This chapter assesses Lithuania’s public governance arrangements that support the design and delivery of integrated public policies and services for people in vulnerable situations, with a specific focus on people with disabilities, people leaving prison and young people leaving care. Significant reform efforts in Lithuania have advanced the integration of services for people in vulnerable circumstances and strengthened the role of non-governmental organisations. At the same time, lack of clear roles, limited capacities and weak co‑ordination mechanisms risk limiting the impact of reforms. Ensuring accessible, effective and integrated public services can support those in vulnerable situations, strengthen their trust in government institutions and promote inclusive growth. This chapter analyses and provides targeted policy recommendations on Lithuania’s legal frameworks and institutional set-ups to support vulnerable groups, practices for strategic and participatory design of policies and services, mechanisms for co‑ordinated action across stakeholders, institutional capacities and governance processes for monitoring and evaluation.
Personalised Public Services for People in Vulnerable Situations in Lithuania
2. Delivering for people in vulnerable situations: public governance for integrated policies and services
Abstract
2.1. Context
Lithuania has undergone significant political, economic, social and administrative reforms since the re‑establishment of its independence in 1990, transitioning since then towards a modern public administration (OECD, 2015[1]). Important administrative reforms have been initiated by the Law on the government (1994), the Law on Local Self-Government (1994), and the Law on Territorial Administrative Units and their Boundaries (1994), which together define the composition, competences and roles of the different levels of government in Lithuania, i.e. its central government and its 60 municipalities (Box 2.1). According to the Decentralisation Index developed by the European Committee of the Regions,1 Lithuania ranks 17 out of 27 EU Member States in terms of its political, administrative and fiscal decentralisation, with decentralisation remaining especially limited in the fiscal area.
Lithuania has also invested in the modernisation of its public administration in the lead up to EU accession and thereafter. The Public Administration Development Strategy (2004‑10) and the Public Governance Improvement Programme (2012‑20) were adopted with the objective 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[1]).
Box 2.1. Distribution of competences across levels of government in Lithuania
Division of powers. Lithuania is a decentralised unitary state, composed of a central government and 60 municipalities. The regional administrations were abolished in 2010. Local authorities perform independent functions and functions delegated by the state.
Independent functions include, among others: budgeting and raising taxes; management of municipal property; establishment and maintenance of municipal agencies and companies; planning and provision of social services; facilitating social integration of the disabled; housing support; social allowances; contributing to employment, primary healthcare and public health services; sports and recreation; education of children; provision of educational assistance; organisation of non-formal education and activities (children and adults); vocational training and contribution to protecting children’s rights; family support.
Functions delegated by the state include, among others: provision of statistical data; participation in the implementation of labour market measures; social benefits administration; social care for the severely disabled; organisation of compulsory education (pre‑school, primary, secondary and vocational); youth policy implementation; and provision of state guaranteed primary legal assistance.
In 2021, 30% of respondents to the Gallup World Poll in Lithuania expressed trust in their national government compared to 48% of people surveyed across 34 OECD countries on average.2 According to the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, citizens’ trust in government is driven, among others, by the availability of efficient, quality, affordable, timely and citizen-centred public services that are co‑ordinated across levels of government and satisfy users (Brezzi et al., 2021[2]). These drivers are even more significant for those in vulnerable situations who tend to rely on public services to a larger extent. In this sense, investing in developing personalised and integrated quality services for vulnerable groups can support those most in need, promote inclusive growth and help strengthen democratic institutions, in particular in the recovery from the COVID‑19 crisis.
Ensuring integrated services to people in vulnerable circumstances is a clear commitment in the Programme of the Government of Lithuania. This is also recognised by Lithuania’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan, which includes specific commitments to deliver services to vulnerable groups, in particular for people with disabilities (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2021[3]). Similarly, the Programme of the 18th Government of the Republic of Lithuania, which outlines key national priorities, features commitments on empowering vulnerable groups and priority projects in the areas of strengthening accessible, effective and timely personalised social services tailored to individual needs, on the protection of the rights of people with disabilities, and on the protection of the rights of the child, the latter by strengthening alternatives to institutional childcare among others (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[4]). Achieving these objectives 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[5]).
A second important government objective is to increase the involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs)3 in policy design and service delivery. The Programme of 17th Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2016‑20) aimed to include NGOs in at least 30% of municipal public services by 2030; the Programme of the 18th Government of the Republic of Lithuania similarly encourages the transfer of part of the provision of public services provided to NGOs as well as the establishment of “innovative, more efficient models of public service provision” (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[4]). The involvement of NGOs in policy design and service delivery for people in vulnerable situations (in particular those NGOs representing these groups) can support evidence‑based policy making, inform policy and service design with a variety of perspectives, help reach out to target groups, promote their access to services and increase government accountability. In the context of its membership in the Open Government Partnership (OGP),4 Lithuania is currently implementing its fifth Action Plan for 2021‑23, which includes a commitment for the Ministry of Social Security and Labour to establish a platform for disseminating funding opportunities for NGOs, and to develop an NGOs database collecting high-quality data on NGOs (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2021[6]). The strategic importance of giving NGOs a more prominent role in the delivery of public services for people in vulnerable circumstances is also recognised in Lithuania’s Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030” (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012[7]), which stipulates that public services shall be provided with the help of citizens, the private sector, local communities and NGOs.
These high-level commitments on delivering effective, accessible, timely, integrated and personalised services to vulnerable groups and on the involvement of NGOs in the delivery of public services have been advanced by significant reform efforts in recent years. In 2020, for instance, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Security and Labour (MSSL) enacted an order on the social reintegration of people released from correctional institutions (“ex-prisoners”). The order entered into force on 1 January 2021 and serves as a co‑operation instrument among municipalities, NGOs, correctional institutions and probation offices for the provision of integrated and personalised services to ex-prisoners (Minister of Social Security and Labour and Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[8]).
