The OECD is assisting Lithuania to develop a new approach to personalised services for people with disabilities, young people leaving care and people leaving prison. Following an assessment of the governance of personalised services including NGO involvement; operating models and Information Technology (IT) infrastructure of employment and social services; and the services currently available to the three target groups, the OECD prepared a series of recommended actions. This chapter sets out an approach drawing on the most relevant recommendations that will help Lithuania to ensure that services for people with disabilities, young people leaving care and people leaving prison are well-integrated and tailored to meet their individual needs and strengthen the involvement of NGOs in the provision of those services.
Personalised Public Services for People in Vulnerable Situations in Lithuania
1. Proposal for a more personalised approach to public service provision in Lithuania
Abstract
1.1. Introduction
The provision of personalised, integrated services is fundamental to addressing the multiple and complex needs of people in vulnerable situations and to improving their socio‑economic outcomes. Achieving this objective requires accessible, ethical and equitable public services that prioritise user needs that deliver with impact, at scale and with pace and that are accountable and transparent (OECD, 2022[1]). In the context of the ongoing de‑institutionalisation process and the transfer of service provision from large institutions to community-based services, the Government of Lithuania is committed to ensuring services for people with disabilities, young people leaving care, and people leaving prison are well-integrated and tailored to meet their individual needs. The Programme of the 18th Government of the Republic of Lithuania, which outlines key national priorities, features specific commitments to strengthening accessible, effective, timely and personalised social services (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[2]).
The government also aims to increase the involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in policy design and service delivery. The Programme of the 18th Government of the Republic of Lithuania encourages a partial transfer of public service provision to NGOs as well as the establishment of “innovative, more efficient models of public service provision’’ (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[2]).
These two commitments reflect long-term efforts of Lithuania to make the public administration more result-oriented, more effective in the provision of administrative and public services, and more transparent and open towards its citizens (OECD, 2015[3]). They also reflect the government’s concern that, despite rapid growth over the past few decades, one‑fifth (21%) of the Lithuanian population still lives below the relative poverty threshold with some people more at risk of living in poverty than others. For example, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for people with disabilities was 31% in 2019. While similar data are not readily available for young people leaving care and people leaving prison, evidence suggests they too are at a higher risk of poverty than the wider population. Not only does poverty increase the likelihood of a child being placed in out-of-home care, but young people are also often exposed to poverty when they “age out” of care (McNamara, Harvey and Andrewartha, 2019[4]). People leaving prison can also be particularly vulnerable, often facing numerous challenges when reintegrating into society, as society can view them as dangerous and unworthy of help, making it very difficult for people leaving prison to find a job and escape poverty.
To illustrate how many people across the three groups may require personalised public services, in 2020, 128 400 people or 7.4% of the working age population were receiving a work incapacity pension, which compares to an OECD average of around 6% (acknowledging that not all people receiving a work incapacity pension will require personalised services). Lithuania’s prison population in 2020 was 6 138 (or 220 per 100 000 of the total population, compared to an OECD average of 150 per 100 000 population in the late 2010s); 3 037 people left prison that year. On average, in 2020 or the most recent year, children in out-of-home care across the 26 OECD countries for which data are available represented 0.8% of 0‑17 year‑olds, in Lithuania that percentage was closer to 1.4%. 924 young care leavers reached the legal leaving age or were emancipated in 2020. In comparison with other OECD countries, Lithuania allocates fewer resources to the delivery of social services: Public social expenditure for in-kind services amounted to about 5.8% of GDP in 2017, compared to the OECD average of 8.0%.
Lithuania’s Ministry of Social Security and Labour (MSSL) requested technical support of the Directorate General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM) of the European Commission and the OECD to develop a new approach to personalised services for people in vulnerable situations in Lithuania including through increased involvement of NGOs. As part of the project, the OECD undertook: (1) an analysis of the governance of services for people in vulnerable situations and NGOs’ involvement; (2) a mapping of the different services across policy fields; (3) an analysis of operating models and Information Technology (IT) infrastructure of employment and social services; (4) a series of in-country focus group discussions with service users and service providers (NGO representatives, social workers, and municipality representatives) to hear first-hand their experiences with those services; and (5) a series of workshops and notes on international good practices. Based on these different activities, this report makes a series of recommendations to strengthen the delivery of integrated services in Lithuania for people with disabilities, people leaving prison and young people leaving care.
