. Child protection services include programmes to care for children at social and family risk; (pre‑ and post-) adoption services; residential or family-based foster homes; after-school childcare centres; and early interventions for young children with developmental disorders.
Recent years have seen significant reforms in family support and child protection. Family support has evolved from a model of compensating for deficiencies to a model of strengthening families and communities (Churchill et al., 2020[23]). For example, in the area of family support services, family mediation was only introduced in the 1990s, but there are now relevant laws in 13 autonomous communities (Unión de Asociaciones Familiares (UNAF), 2015[24]) and it is considered a priority at the national and regional levels, as evidenced by its inclusion in the call for proposals for subsidies funded by 0.7% of income tax (Churchill et al., 2020[23]). A lot of progress has also been made in the development of positive parenting programmes, spurred in part by a recommendation from the Committee of Ministers of the Council in 2009. The programmes’ focus has evolved towards improving parenting skills and providing comprehensive social support to promote parental autonomy (Rodrigo, 2016[25]). Regarding the protection of minors, a 2015 government legal reform sought to establish the key elements for a more coherent child protection system at the national level (Act 26/2015 of 28 July and Organic Act 8/2015 of 22 July). In fact, through this reform, Spain was the first country to follow the United Nations’ recommendation to incorporate the best interest of the child as an interpretative principle, substantive law and procedural rule in its regulations (Arenas, 2018[26]). The law established common definitions and changed the procedural requirements for establishing protection measures (residential or family-based foster care and pre‑adoption family-based foster care); established that children under 3 years of age should be exclusively fostered in families and not residences; introduced new categories of foster care (such as professional family-based foster care for children who require very close psychological support and specific residential foster care for young people with serious behavioural problems (del Valle, 2018[27])); and directed the implementation of a state‑wide information tool.
Nevertheless, access to services may vary according to geographical area and the characteristics of families in family mediation programmes. In most autonomous communities, family mediation is only used in situations where the conflict stems from couples splitting up and relates to child custody or child support; however, there are varying eligibility requirements regarding what constitutes a family. In most autonomous communities, family mediation is subject to co-payment, except when it is provided by legal aid. However, in three autonomous communities, services are free of charge for those eligible. The use of mediation remains low. In child protection, so far, only a handful of regions appear to have applied in full the definitions and standards established by government legislation. Instead, most of them have responded by adopting specific rules for urgent matters, such as unaccompanied foreign children.
To increase the use of mediation, elements of mandatory mediation, as in Italy, could be useful. There was a significant increase in the use of these services in the country when mediation became a pre‑trial prerequisite in certain categories of cases (De Palo et al., 2014[28]). The mediation requirement is fulfilled once the parties have participated in the first meeting with a mediator, which can develop into a full mediation process if both parties agree to it.
In the field of child protection services, it could also be evaluated whether introducing additional services could better respond to the needs of young people and their families. This may include an ombudsman for children and young people – whose functions can include helping young people to express and represent their interests in situations of conflicting mediation with their parents or legal guardians, as exists in Austria – or making institutional care available for entire families, as exists in Germany (for single‑parent families only) and Finland.
7.4. Strengthening government funding
To ensure the success of a national law on social services, it is important to guarantee the sufficiency of the financial contribution for social services, and its sustainability over time. Above all, the autonomous communities required to increase their offer of services might have difficulties without additional central government support. To fully understand the opportunities and risks of funding the social services act from a legal point of view, it is important to understand how Spanish autonomous funding works on the one hand and how the Long-term Care Act, which is the closest model, has been funded on the other.
In Spain, the benefits provided by an autonomous community must be funded using its own budget. However, this budget is made up of annual central government contributions, which means that social services can be one of the criteria used for calculating the overall annual central government contribution for each community.