The National Programme for the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (2013‑19; extended to 2020) was set up to create the conditions for a dignified life for persons with disabilities, with actions in policy areas such as social security, education, healthcare, employment, culture, sports, and leisure activities. Co‑ordinated and monitored by the Department of Disability Affairs under the MSSL, the Programme brought together a number of ministries, including the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Agriculture. At the level of service provision, the “Accompanying service for young people” was added to the Catalogue of Social Services at the end of 2021. It provides a set of inter-connected and cross-sectoral services and measures to young people leaving care to facilitate their social integration in the community and their transition to an autonomous life.
The process towards personalised and integrated service provision has been mirrored by the de‑institutionalisation process and transfer of service provision from large institutions to community-based services and policies. For instance, the process of de‑institutionalisation of services to persons with disabilities and children without parental care can be traced back to the adoption of the Strategic Guidelines for De‑Institutionalisation in 2012 (Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, 2012[9]). Further to that, the Action Plan for the Transition from Institutional Care to Family and Community-Based Services for Persons with Disabilities and Children without Parental Care (2014‑20; extended to 2023) aims to establish and strengthen a system of integrated service provision to provide care and support to vulnerable groups within their family and communities, providing an alternative to institutional care (Minister of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, 2014[10]). Further insights on institutionalised care provision are provided in Chapter 4, which highlights, among others, that all Lithuanian municipalities currently provide “social rehabilitation services” to people with disabilities through NGOs.
At the legislative level, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the unicameral parliament of Lithuania composed of 141 members, works on policies for vulnerable groups in particular through its Committee on Social Affairs and Labour and its Committee on Human Rights where policies for vulnerable groups are discussed, formulated, amended and monitored.
Against the background of the strategic objectives set out by the Government of Lithuania, this chapter analyses the existing governance arrangements to the design and delivery of integrated and personalised services to vulnerable groups (with a specific focus on people with disabilities, ex-prisoners and young people leaving care) and NGO engagement in the process. It analyses and provides policy recommendations on the legal frameworks that define responsibilities and institutional set-ups, the governance arrangements for the design of policies and the delivery of services, the mechanisms for co‑ordinated action across ministries and departments and across different levels of government, the financial and human capacities of stakeholders, and the governance processes for monitoring and evaluation.
The chapter’s assessment builds on the replies of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania to the OECD policy questionnaire on personalised services for vulnerable groups in Lithuania, as well as the replies of Lithuanian municipalities to the OECD’s municipality survey (further details in Chapter 1). The information from questionnaire responses is complemented by insights from fact-finding meetings undertaken as part of this project between September and November 2021. The chapter includes good practices drawn through desk research and complemented by insights gathered from public officials through interviews conducted in July-September 2022 and during an international virtual workshop held on 13 September 2022. The policy recommendations included in this chapter were discussed with relevant stakeholders (including relevant ministries, target groups and selected municipalities) in a virtual workshop on 6 December 2022 and they are informed by OECD legal instruments, notably the OECD Recommendation on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People, the OECD Recommendation on Open Government, the OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement, the OECD Recommendation on Public Policy Evaluation and the OECD Recommendation on Public Service Leadership and Capability OECD (2022[11]; 2017[12]; 2015[13]; 2022[14]; 2019[15]).
2.2. Defining target groups and roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders
Supporting vulnerable groups through the provision of integrated and personalised public services by nature requires action across different policy and service areas, from social to employment, health, education, housing and legal policy and services. Defining target groups as well as assigning clear roles and responsibilities of stakeholders is hence crucial for effective action.
2.2.1. Ensuring a common understanding of the target groups
The promotion of integrated and personalised services for vulnerable groups in Lithuania is not underpinned by a single overarching framework covering all vulnerable groups; attention is rather focused on specific target groups. Co‑ordinated action across government departments, agencies and other relevant stakeholders for the benefit of specific vulnerable groups requires a common understanding of the target group(s). Replies to the OECD Policy Questionnaire show that such common understanding is lacking in some cases in Lithuania, in particular in Ministries that are not considered “in the lead” for providing support to the respective target group.
Persons with disabilities
A common understanding of the target groups is hindered by different definitions in existing laws. For instance, as for a “person with disabilities,” the Law on Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (Republic of Lithuania, 2005[16]) identifies as disabled a person if their level of disability or level of working capacity or level of special needs has been established in accordance with the procedure established under the Law. Instead, under the Law on Social Services (Republic of Lithuania, 2006[17]), an adult with a disability is a person of working age who, due to a disability, has partially or completely lost the ability to take care of his/her personal (family) life independently and to participate in the life of society. This Law also defines children with disability as those under the age of 18 who, due to a disability, have not partially or completely acquired age‑appropriate independence and whose opportunities for education and participation in public life are limited. While the two definitions are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive, differences in identification may hinder common understandings and approaches.
Ex-prisoners
“Ex-prisoners” are defined as those who have been in correctional institutions for at least one year and who (1) have one year left before their conditional release (or until the end of the sentence imposed, if probation is not an option), or (2) have been released for less than a year (Minister of Social Security and Labour and Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[8]). While the ministerial order on the social re‑integration of ex-prisoners has clarified the target group fairly precisely for the purpose of its specific action areas, it does not have the legal weight of a law and hence does not create a general definition of the target group that is “universal” in its application.5 For instance, ex-prisoners are not a specific target group in the Catalogue of Social Services. Furthermore, the existing definition limits the dedicated support provided to ex-prisoners after release to only one year, after which they will access public services as any other person (and, if needed, receive dedicated support as any other person at risk). On the other side, the definition contained in the order entails that the first stage of re‑integration, conducted with social workers in correctional institutions, shall start at least one year before release, while keeping open the possibility of starting re‑integration even earlier (although this appears not to occur due to lack of human and financial capacities).