The evidence to inform the different activities was collected through virtual consultations with Lithuanian stakeholders, desk research, a review of administrative data, a series of questionnaires (Box 2.1) and focus group discussions. The OECD also organised two virtual learning events with experts from different EU/OECD countries and a study visit to Norway for representatives of the MSSL, municipalities and NGOs to share knowledge on good practices.
Box 1.1. OECD questionnaires used in this project
Questionnaires for Ministries
A policy questionnaire on personalised services for people in vulnerable situations was administered to the MSSL, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Health. The questionnaire focused on the governance of public services for people with disabilities, people leaving prison and young care leavers – where public services include social, employment, health, housing and legal services. The questionnaire gathered information to support the mapping of the administrative set-up and the roles and capacities of key government stakeholders involved in the design and delivery of services to the target groups. It compiled evidence about the underlying governance processes and gaps in the capacity to set and steer strategy/policies, design programmes, co‑ordinate across departments and levels of government, and effectively monitor and evaluate service provision. The questionnaire also contained questions around opportunities and barriers for the integration of NGOs in the design and delivery of public services.
A second questionnaire was sent to the MSSL to gather information on the IT infrastructure that support providing social services, and more specifically the Register of social protection and social services (SPIS). The questionnaire collected information about the main characteristics of the infrastructure, the operational database and user interfaces, data collection for monitoring, evaluation and research, and the processes to share microdata with other parties.
Questionnaires for the public employment service (PES)
Two separate questionnaires were administered to the Lithuanian PES to gather information for the mapping of the operating models of the organisations delivering employment and social services in Lithuania, as well as the IT infrastructure that supports service provision. The first questionnaire collected information on the promotion of services, outreach, identification of individual needs, case management, and IT infrastructure and processes. The second questionnaire entered in further detail on the IT infrastructure of the main register of the Lithuanian PES (UT) and the register of social enterprises used by the Lithuanian PES (SEDA). In doing this, the questionnaires sought information on general approaches towards people in need of support, as well as any approaches specific to the defined groups.
Survey for municipalities
Finally, the OECD, with the collaboration of the Lithuanian MSSL, designed and implemented a municipality-level survey between the second week of December 2021 and the third week of January 2022. The objective of the survey was to obtain a better understanding on the provision of social services in Lithuania. The assignment included the administration of a “social services questionnaire” to representatives of the Social Services Divisions of the 60 Lithuanian municipalities. The questionnaire was structured under 12 different modules, and covered topics such as planning of service provision, social services offer and providers, funding, outreach to target groups and identification of individual needs, case management, IT infrastructure, Monitoring and Evaluation, and co‑ordination with national government, NGOs and other public and private entities. The survey was administered using a Computer Assisted Web Interviewing software, which allowed to monitor completion progress and the quality of the data provided in real time. As a result, the survey response rate reached 95% (57 out of 60 Lithuanian municipalities).
1.2. Improving public governance arrangements to deliver integrated policies and services for vulnerable groups
Supporting people in vulnerable situations with integrated, personalised public services requires close co‑operation across different policy and service areas. Such co‑operation, in turn, relies on the roles and responsibilities of relevant ministries and service providers to be well-defined, which is not the case currently in some parts of the public service for people in vulnerable situations. While the support structures for people with disabilities are defined in the Law on the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities, no such framework exists to clarify roles and responsibilities for the actors supporting people leaving prison and young people leaving care, including social, housing, employment, health, justice and education services. Lithuania could undertake consultations with key stakeholders across the government, sub-national authorities, civil society organisations, service providers and target groups to understand their service needs, expectations and capacities and map their current contributions. Building on these consultations, legal frameworks can be revised/formulated to assign clear roles and responsibilities to key stakeholders across relevant policy and service areas, particularly for people leaving prison and young people leaving care.