The funding of autonomous communities does not follow a set model, but it is often the result of bilateral negotiations between each autonomous community and the central government, rather than objective planning. The Basque Country and Navarre have a specific set of rules that give them ownership of the taxes collected in their territory. They manage the taxes themselves and contribute a portion to the central government to fund it. The agreement on the annual contribution to the state is called “cupo” (Basque Country) or “aportación” (Navarre). The remaining autonomous communities are primarily funded through their participation in taxes levied by the central government and through central government monetary transfers. The rules determining the resources available for the autonomous communities to fund their competencies are set out by Organic Act 8/1980 on Autonomous Community Funding, amended by Organic Act 3/2009 of 18 December, and the funding systems approved every few years, now replaced by Act 22/2009 of 18 December, which regulates the funding system for the autonomous communities under the common system.
The system is essentially based on calculating the financial resources that each autonomous community requires annually to fund the services under its competence. Once a figure is available, the form in which each autonomous community will receive these resources is decided, either through participation in taxes or state transfers. To calculate an autonomous community’s required resources (beyond calculating services), the political discussion takes precedence and it is not even clear in advance which criteria should be prioritised. However, there are several more or less fixed resources. Thus, in the case of long-term care, the Long-term care Act establishes a set of criteria (for 2009) for calculating additional resources to strengthen the welfare state. These resources are distributed among autonomous communities according to population change and the adjusted population, the potentially dependent population, and the number of people recognised as dependent and entitled to benefits. These contributions are, however, different to the targeted contributions for long-term care: they are calculated based on dependency, but they are imputed as revenue in the budget of each autonomous community, which has the liberty to decide on its explicit use. The objective is to reduce, to a certain extent, the contributions that the autonomous communities must make for their share of long-term care funding.
The Long-term care Act establishes three possible levels of protection, each with different funding mechanisms.
Minimum protection level. Determined and funded entirely by the general central state administration, its objective is to guarantee a base level of protection for each of the system’s beneficiaries. The final amount transferred to the autonomous communities depends on the number of dependent people recognised and their degree of dependency.
Agreed level of protection. Funded in equal parts by the general central government administration and the autonomous communities, this is established in the various inter-administrative collaboration agreements made in bilateral negotiations between the two administrations according to the different services provided and each region’s specific characteristics. In agreement with the first transitional provision of Act 39/2006, the government was required to allocate an item in the general state budget to fulfilling these agreements from, at a minimum, 2007 to 2015. Subsequently, the autonomous communities have ceased to fund their share due to a lack of state funding.
Additional level of protection. Funded entirely by the autonomous communities if they consider it necessary to contribute above the agreed level.
Based on the lessons from the Long-term Care Act, an estimate of additional resources based on social services provision (including, for example, the number of potential users) could be included in the funding legislation. This means committing greater central government expenditure to regional funding for the future. However, this increase is subject to annual negotiation. It is not a certain amount or a predetermined amount.
The central government may consider different ways of contributing to the state funding of regional social services, which can be used to encourage the implementation of the future law on basic conditions and the common minimum Social Services. It can make use of legal modifications that allow social services to be considered when calculating the financial resources required annually by each autonomous community.
The law itself may establish different mechanisms for targeted funding. On the one hand, there are transitional contributions, including those aimed at helping the autonomous communities to achieve the minimum portfolio of services. The state may fund the difference between the services currently provided and those required under the new law for a period of time. On the other hand, there may be central government contributions subject to autonomous communities contributing similar amounts so that certain services can be co-funded. The problem with this type of funding is that if the central government contribution were to cease, so would the very existence of the service itself.
To conclude, it would be essential for the new law to include a section on funding to ensure resources for the transitional period when regions must step up their efforts (if lagging behind in service provision) and beyond that transition. Current central government funding for social services remains small and there is room for increasing funding through increasing the regions budget or targeted contributions. However, current mechanisms do not appear to offer guarantees of sustainable funding and this will require a constant process of consensus building across different stakeholders.
References
[1] Aguilar Hendrikson, M. (2013), “Los servicios sociales en la tormenta”, Documentacion social, pp. 145-167.
[26] Arenas, E. (2018), “El acogimiento residencial de menores”, Quaderns de Politiques Familiars.