Young people leaving care
The definition of “young people leaving care” as a target group remains vague. In 2021, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour added in the Catalogue of Social Services an “Accompanying Service for Young People” and young care leavers who benefit from it are defined as people aged 18‑24 who have been provided with social care in a social care institution. Some of their characteristics may also make them potentially eligible to benefit from other social services dedicated to “young people with fewer opportunities” or “adults at risk of social exclusion.” However, young people leaving care are likely to require specific measures and support in other public service areas beyond social services, where no common definition exists yet. These findings are reflected in the replies from line ministries to the OECD Policy Questionnaire, which did not express a precise understanding of this target group. It can also be noted that the age bracket used for the definition of “young people leaving care” is more narrow than the age bracket used for the definition of “young people” in general, which has been previously identified by the MSSL to be 14‑29.6 It also diverges from the age bracket used for social housing policy, which provides targeted support for young people leaving care in the age bracket 16‑36.
2.2.2. Defining clear roles and responsibilities through legal frameworks
Providing access to the various public services and targeted measures needed requires action to avoid policy and service fragmentation as well as potential duplication. For instance, while the Ministry of Social Security and Labour plays a leading role in supporting people with disabilities, ex-prisoners and young people leaving care, other ministries and agencies as well as municipalities have significant responsibilities.
Legal frameworks can be used to identify key stakeholders in delivering for vulnerable groups and assign clear roles and responsibilities. For instance, the Law on the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (Republic of Lithuania, 2005[16]) lays the foundation for the provision of integrated services to people with disabilities, including medical, professional and social rehabilitation services, special assistance, support to employment, social assistance, pensions and benefits, education services, and participation in cultural activities, sports and public life. The Law identifies the main stakeholders and their respective roles and responsibilities in the most detailed way when compared to the group of ex-prisoners and young people leaving care (Table 2.1).
The Ministerial Order on the social re‑integration of ex-prisoners outlines detailed steps of the procedure and assigns responsibilities across stakeholders (notably the MSSL, the Ministry of Justice and its Prison Department, municipalities and non-governmental organisations) with the aim of ensuring that, on the day of release from prison, ex-prisoners will have easy access to public services they may need, hence supporting their re‑integration and reducing the risk of criminal activity. However, as it is only focused on the procedure itself, the Ministerial Order does not assign responsibilities to stakeholders for the benefit of ex-prisoners more broadly. This can create a lack of understanding of various stakeholder’s competences and a lack of political ownership. For instance, while the MSSL identifies the Ministry of Justice as a co-leading government entity in delivering for ex-prisoners, the Ministry of Justice does not seem to identify itself as such and it reports not participating in the implementation of the procedure.
Policies and services for young people leaving care are not supported by any underlying legal framework. The MSSL has competence on the regulation of provision of social services to young people leaving care. However, there is no legal document that identifies the competences of different ministries and stakeholders in areas such as employment, housing, education, health and legal services.
Table 2.1. Responsibilities of key stakeholders in delivering for people with disabilities in Lithuania
Source: (Republic of Lithuania, 2005[16]), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.2319/asr.
2.2.3. Legal system to regulate the access of vulnerable groups to social, housing, employment and other policy and service areas
Legal documents in sectoral public service areas, most notably social services, but also employment, housing, education and legal services, further lay out the support for which the vulnerable groups identified by this project are eligible.
Social policy and services
Social services are central in supporting vulnerable groups. Responsibilities in this area are defined by the Law on Social Services. While the MSSL is the lead government entity and policy maker at the national level, municipalities are responsible for the delivery of social services. The MSSL formulates, organises, co‑ordinates and monitors overall social policy (including the social services system and the process of determining social services needs) and is responsible for its financing. It is also responsible for licensing social care institutions and for supporting the capacities of social workers. In turn, municipalities are responsible for planning, funding, providing and implementing social services at the local level, in particular through annual social services plans. The Law on Social Services also mandates municipalities to create a dedicated unit to monitor the quality of social services provided (see section “Monitoring and evaluating policies and services for vulnerable groups”). The Ministry of Health is responsible for the provision of long-term care.
Housing policy and services
Housing policy and services are also particularly important for vulnerable groups. The Catalogue of Social Services includes “sheltered housing” as well as “houses for independent living” as a social service for adults with disabilities, young people who left institutional care and people at social risk. Housing policy in Lithuania more widely also takes into account considerations for specific vulnerable groups. For instance, the Law on Support for the Purchase or Rental of Housing (Republic of Lithuania, 2014[18]) includes provisions in support of people with disabilities (and their families) and people left without parental care (and their families) for instance in the form of targeted financial support for housing. Notably, the definition for young care leavers adopted in this law adopts a wider age bracket than the definition used in the Catalogue on Social Services: it considers eligible for support persons between the age of 18 and 36 who have been left without parental care, as well as persons without parental care who are not younger than 16. The Law also clarifies roles and responsibilities for the MSSL, which is in charge of policy design, organising, co‑ordinating and monitoring its implementation and co‑ordinating the allocation of funds to municipalities. Municipalities implement housing policy at the local level and run municipal housing facilities.