Government action in the areas of employment and social policies and services is guided by the Strategic Action Plans (SAPs) of the MSSL and the strategy of the Public Employment Service (PES). The current SAP includes objectives, measures, and targets for some groups, including people with disabilities and young people with fewer opportunities. However, the use of strategy documents to plan and co‑ordinate actions for people in vulnerable situations beyond those two groups is limited. A more joined-up approach could be promoted by broadening the focus of government action for people in vulnerable situations beyond social and employment policy and services to other relevant areas such as housing, health, justice, and education. In this sense, stakeholders responsible for these policy areas could also define specific objectives, measures, targets, and key performance indicators for target groups.
While the MSSL plays a leading role in the design and delivery of social and employment policies, all relevant stakeholders must work together to achieve a coherent and co‑ordinated approach. Co‑ordination at the national level is often supported by inter-ministerial action plans and ministerial orders, but these can be hampered by a lack of institutional mechanisms and human and financial resources to execute the plans and orders. While the Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities has strengthened co‑ordination across relevant stakeholders, the activities and scope of the inter-institutional working group for the implementation of procedures for people leaving prison remains limited. Moreover, there is no institutional mechanism in place to promote a more integrated and cross-sectoral approach to policy design and service delivery for young people leaving care. Lithuania could consider developing cross-sectoral policy frameworks and implement them effectively by ensuring inter-ministerial action plans and inter-ministerial orders are supported by adequate institutional capacities and mechanisms. For instance, the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of frameworks and action plans could be supported through the creation/strengthening of effective, dedicated inter-institutional bodies for different target groups bringing together stakeholders at the adequate level.
According to survey replies, greater co‑ordination and co‑operation between national-level ministries and municipalities is reportedly hindered by a lack of political will and leadership in some ministries and municipalities, insufficient interest and incentives for staff, as well as a lack of institutional capacities and mechanisms. Increased co‑ordination could be achieved by including selected municipalities in national inter-institutional bodies for different target groups as well as by conducting broader consultations with municipalities. Co‑ordination at the local level could also be enhanced by strengthening the role and capacities of local inter-institutional co‑ordinators.
Designing and delivering tailored and integrated services requires that institutions at both the national and local levels have adequate financial and human capacities. For instance, only 3.5% of the total municipal budgets was devoted to social services in 2020 on average and 1.4% of the planned budget of the MSSL was dedicated to the provision of social care to people with severe disabilities. Ensuring an adequate number of staff with appropriate skills and competencies is seen as a key challenge by ministries, municipalities, and the PES for service delivery. For instance, in 2020, around 25 social workers co‑ordinated reintegration services for more than 2 100 inmates released over the course of the year, under the oversight of one staff member in the re‑socialisation unit of the Prison Department. Service users and providers also pointed to a shortage of professionally qualified staff such as psychologists. To deliver the services required for people in vulnerable situations, Lithuania could ensure there are adequate numbers of staff in policy design and service co‑ordination and delivery roles. Staff should have the appropriate mix of competencies, managerial skills and specialised expertise, and in the case of staff working directly with service users the necessary qualities and communication skills, provided through methodological assistance tools, manuals, regular training and capacity-building activities.
1.3. Strengthening the role of NGOs in policy making and service delivery for vulnerable groups
The Government of Lithuania aims to encourage the involvement of NGOs in policy design and service delivery and establish “innovative, more efficient models of public service provision.” Indeed, stakeholder participation in the policy cycle increases government accountability and improves the evidence base for policy making (OECD, 2017[5]). According to survey replies, NGOs are currently involved in the provision of social services in 96% of responding municipalities: for instance, they play a prominent role in running day care centres and in providing leisure activities and other “soft services” to people with disabilities. Yet, the lack of human and financial resources in NGOs and the lack of NGOs themselves are highlighted as key challenges. Promoting the development of the NGO1 sector and taking measures to protect and promote the civic space in which NGOs operate is critical to achieving the government’s aim of increasing their impactful involvement in the design and delivery of services to people in vulnerable situations. The definition of NGOs, together with the assignment of roles and responsibilities for developing the NGOs sector, is generally well-established in Lithuania. However, there is a lack of information about NGOs and their different types (e.g. total number, number of NGOs involved in delivery of different public services, capacities of NGOs, type of NGOs by legal definition, etc.). To improve the information available about NGOs, a mapping exercise could be undertaken in collaboration with municipalities and umbrella NGOs to inform the development of a database that contains high-quality and up-to-date data and information about NGOs, including their legal status, focus of activity, capacities, and involvement in public service provision.