[8] Bergen, A. et al. (2019), The association between social exclusion or inclusion and health in EU and OECD countries: a systematic review, pp. 572-582.
[23] Churchill, H. et al. (2020), “Developing family support services: A comparison of national reforms and challenges in England, Ireland and Spain”, Social Work and Social Sciences Review, Vol. 21/2, pp. 58-83, https://doi.org/10.1921/swssr.v21i2.1418.
[7] Consejo Economico y Social (2020), INFORME 03|2020: El sistema de promoción de autonomía personal y de atencion en situacion a las personas con dependencia.
[28] De Palo, G. et al. (2014), “’Rebooting’ the Mediation Directive: Assessing the Limited Impact of its Implementation and Proposing Measures to Increase the Number of Mediations in the EU Study”, European Parliament. Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493042/IPOL-JURI_ET(2014)493042_EN.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2021).
[27] del Valle, J. (2018), “La Intervención del Psicólogo en los Servicios Sociales de Familia y Infancia: Evolución y Retos Actuales”, Papeles del Psicólogo, Vol. 39/2.
[3] EAPN (2021), Analisis de los servicios sociales. Las personas atendidadas y la perspectiva autonomica.
[20] ECDN (2017), Evaluation of debt advice: an European Overview. Money Matters 13.
[10] European Commission (2021), Better mental wellbeing encourages social inclusion, European Social Fund Plus.
[17] European Commission (2019), Mental Health: Good practices and implementable research results.
[11] European Commission (2016), Best practice Portal: Regional Mental Health Plan of Andalucia, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/bp-portal/practice.cfm?id=171.
[5] Fantova, F. (2008), “Sistema público de servicios sociales. Nuevos derechos, nuevas respuestas”, Cuaderno de derechos humanos.
[19] German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, S. (2020), Protecting Women against violence: Best practices from all over Europe.
[22] Gobierno Vasco (2018), IV Plan de Inclusión 2017-2021. Euskadi, territorio inclusivo.
[4] Huber, M. and S. Maucher (2008), Study on Social and Health Services of General Interest in the European Union: Final Synthesis Report, DG Employment.
[21] OECD (2021), “Building inclusive labour markets: Active labour market policies for the most vulnerable groups”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/607662d9-en.
[18] OECD (2019), Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth: Putting People at the Centre, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en.
[15] OECD (2015), Integrating Social Services for Vulnerable Groups: Bridging Sectors for Better Service Delivery, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233775-en.
[9] OECD (2012), Sick on the Job?: Myths and Realities about Mental Health and Work, Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264124523-en.
[13] Oliveira Hashiguchi, T. and A. Llena-Nozal (2020), “The effectiveness of social protection for long-term care in old age: Is social protection reducing the risk of poverty associated with care needs?”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 117, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2592f06e-en.
[14] Plouin, M. et al. (2021), “A crisis on the horizon: Ensuring affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 261, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/306e6993-en.
[2] Portillo, A. and G. Arroyo (2016), An Approach to Social Service Systems in Europe: The Spanish Case, IntechOpen.
[12] Rocard, Sillitti and Llena-Nozal (2021), COVID-19 in long-term care: Impact, policy responses and challenges.
[25] Rodrigo, M. (2016), “Quality of implementation in evidence-based positive parenting programs in Spain: Introduction to the special issue”, Psychosocial Intervention, Vol. 25/2, pp. 63-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSI.2016.02.004.
[24] Unión de Asociaciones Familiares (UNAF) (2015), “Valoración sobre la mediación familiar en España”, http://www.unaf.org (accessed on 29 November 2021).
[6] Uribe Vilarrodona, J. (2019), “Rellenando espacios: hacia una ordenación de los sistemas de servicios sociales desde la respuesta a la complejidad”, Zerbitzuan.
[16] Y-Foundation (2019), Ending Homelessness in Finland with Housing First, https://www.oecd.org/social/soc/OECD-Workshop-Homelessness-PPT-S1-Kaakinen-Finland.pdf.