Employment policy and services
Beyond social and housing policy, the services and support measures available to specific vulnerable groups are less defined. For instance, studies on the de‑institutionalisation of support for people with disabilities in Lithuania find that the process has mainly focused on social services with little impact on other service areas, such as employment (Genienė, 2021[19]). The same may also apply to services for other vulnerable groups. For instance, as further discussed in Chapter 4, the Employment Law (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[20]) outlines a list of vulnerable groups that are entitled to receiving additional employment support services. These groups include, among others, disabled people of working age. It also provides for the possibility of specific programmes to increase employment among ex-prisoners (defined as people who have spent more than 6 months in prison and who reach out to the PES no later than within 6 months from release): however, no dedicated PES programmes for ex-prisoners currently exist. While the Employment Law includes special considerations for unemployed people under 29 years of age, there are no specific measures for young people leaving care. While employment measures and policies do not necessarily need to specify each and every vulnerable group, their design and provision should be sensitive to individual needs and vulnerabilities people may face. The Law also identifies responsibilities for the MSSL and its Public Employment Service (PES). The MSSL is responsible for formulating, co‑ordinating and monitoring the implementation of the overall employment policy as well as for financing employment support measures. The PES is an agency of the MSSL and is mainly responsible for implementation of labour market policies, supporting especially those who are long-term unemployed and those who have particular difficulties in finding work. However, stakeholders highlighted the existence of ambiguities in roles and responsibilities between the PES and the division of the MSSL in charge of the social integration of people with disabilities.
Health and justice policy and services
The specific needs of vulnerable groups in health and justice services are also not clearly defined. The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice do not report undertaking specific efforts for the promotion of personalised and integrated services for vulnerable groups. For instance, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the implementation, organisation and monitoring of the policy for state‑guaranteed legal aid (Republic of Lithuania, 2000[21]): vulnerable groups can apply for legal aid as any other person, without discrimination but also without benefitting from dedicated support measures. Some stakeholders highlighted that vulnerable people may not be aware of their rights in the first place and would hence need special considerations, measures or programmes to ensure their effective access to legal services. Similarly, in the health sector, which is regulated by the Law on the Health System and Law on Public Healthcare, the main provisions in favour of “socially sensitive groups” relate to free access to some healthcare services and coverage by the state of individual compulsory health insurance contributions. The Lithuania Health Programme 2014‑25 also refers to the development of a monitoring system of health inequalities aimed to target at-risk populations and promote an integrated health policy approach involving health, education, and social institutions. Chapter 4 provides further insights on the provision of health services to vulnerable groups, in particular prisoners, as well as on the provision of education services to vulnerable groups such as pupils with special needs.
2.2.4. Legal frameworks for the promotion of NGOs and their involvement in service design and delivery
A key objective of the reform efforts undertaken by the Government of Lithuania to provide more personalised services to vulnerable groups is to strengthen the involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in public policy and service delivery (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[4]), including when it comes to policy and services to deliver for people in vulnerable settings. Achieving such objective relies on a protected civic space (OECD, 2022[22]), a strong NGOs sector and enabling governance structures. This section assesses the legal frameworks that define NGOs in Lithuania, assign responsibilities for the promotion of NGO development and that, at the time of writing, provide the legal basis for the involvement of NGOs in public service delivery.
In Lithuania, NGOs have been defined since 2013 through the Law on Development of Non-Governmental Organisations (Republic of Lithuania, 2013[23]), which states that NGO “shall mean a public legal entity, independent from state and municipal institutions and agencies, which acts on a voluntary basis for the benefit of society or its group, and which does not have the aim to seek political power or purely religious goals” (Article 2). While NGOs are defined by law, different legal forms exist, which, in turn, has an impact on the rules and regulations that apply to it. 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). Some stakeholders pointed out that these differences in legal definition may generate difficulties for the involvement of NGOs in policy design and service delivery. Within the framework of Lithuania’s fifth Action Plan for the Open Government Partnership for 2021‑23, the MSSL committed to develop an NGOs database collecting high-quality data on NGOs, which could be beneficial in identifying and mapping NGOs across the territory (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2021[6]).
In terms of roles and responsibilities for NGOs promotion, the 2013 Law on the Development of Non-Government Organisations (and its 2019 amendments) and the 2010 government Resolution no. 330 on the Areas of Management Delegated to Ministers identify the Ministry of Social Security and Labour as the lead entity for the formulation, implementation and co‑ordination of an NGOs development policy. Municipalities have the responsibility to promote NGOs development at the local level.
The involvement of NGOs in the provision of public services for vulnerable groups is regulated by different frameworks. The Law on the Social Integration of People with Disabilities, the Ministerial Order on the procedures for the re‑integration of ex-prisoners, the Action Plan for the Transition from Institutional Care to Family and Community-Based Services for Persons with Disabilities and Children without Parental Care and the Law on Social Services all include commitments for state authorities and municipalities to privilege NGOs in the provision of services (Republic of Lithuania, 2005[16]; Minister of Social Security and Labour and Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[8]; Minister of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, 2014[10]; Republic of Lithuania, 2006[17]). The Law on Public Procurement also includes clauses on reserved procurement procedures that could be leveraged to privilege NGOs in procurement of public services (Republic of Lithuania, 1996[24]). However, as further discussed in the section on “a co‑ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable groups,” lack of awareness and competences among public officials, lack of capacities in the NGOs sector and other practical difficulties for NGOs to take part in public procurement processes constitute barriers for a stronger involvement of NGOs in public service delivery. In the United Kingdom, the government has adopted a legal framework, elaborated operational documents and conducted capacity-building activities to strengthen NGOs’ involvement in public procurement by promoting the integration of social value considerations in public procurement (Box 2.2). The experience of the United Kingdom demonstrates the importance of cultural and institutional change, implementation support for public officials and capacity-building for NGOs in order for legal frameworks to have an impact.
When it comes to registering an NGO, stakeholders expressed that procedures are fairly easy and requirements feasible to meet, for instance as there are no requirements on starting capital. In order to participate in service delivery, NGOs need to be licensed by the MSSL or accredited by municipalities to provide the service in question: 30% of the municipalities that responded to the OECD municipality survey reported that administrative challenges, including licensing and accreditation rules, pose a significant challenge in involving NGOs in the provision of social services in their municipality.