Greater participation of NGOs in the development of the strategic documents of the MSSL, the PES and other ministries could inform the design of national policies and services for people in vulnerable situations. The Council of NGOs appears to have been strengthened in recent years as a mechanism for co‑ordination between public authorities and NGOs, although its role in policy areas beyond the development of the NGOs sector remains rather narrow. At the municipal level, while NGOs are commonly consulted on Social Services Plans (SSPs), their engagement in defining the strategic objectives of SSPs is limited. Municipal councils of NGOs remain under-used and lack of awareness among public officials remains a challenge. Lithuania could strengthen the participation of NGOs in policy and service design at national and local level, with specific efforts to reach out to NGOs advocating for or serving relevant target groups, by conducting consultations, leveraging Councils of NGOs and promoting awareness and relevant skills among public officials (e.g. through manuals, workshops and capacity-building).
Municipalities involve NGOs to some extent in the provision of social services and some local PES offices have also signed co‑operation agreements with NGOs for the provision of employment services. However, a more significant role for NGOs in providing public services is hampered by public procurement procedures favouring lowest-price proposals. The Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider measures to facilitate NGOs’ access to procurement opportunities, such as through reserved procurement provisions or by buying public services targeted at specific groups through performance‑based pricing.
NGOs also need the necessary human, technical and financial capacities to make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of public services. The NGO sector is supported by the MSSL and municipalities mainly through financial support, premises/equipment and, to a lesser extent, training and capacity-building activities (especially at the national level). An NGO Fund is currently being developed and, once fully operational, is expected to further support development of the NGO sector. Lithuania could take the opportunity to enhance the impact of the Fund through a series of measures, including: (1) adopting participatory approaches in setting the focus and scope of the Fund with the involvement of NGOs and other ministries; (2) ensuring an unbureaucratic application process to make the Fund attractive to NGOs; (3) considering multi-year grants for NGOs to enhance long-term sustainability of service provision and to encourage innovation in line with changing (service) user needs; (4) promoting awareness and skills among NGOs to apply for funding to foster competition and increase the quality of applications, including through guidelines, factsheets, templates, tutorials, and seminars/webinars; (5) securing adequate financial and human resources for the Fund; (6) putting in place effective inspection, reporting, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and processes on the outputs, outcomes and impact of financed projects; and (7) ensure this evidence is fed back into the prioritisation of initiatives supported by the Fund to strengthen impact and accountability.
1.4. Improving service design and addressing service gaps
The provision of social services in Lithuania relies heavily on the Catalogue of Social Services issued by the Minister of Social Security and Labour, which sets out a list of services that can be provided across the country and clearly defines what each service must consist of; who can access it; and under what conditions. The Catalogue was introduced in 2006, and although the Minister of Social Security and Labour can approve additional services, very few services have been added since its introduction. Municipalities are free to provide additional services outside of the Catalogue, but in practice they do not tend to deviate from the pre‑existing list.
The planning of municipal social services relies heavily on information about service use in the previous year, which is problematic because plans are largely based on retrospective service use rather than looking forward to understand what services may be needed in the future. Information about the total number of social service users is spread across different sources, with the two most important ones being the reporting tool in the Social Protection Information System (commonly known as the SPIS showcases) and the national survey of social services. In addition, available data on the number of service users are neither comprehensive nor accurate, which can hinder both the planning for and implementation of social services.
Furthermore, municipalities do not have detailed and up-to-date data about the total population who meet the criteria for social services but are not accessing them (i.e. target populations), which means decisions on social services are often made without information about the real need for those services. Measures to improve information about service demand and use could be taken, starting with developing a methodology and related guidance that municipalities can use to systematically assess the need for social services in their territories. Current efforts to collect individual and household level data on service users could be reviewed to ensure all essential information – such as the intensity and frequency of service use and the socio‑economic characteristics of the service user – is captured. These data could be supplemented with targeted research projects and information gathered from consultations with key stakeholders including NGOs and service users to better understand communities and the evolving needs of target groups. Furthermore, the Catalogue of Social Services could be reviewed on a regular basis to improve existing services and include new ones as necessary.