Box 2.2. United Kingdom: Social Value in Public Procurement
The UK Government has made considerable efforts to promote the integration of social value considerations in public procurement to strengthen the involvement of Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises (VCSEs) in public service delivery. VCSEs hold up to 70% of the market share in service delivery in the United Kingdom in some sectors and they play a significant role in delivering services for vulnerable groups. In 2016‑20, VCSEs won 43% of the value of contracts to deliver services to people with disabilities (GBP 2.4 billion), 20% of the value of contracts on youth services (GBP 0.3 billion) and 6% of the value of contracts on services for the rehabilitation of offenders (GBP 0.3 billion).
Social Value Act
The 2012 Public Services (Social Value) Act sets out a statutory requirement for public officials procuring public services to consider wider social, economic and environmental benefits through the performance of the contract. The Act applies to every public authority contracting services and it encourages commissioners to consider social value, although it does not constitute an obligation for local authorities, many of which however have been adopting this approach on a voluntary basis.
Social Value Model
The implementation of the Social Value Act has been supported through the elaboration of an operational Social Value Model, which applies since 1 January 2021 and serves to streamline and standardise the integration of social value in the procurement process in the central government. The Model provides detailed information on desired policy outcomes and provides evaluation questions, guidance for tenderers, funding award criteria and reporting metrics. Once calculated, the Social Value of a bid should weight for at least 10% in the final awarding decision.
Building capacities of public officials
Officials in charge of public procurement are provided with a procurement lifecycle guide which explains the different steps to follow to ensure social value considerations are included in all steps of the process, from building awareness of the Social Value Model, to drafting contracts, managing deliverables, monitoring and reporting. In addition, they have access to a Social Value Model Quick Reference Table, which outlines evaluation questions, award criteria, illustrative examples of activities that deliver social value by sub-criteria as well as reporting metrics.1 The Government of the United Kingdom has also deployed efforts to support its 4 000 commercial buyers at the central level through online and in-person training programmes. Social Value champions in different government departments regularly come together as a network to exchange best practices, discuss common challenges and learn from case studies.
Building capacities of VCSEs
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the UK Cabinet Office have issued an online guide for VCSEs to provide them with information and guidance on how to bid and win public service contracts with the government, notably through social value considerations. DCMS has also recently run a grant competition for a VCSE Contract Readiness Fund to enable VCSEs engagement with public service procurement in England.2.
Source: (UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, 2022[25]), The role of Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations in public procurement, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the‑role‑of-voluntary-community-and-social-enterprise‑vcse‑organisations-in-public-procurement; (UK Cabinet Office, 2021[26]), Social Value Act: information and resources, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-value‑act-information-and-resources/social-value‑act-information-and-resources; (UK Government Commercial Function, 2020[27]), The Social Value Model, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940826/Social-Value-Model-Edn-1.1-3-Dec-20.pdf; (DCMS UK ; UK Cabinet Office, 2021[28]), VCSEs: A guide to working with government, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vcses-a-guide-to-working-with-government; interviews conducted by the OECD with public officials from the UK DCMS.
2.2.5. Policy recommendations
Defining clear roles and responsibilities through legal frameworks
Supporting vulnerable groups through the provision of integrated and personalised public services requires close co‑operation across different policy and service areas. A co‑ordinated approach to policy design and service delivery relies on a clear definition of target groups and their needs as well as well-defined roles and responsibilities of different ministries and service providers. There is no single overarching framework covering all groups considered “vulnerable” in Lithuania. In terms of policy design and service delivery, the governance arrangements in place are specific to each target group.
The lack of clear and common definitions of target groups across policy and service areas risks impeding co‑ordinated action. The report finds that definitions of “people with disabilities” differ between the Law on Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities and the Law on Social Services; “ex-prisoners” are defined for the purpose of the social re‑integration procedures but not through a legal instrument providing a common definition; and the definition of “young people leaving care” as a target group of public services remains vague and diverges across policy and service areas.
There is also a lack of clearly assigned roles and responsibilities in some areas: 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 support to ex-prisoners and young people leaving care, both in terms of policy design and service delivery, notably for social, housing, employment, health, justice and education policies and services.
To support the definition of roles and responsibilities and target groups, the Government of Lithuania could consider:
Conducting consultations with national and sub-national government, civil society organisations, service providers and target groups to understand service needs, expectations, capacities and map current contributions of stakeholders across policy and service areas.
Building on the consultations, working with key stakeholders in the formulation/revision of legal frameworks to define target groups and assign clear roles and responsibilities to stakeholders across policy and service areas (notably social, employment, housing, health, justice and education), in particular for ex-prisoners and young people leaving care.
Legal frameworks for the promotion of NGOs and their involvement in service design and delivery
The Government of Lithuania aims to increase the involvement of NGOs in the design and delivery of policies and services for people in vulnerable circumstances, as highlighted in the Programme of the 18th Government of the Republic of Lithuania and in Lithuania’s Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030.” The protection and promotion of civic space and of the NGOs sector and governance structures to ensure its impactful involvement are crucial for the achievement of this objective. The definition of NGOs and the assignment of roles and responsibilities for the development of the NGOs sector are generally well-established. At the same time, there is a lack of information around existing NGOs and their different types (e.g. total number of NGOs, number of NGOs involved in delivery of different public services, capacities of NGOs, type of NGO by legal definition, etc.). Several sectoral laws include commitments for state authorities and municipalities to prioritise NGOs in the provision of services for vulnerable groups (e.g. for people with disabilities, for ex-prisoners and for children without parental care, as well as more broadly for social services) and the Law on Public Procurement provides the possibility for reserved procurement for social enterprises which could be leveraged to privilege NGOs in procurement of public services for vulnerable groups. However, there are no legal requirements for public officials procuring public services to consider wider social value and benefits in the procurement process.
To strengthen evidence on the current and potential role of NGOs in providing services to vulnerable groups and facilitate their access to procurement opportunities, the Government of Lithuania could consider:
Taking measures to protect and promote the civic space in which NGOs operate, defined as the set of legal, policy, institutional, and practical conditions necessary for non-governmental actors to access information, express themselves, associate, organise, and participate in public life.
Developing 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.
Evaluating the possibility of taking measures to facilitate NGOs’ access to public procurement opportunities on service provision for vulnerable groups, for instance by extending reserved procurement provisions, by integrating social value considerations in procurement (e.g. through legal requirements, operational documents, guidance material, tools and regular trainings and capacity-building activities) or by buying public services through performance‑based pricing.
2.3. Strategic planning of policies and services for vulnerable groups
A strategic approach is critical to the planning of policies and services for vulnerable groups. Evidence‑based and participatory strategies and action plans can set common objectives, define measurable targets and outline specific measures and programmes to ensure coherent and co‑ordinated action across stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
2.3.1. Strategic and participatory planning for vulnerable groups
Commitments targeting vulnerable groups in the MSSL’s Strategic Action Plans and other government programmes
The action of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour is guided by Strategic Action Plans (SAP), which are approved by the ministry each year and which set out its strategic priorities for a two‑year period. The SAP for 2022‑24 (2022[29]) includes objectives, measures and targets for vulnerable groups, in particular for people with disabilities and young people with fewer opportunities. For instance, the second priority of the SAP for 2022‑24 is the protection of the rights of the people with disabilities and the development of dedicated services, including through the development of one‑stop shops for assistance to children with disabilities and their families as well as through the development of a new model for social rehabilitation services. The SAP also includes considerations for people with disabilities and young people with fewer opportunities in the tasks related to improving the well-being of vulnerable groups and in the priorities and tasks related to increasing employment opportunities. Young people leaving care and ex-prisoners do not seem to be specifically targeted in the SAP for 2022‑24. The SAP also includes a list of key performance indicators to monitor progress on outcomes. For instance, the SAP aims to increase the proportion of people with disabilities in housing (as a percentage of all those who applied for housing support) from 60% in 2022 to 65% in 2024.
The Strategic Action Plans are formulated by the MSSL on the basis of the government Programme Action Plan (GPAP), which sets out objectives and targets across government. According to the MSSL, NGOs are involved in the formulation of the GPAP during discussions on issues to tackle, such as through public consultations, virtual meetings and correspondence, but they are not consulted on the specific objectives, targets or measures. It remains unclear to what extent NGOs are involved in the design of the Strategic Action Plans of the MSSL.
The implementation of the strategic objective on well-being and inclusion, included in the Strategic Action Plan 2022‑24, is also supported by five development programmes prepared by the MSSL.7 In particular, the Social Inclusion Development Programme (2021[30]) includes a number of high-level response measures to strengthen the inclusion of vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, ex-prisoners and young people with fewer opportunities. These documents do not include for the time being specific measures or detailed information on financial resources. The MSSL involved a variety of stakeholders on the draft programmes through a public consultation (carried out between 30 March and 16 April 2021): it included a number of ministries (such as the Ministries of Finance, Justice, and Economy and Innovation), government agencies (such as the State Labour Inspectorate), social partners (such as trade unions and business confederations), NGOs (such as the National Network of Poverty Reduction Organisations) and experts.8 The MSSL made a significant effort for “closing the feedback loop” by making publicly available online all the comments received by stakeholders and the respective explanations on whether and how each comment was integrated in the successive draft.
Strategic approaches to deliver for people with disabilities
In addition to overall strategic planning, the MSSL has adopted strategic approaches to the planning of policies and measures in support of people with disabilities. Since 2013, the MSSL has formulated and implemented four action plans (2013‑15, 2016‑18, 2019 and 2020) to support the implementation of the National Programme for the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (2013‑20), covering a variety of policy and service areas including social protection, healthcare, education, culture, sports, and environmental adaptation. According to the responses to the OECD questionnaire, other relevant ministries and institutions beyond the MSSL were involved in the formulation and implementation of the Action Plans: such inter-institutional approach has been considered beneficial by the MSSL to plan tailored interventions in areas where the social integration of people with disabilities was slower. The extent to which other ministries, notably Ministries of Justice and Health, were involved in the formulation and implementation of the National Programme and action plans remains unclear.
Strategic approaches to de‑institutionalise services
The process of de‑institutionalisation of support to vulnerable groups was guided by the Action Plan for the Transition from Institutional Care to Family and Community-Based Services for Persons with Disabilities and Children without Parental Care (2014‑20; extended to 2023). The extent to which other ministries, notably Ministries of Justice and Health, have been involved in the Action Plan remains unclear. The MSSL is currently preparing for a new phase of the de‑institutionalisation process and a new action plan, which shall be informed by evidence from municipalities on needs and available resources for the intended reform. While the MSSL has encouraged municipalities to involve local NGOs in their mapping process, it is unclear to what extent this will take place.
2.3.2. Strategic and participatory planning in selected policy and service areas
Social policy and services
The Social Services Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour and the Primary Healthcare and Nursing Department of the Ministry of Health (MoH) are responsible for the design of national policies and programmes in the respective social service areas. Stakeholders noted how NGOs are often the initiating force behind policy changes and proposal of new services at the national level. For instance, NGOs reportedly had an important role in bringing into the policy debate the need to regulate personal assistance, the need for temporary respite services for care‑givers, the need for foster care for young people leaving care and the need for assistance for people leaving prisons. More insights on the involvement of NGOs in policy making more widely are included in the section on “a co‑ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable groups.”