For personalised services to meet the needs of those who require them, it is important to involve service users in their design. Workshop discussions with service users and those who work with them (NGOs, social workers, and municipality representatives) revealed that people with disabilities, people leaving prison and young people leaving care in Lithuania face significant challenges, some unique, many the same, in receiving the supports and services they need to live the lives they want to live, the lives most people take for granted. While many improvements have been made in recent years, there is still a lot more that can be done.
While service users described gaps in service provision more as shortcomings in available services or in the way those services are provided, one specific service gap that was identified is a lack of support and services for families of service users, such as counselling. For example, social workers observed that parents of children with disabilities often expect social workers to undertake tasks with their children because they are not confident to do those tasks themselves. With the right support, social workers believe parents could do more for their children. Lithuania could consider reviewing and where necessary improving the supports available to the families of service users.
There was a strong view expressed by service users and providers that an earlier start to planning and preparation for independent living outside an institution is necessary, with the start time depending on the needs of each person. For instance, young people in institutional care need to learn how to live independently, look for a job, cook their own meals and manage their finances, while people leaving prison may additionally need to work on their social and technical skills after a long term in prison. While some service users shared positive experiences of their early days living outside an institution, consideration could be given to improving preparation and planning support for young people leaving care and people leaving prison to smooth their integration into both society and the labour market, including ensuring consistent implementation across municipalities.
A lack of appropriately qualified staff ranging from a shortage of professionals, such as psychologists, to simply a need for more staff with the right experience and qualities is having an impact on the effectiveness of services provided. Service users want the people who work with them to have the right qualities and communication skills, people who are ambitious for them and encourage and support them to progressively make more decisions and choices for themselves. Ensuring services meet the needs of service users requires the skills and competencies of staff, especially those at the front-line to be strengthened, through greater guidance, regular training, and capacity-building activities.
Service providers also described how collaboration and co‑ordination between institutions relies more on personal relationships and informal communication channels than on formal mechanisms. These challenges are exacerbated because information cannot be shared across institutions because of data protection reasons. In addition, information about services can be difficult to find and/or be overly bureaucratic and complicated, resulting in overlapping or duplication of services and/or unawareness of service users about the services they might be entitled to. Creating more opportunities for formal collaboration between institutions (including formalised referral processes and modern IT infrastructures), addressing barriers to information sharing, and improving information for service users would contribute to a better, collective targeting of efforts.
Occurrences of stigma and discrimination are common. Most service users described experiences of it, while service providers reported observing it. Examples included service users being denied housing, fewer job opportunities and a sense that some service providers lack empathy when working with them. Service providers have observed discrimination being displayed by a range of institutions and actors including schools, medical facilities, banks, employers and landlords. If public and institutional attitudes are to change, actions that raise public awareness and change perceptions, such as disseminating “good news” stories, i.e. stories of successful experiences, are required.
1.5. Applying a more consistent approach to individual action plans and case management
Public employment services (the PES) in Lithuania use jointly agreed individual action plans (IAPs) that set out a service user’s integration pathway and necessary support measures following a needs assessment. By contrast, only two‑thirds of social service providers in municipalities use them. In remaining municipalities, IAPs are either not used at all or are standardised i.e. generic, and not tailored to the individual and their needs, which means that an individual’s progress cannot be comprehensively and systematically planned for or closely monitored. To improve service provision, all service providers could be required to develop and implement a jointly agreed IAP with the service users they work with, tailored to their individual needs. Service users could be fully involved in the development of their IAP. The use of jointly agreed IAPs can enhance transparency and strengthen the mutual obligations between the service provider and service user.
Reviewing progress is an important component of the IAP process, an activity that is carried out by the PES (albeit not very frequently), but is not widespread across other service providers, with only one‑in-five municipalities engaging in reviews on a regular basis. IAPs could be routinely reviewed to ensure the service user is receiving the supports and services that were originally identified and that those services are making a difference, as well as to make sure that any emerging needs are identified and addressed in a timely way.
Case management is a well-developed and commonly used approach for integrating services for individuals with complex needs, such as people with disabilities, people leaving prison and young people leaving care. The PES and almost all municipalities have dedicated case workers to support service users – including the involvement of in-house specialists to assist with more complex cases. However, beyond in-house support, holistic services involving co‑operation and collaboration between various providers is lacking, with services generally provided in isolation of each other. When service users are referred to specialists in other organisations, the system often relies on the service users themselves having to contact the specialists.
The lack of institutional co‑ordination mechanisms at the local level can give rise to duplication and fragmentation of services. Some municipalities have taken steps to promote better co‑ordination across service areas via inter-institutional co‑ordinators, a role that has proved effective despite a lack of dedicated financial and human resources in some municipalities. However, the scope of their work is very narrow and primarily focuses on services for children and young people. Increased co‑ordination and collaboration at the local level could be improved by strengthening the role of inter-institutional co‑ordinators, introducing them for people in vulnerable situations more widely, and supporting them through a clear definition of their responsibilities and adequate human and financial resources.
Co‑ordination at the local level could be further strengthened with the introduction of a framework for co‑operation across public service providers to reinforce the need to work together in a holistic way rather than in separate silos. The framework would establish a practice through which service providers can identify the needs of service users’ that can be met by the PES, social services and/or other services. Co‑ordinated activity would ideally be supported through formalised referral processes and improved IT infrastructure that supports data exchange and case management activities (including referrals and monitoring of service provision).
1.6. Upgrading IT infrastructure and processes to support service provision
Modern IT infrastructure and processes are important foundations for the provision of effective and efficient public services that are targeted to the right people and delivered in a timely way. The IT infrastructure of the Lithuanian PES facilitates client information and communications management (booking meetings and sending messages to clients), identification of client needs, development of action plans, and referrals to specific services. In contrast, the IT system for social services (SPIS) provides somewhat less support for social workers, as it focuses predominantly on the application process and does not support the case management process or the development of IAPs.
Both the SPIS and PES IT systems have inadequate functionality and value for users due to limited data exchange across registers. Data exchange in social and employment services covers basic needs, such as checking client eligibility for services, but does not go far enough to support pro‑active outreach, holistic service provision or monitoring and evaluation activities. The primary IT infrastructure for both social and employment services does not generally contain sufficient information to distinguish target groups such as people with disabilities, people leaving prison, or young people leaving care. Another challenge is the low user-friendliness of the IT infrastructure. It is outdated, not always intuitive for users and, in some cases, not well integrated internally.
Furthermore, the IT infrastructure for social and employment services is not well equipped to facilitate the production of monitoring statistics; only some aggregate reports can be generated across service provision. However, these reports are not considered to be detailed or flexible enough to support service provision and potentially contain errors.
Digitalisation represents a significant opportunity to provide services more efficiently and effectively, via improved interfaces for service users and enhanced back-office infrastructure for service providers to deliver knowledge‑based services and automate administrative processes. Lithuania is currently in the process of significantly renewing its PES digital infrastructure, whereas for the SPIS it will persist with minor, continuous improvements. The MSSL could take this opportunity to consider more fundamental changes to the SPIS and ideally develop an altogether new, modern system to support the provision of social services.
A successful replacement of the IT infrastructure that currently supports employment and social services requires the adoption of modern, agile development methodologies. Agile software development practices emphasise and support collaborative efforts and cross-functional teams and it is therefore important to involve end-users in development processes to ensure digital tools provide value for users and are user-friendly. Lithuania could involve end-users throughout the adoption process – in the exploration and experimentation phases, and after deployment – to ensure their insights inform any fine‑tuning.
As well as the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, agile development practices require strong business guidance accompanied by skilled IT system developers, sufficient investment(s) in IT developments, as well as a supportive and agile organisational culture in the MSSL and the PES. Furthermore, some legislative changes may be required to ensure service providers and sub-national systems are compatible with a national system of social services.