Municipalities are responsible for designing and approving social services plans. Chapter 4 highlights how the planning of social services by municipalities heavily relies on the Catalogue of social services, which could in turn generate service gaps as the Catalogue is seen as a rather static tool. It also finds that the planning activity is largely based on information gathered retrospectively from service usage rather than forward-looking on service needs.
The national methodology for the development of municipalities’ social services plans recognises the role of NGOs in contributing to their preparation. According to the methodology, municipalities should include all stakeholders and budget institutions in the formulation of the plan and discuss it publicly, including with NGOs. The OECD municipality survey finds that 89% of the responding municipalities consulted service providers (such as NGOs) to collect their views on the needs for additional services. For instance, Jurbarkas municipality reported sending questionnaires to service providers to gather their vision and goals in their service area before preparing the Social Services Plan. However, while NGOs are commonly consulted on the needs and priorities of the target groups they represent (in 74% of responding municipalities) and they are often invited to provide comments on the draft Social Services Plan (61%), their engagement in defining strategic objectives and the promotion of their co‑ownership, for instance at the presentation of these plans, remain limited (Figure 2.1). For example, in Švenčionys district municipality and Marijampolė city, stakeholders highlighted the municipalities’ efforts to engage NGOs early in the process, for instance by pro‑actively informing them that a plan will be drawn up, drawing data, analysis and statistics from them, and gathering information on what measures they are implementing and planning.
Figure 2.1. Participation of NGOs in planning social services at the municipality level
Note: The figure shows the percentage of municipalities reporting relying on a given approach in involving NGOs in answering the question “How does municipality involve Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the design of the annual Social Service plan?” The figure is based on responses received to this question from 57 municipalities.
Source: OECD municipality survey.
Municipalities mainly rely on written exchanges and public meetings organised by the municipality to involve NGOs in the preparation of their social services plans (65% of municipalities report each of these methods). However, only 37% of municipalities reported involving NGOs via their municipal council of NGOs and 25% of municipalities reported not having such council in place, which could instead represent a more established and structured forum for discussion (see section on “a co‑ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable groups” for further information). In some cases, an NGO delegate is part of the group that prepares the social services plan (as reported by Prienai and Joniskis municipalities). In some cases, for instance as reported by Visaginas, the municipality does not make specific efforts to involve NGOs in the preparation of the social services plan, but an NGO participates in a working group that annually evaluates the results of the implementation of the social services plan, identifies problems, and makes proposals for improving the quality of social services: it remains unclear to what extent such evaluations feed into the preparation of the following social services plan.
Employment policy and services
The Employment Division of the MSSL is responsible for designing employment policies. The Tripartite Council of the Republic of Lithuania9 brings together public authorities (notably the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Ministry of Economy and the Office of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania), trade unions and employers’ organisations to issue recommendations, prepare studies and reports and draw up collaboration programmes in the areas of labour relations, employment policy and social security, among others. The Council, meeting at least once a month, includes 7 representatives for each of the three entities gathering a total of 21 members. The MSSL assures the functions of the Secretariat of the Council, including formulating proposals, implementing decisions and preparing meetings. Representatives of NGOs and local communities may be invited to take part to meetings of the Tripartite Council with the right of a consultative vote.
Employment policy is implemented by the Lithuanian Public Employment Service. The central PES office plans its work and efforts through an annual strategic document that includes objectives, measurable targets and key performance indicators. Social partners are involved in the preparation of the PES strategy via the Tripartite Council (Lauringson and Lüske, 2021[31]), but it remains unclear to what extent NGOs are engaged, especially those working with and for specific vulnerable groups. Based on the annual strategic document, the heads of the local PES offices are responsible for contextualising the national objectives and targets to their local circumstances, providing detailed objectives, targets and tasks to the units of the local office. The assignment of tasks in the local PES offices is reportedly carried out on a monthly basis.
Health policy and services
The Primary Healthcare and Nursing Department, the Specialised Healthcare Department and the Mental Health Division in the Ministry of Health are responsible for the design of health policy and services at the national level. Health policy and services are structured through bi‑annual Strategic Action Plans10 that include strategic objectives, outline programmes and define planned appropriations, taking into account long- and medium-term planning documents and further analysis. At the same time, the current Strategic Action Plan of the Ministry of Health does not include specific goals, targets or programmes in support of specific vulnerable groups. Furthermore, it seems such strategic planning is not based on an ex-ante assessment of needs for healthcare services nor it is informed by consultations of stakeholders such as NGOs.
Legal services
The Legal Services Group is in charge of policy making within the Ministry of Justice, while implementation of legal services is assured by the State‑guaranteed Legal Aid Service. The Ministry of Justice did not report assessing the needs for legal services to feed into policy setting and service design. It also did not indicate whether its action is supported by an operational strategy or action plan; state‑guaranteed legal aid services also do not seem to include specific programmes or measures for vulnerable groups.
2.3.3. Policy recommendations
Strategic planning of policies and services for vulnerable groups
Strategic, evidence‑based and participatory approaches are critical to the planning of policies and services for vulnerable groups. General government action in the areas of employment and social policies and services is guided by the Strategic Action Plans (SAPs) of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour (MSSL) and the strategy of the Public Employment Service (PES). The current SAP includes objectives, measures and targets for vulnerable groups, in particular for people with disabilities and young people with fewer opportunities. At the same time, the use of strategy documents to plan and co‑ordinate action for vulnerable groups across the whole‑of-government remains limited mainly to efforts in support of people with disabilities.
To strengthen strategic planning of policies and services for a wider spectrum of groups in vulnerable circumstances, including young people leaving care and ex-prisoners, the Government of Lithuania could consider:
Broadening the focus of government action for people in vulnerable situations beyond social and employment policies and services and ensuring 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.