As important as the technology itself is the data it enables. To map its data needs Lithuania must analyse its social and employment service streams (including by different target groups) to generate an understanding about: (1) data received from other registers that could be improved by an additional or different kind of data exchange; (2) data collected from service users that could be more efficiently and/or accurately collected from other registers; and (3) data not received at all currently but relevant for better services that could be received from other registers. The data mapping exercise could also identify when and how the data are needed to consider the most appropriate type of data exchange (mass data exchange, for example, or queries for single service users, push or pull data, storing the data in internal systems or only rights to see the data in an external database, etc.).
An assessment of the legal basis for any new data exchange(s) is also necessary. Legislative amendments may be needed in cases where data exchanges are required for service provision, but current legislation does not provide a sufficient legal basis, or the legal basis is not sufficiently explicit (i.e. data exchanges need to be compliant with the General Data Protection Directive and Lithuanian data protection regulations). Lithuania could also consider following the “once‑only” data collection principle, i.e. any data relevant for a public sector organisation should be collected only once and consequently shared with others securely if needed for service provision.
1.7. Enhancing monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and evaluating policies and services is crucial to understanding what works, for whom, under what conditions and at what cost. At the national level, the MSSL monitors the implementation of its bi‑annual SAPs and to some extent, action plans and programmes for specific target groups. At the local level, the scope of monitoring activities varies significantly across municipalities. Furthermore, evidence produced through monitoring activities at the local level is not systematically used to inform decision-making. Significant challenges to monitoring efforts at both the national and local levels include a lack of monitoring frameworks, guidelines, and manuals and staff with the necessary skills.
To strengthen monitoring and evaluation of policies and services for target groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider establishing and disseminating national monitoring and evaluation frameworks, including quantitative and qualitative metrics, key performance indicators, benchmarks and user-satisfaction surveys. There is also significant scope to include consideration of the needs and experiences of service users in ex-ante and ex-post policy evaluations at national and local levels.
A functional monitoring and evaluation framework needs to be supported with high-quality and comprehensive data and the digital infrastructure to generate and disseminate evidence. As the current IT infrastructure for social and employment services does not include modern data analytics solutions, it is crucial to invest in these systems. To support policy research and evaluation activity more generally Lithuania could consider extending the capacity of Statistics Lithuania to share data securely with (external) researchers for research and evaluation purposes.
Key recommendations
Improving public governance arrangements to deliver integrated policies and services for vulnerable groups
Conduct consultations with national and sub-national government, civil society organisations, service providers and target groups to understand their service needs, expectations, capacities and map current contributions of stakeholders across policy and service areas.
Assign clear roles and responsibilities to key stakeholders across policy and service areas to support each of the three target groups and formulate/revise legal frameworks as necessary.
Broaden the focus of government action for people in vulnerable situations beyond social and employment policies and services and ensure that other stakeholders (notably in the housing, health, justice and education areas) also define specific objectives, measures, targets and key performance indicators, where relevant and as appropriate.
Provide a solid basis for institutional co‑ordination by establishing cross-sectoral policy frameworks and strategies, using inter-ministerial action plans for implementation and creating/strengthening formal inter-institutional bodies for different target groups.
Promote co‑ordination between the national government and municipalities on policies and services for people in vulnerable situations by including selected municipalities in national inter-institutional bodies for target groups and by conducting broader consultations with municipalities.
Ensure adequate numbers of staff in policy design and service co‑ordination and delivery in all relevant institutions at national and local level and ensure the appropriate mix of competencies, managerial skills and specialised expertise, and, in the case of staff working directly with service users, the necessary qualities and communication skills, supported through methodological assistance tools, manuals, regular trainings and capacity-building activities.
Strengthening the role of NGOs in policy making and service delivery for vulnerable groups
Develop a database with high-quality data and information about NGOs, including their legal status, focus of activity, capacities, and involvement in public procurement by mapping NGOs in collaboration with municipalities and umbrella NGOs.
Strengthen the participation of NGOs in policy and service design at national and local level, with specific efforts to reach out to NGOs advocating for or serving relevant target groups, by conducting consultations, leveraging Councils of NGOs and promoting awareness and relevant skills among public officials (e.g. through manuals, workshops and capacity-building).
Consider measures to facilitate NGOs’ access to procurement opportunities (e.g. by extending reserved procurement provisions, by integrating social value considerations in procurement, or by buying public services through performance‑based pricing).
Take measures to enhance the impact of the NGOs Fund, including by:
adopting participatory approaches in setting the focus and scope of the Fund with the involvement of NGOs and other ministries;
ensuring an unbureaucratic application process to make the Fund attractive to NGOs;
considering multi-year grants for NGOs to enhance long-term sustainability of service provision and encourage innovation in line with changing (service) user needs;
promoting awareness and skills among NGOs to apply for funding to foster competition and increase the quality of applications, including through guidelines, factsheets, templates, tutorials, and seminars/webinars;
securing adequate financial and human resources for the Fund; and
putting in place effective inspection, reporting, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and processes on the outputs, outcomes and impact of financed projects and ensure this evidence is fed back into the prioritisation of initiatives supported by the Fund to strengthen impact and accountability.
Improving service design and addressing service gaps
Improve service design at the municipal level by:
Developing a methodology and related guidance that municipalities can use to systematically assess the need for social services in their territories;
Systematically involving NGOs and service users in developing, designing and implementing services, to ensure the services offered meet the needs of target groups;
Ensuring systematic collection of individual and household level data on service users through the IT system for social services (SPIS) to monitor not only the number of users of different services but also other relevant information such as the intensity/frequency of usage and the socio‑economic characteristics of the user; and
Undertaking/commissioning new analyses to obtain information on service need, to assess whether more and/or new services are required and how to reach people who need services but are not making use of them.
Strengthen existing services and address service gaps, by:
Regularly revisiting the Catalogue of Social Services in line with evolving needs;
Improving preparation and planning support for independent living for young people leaving care and people leaving prison to smooth their social and labour market integration, and ensuring consistent implementation across municipalities; and
Reviewing and, where necessary, improving supports available to families of service users.
Applying a more consistent approach to individual action plans and case management
Require all service providers to implement and monitor individual action plans that are jointly developed with service users and tailored to their individual needs.
Increase co‑ordination and collaboration at the local level by strengthening the role of inter-institutional co‑ordinators, supported by a clear definition of their responsibilities and adequate human and financial resources.
Support co‑ordinated activity across public services with formalised referral processes and improved IT infrastructure that supports data exchange and case management activities (including referrals and monitoring of service provision).
Upgrading IT infrastructure and processes to support service provision
Invest in modernising the IT infrastructure of both social and employment services to better support front line workers, by implementing the plans to change the digital infrastructure in the Public Employment Service and initiating a replacement of the SPIS IT system for social services with a modern IT system.
Involve end-users throughout the revision and adoption processes – in the exploration and experimentation phases, as well as after deployment to ensure their insights inform any fine‑tuning.
Enhance data exchange to better support service provision, by mapping the additional data needed to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of social and employment services; amending data exchange legislation where necessary; and implementing a “once only” data collection principle throughout public services.
Enhancing monitoring and evaluation
Develop and disseminate national monitoring and evaluation frameworks that include quantitative and qualitative metrics, key performance indicators, benchmarks and user-satisfaction surveys for policies and services for people in vulnerable situations.
Extend the capacity of Statistics Lithuania to share data securely with (external) researchers for research and evaluation purposes.
References
[2] Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2020), Resolution No XIV-72 on the Programme of the Eighteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania, https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/lit202212.pdf.
[4] McNamara, P., A. Harvey and L. Andrewartha (2019), “Passports out of poverty: Raising access to higher education for care leavers in Australia”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 97, pp. 85-93, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2017.07.015.
[1] OECD (2022), “OECD Good Practice Principles for Public Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2ade500b-en.
[5] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[3] OECD (2015), Lithuania: Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264235762-en.
Note
← 1. While some of the recommendations may also apply to Civil Society Organisations more broadly (e.g. charities, and foundations), this document focuses on NGOs, as requested by the Lithuanian authorities. While NGOs are defined by law in Lithuania, different legal forms exist, which, in turn, has an impact on the rules and regulations that apply to them. The legal system in Lithuania differentiates between “associations” (i.e. member-based organisations; at least 3 people are needed to create an association; members can be individuals or other NGOs); “public institutions” (can be created by anyone; can be an NGO but not necessarily); and “support funds” (which, for instance, cannot borrow money from banks).