Investing in the formulation and implementation of evidence‑based, transparent, participatory, inclusive and cross-sectoral policy framework and strategies to promote whole-of-government action across government departments and service providers in support of vulnerable groups, in particular young people leaving care and ex-prisoners, setting out common objectives, clarifying mandates and setting inter-institutional procedures covering all relevant policy and service areas.
Participatory planning of policies and services for vulnerable groups
The participation of NGOs, especially those working with and for specific vulnerable groups, to the formulation of the strategic documents of the MSSL, the PES and other Ministries in key areas of public service delivery remains limited. At the municipal level, while NGOs are commonly consulted on the Social Services Plan and the needs and priorities of the target groups they represent, their engagement in defining strategic objectives of the Social Services Plan remains limited. Furthermore, the municipal councils of NGOs appear to remain under-used as a forum of consultation in this area.
To promote participatory planning of policies and services for vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Conducting consultations with NGOs, organising deliberations in the Council of NGOs and including NGOs in the policy groups in charge of government strategic planning on key public policies and services for vulnerable groups, including within the new phase of the de‑institutionalisation process, with specific efforts to reach out to NGOs advocating for or serving vulnerable groups.
Strengthening the participation of NGOs in all phases of the preparation of municipalities’ Social Services Plans, including in providing the evidence‑base on the evolving needs and expectations of vulnerable groups, in innovating the services provided and in setting overall objectives of the plans, with specific efforts to reach out to NGOs advocating for or serving vulnerable groups.
Using in-person as well as digital means, consultations with local NGOs, deliberations in the municipal council of NGOs and considering including NGOs in the groups in charge of the preparation of Social Services Plans to strengthen their participation.
2.4. A co‑ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable groups
The Ministry of Social Security and Labour plays a leading role in the design and delivery of policies and services for vulnerable groups in Lithuania, in particular people with disabilities, ex-prisoners and young people leaving care. At the same time, the various legal frameworks, strategies and policies, discussed in the previous sections, that cover relevant support measures for specific groups underline the importance of a coherent and co‑ordinated approach. The section below therefore assesses existing mechanisms and challenges for co‑ordination across stakeholders, including with non-governmental organisations. The assessment presented below is complemented by Chapter 3, which provides a more detailed review of co‑ordination measures in case management among professionals involved in supporting clients of employment and social services.
2.4.1. Co‑ordination across state institutions at the national level
Exchange of information and inter-ministerial action plans and orders
The Government of Lithuania has put in place different mechanisms to promote policy co‑ordination and coherence in its support to vulnerable groups. In terms of information exchange, the Department of Disability Affairs of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour has created a specific section on its website to publish information received from other ministries that is relevant to people with disabilities; it has also designated a specific staff member responsible for taking care of this task. Similarly, when planning measures for people with disabilities, other ministries shall inform the Department of Disability Affairs accordingly and provide relevant information, including regarding the public consultation they are planning for the specific item.
Guidance on co‑ordination is also provided through relevant Action Plans and ministerial orders. For instance, the Action Plan for the Transition from Institutional Care to Family and Community-Based Services for Persons with Disabilities and Children without Parental Care (2014‑20; extended to 2023) and the ministerial order on the procedures for the social re‑integration of ex-prisoners have been highlighted by stakeholders as useful documents for co‑ordinating interventions and support measures across ministries and agencies. More generally, Lithuanian ministries can make use of inter-ministerial action plans: directly attached to the budget, they are planning documents covering horizontal goals and objectives that can promote inter-ministerial action (OECD, 2015[1]).
Inter-ministerial working groups on vulnerable groups
Inter-ministerial working groups are oftentimes established to develop, implement and monitor such inter-ministerial action plans. For instance, an inter-institutional working group has been established to monitor the implementation of the procedures for ex-prisoners. It is composed of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and its Prison Department, the MSSL, the Probation Service as well as representatives of municipalities and NGOs. This is highlighted as the only mechanism for the MoJ to co‑ordinate with the MSSL and municipalities on vulnerable groups. Despite the inclusive composition, the working group’s activities seem to remain limited (more information in section on “Monitoring and evaluating policies and services for vulnerable groups”). While it creates a forum for monitoring the procedures for ex-prisoners, the working group has been established on an ad hoc basis and it is not tasked with wider policy co‑ordination on developing and strengthening policies and services for this target group.
To co‑ordinate policies and services for people with disabilities, the Law on the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities established the Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities, an important forum for policy co‑ordination (Box 2.3).
While the Department of Youth Affairs under the MSSL is charged with co‑ordination policy and services targeting young people, including young people leaving care, no institutional mechanism appears to be in place. According to survey replies, the lack of institutional mechanisms remains a major challenge for the MSSL when co‑ordinating with other ministries and national-level agencies on the design and delivery of public services for vulnerable groups.
Box 2.3. Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities
The Council consists of 20 members: nine representatives of state institutions (for 2022‑24 it includes the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Office of the President of the Republic, the Office of the government, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of Culture, and the Ministry of Health), one representative of municipalities, nine representatives of associations of people with disabilities and one representative of the academic community. The Minister of Social Security and Labour presides the Council. The composition of the Council is renewed every two years.
The Council meets regularly (normally once per quarter) to examine the issues of social integration of people with disabilities and submit proposals on policy and draft legal acts to the MSSL, as well as to the government, specific ministries, and other state and municipal institutions and bodies. It can also provide recommendations to planned actions presented by the MSSL, in particular discussing and reviewing action plans of relevant ministries. The Council also aims to involve non-governmental organisations representing people with disabilities in policy making.
The Department of Disability Affairs of the MSSL assures the functions of the secretariat of the Council, in particular in terms of human and financial resources for its activity. It is also responsible for implementing the decisions and recommendations of the Council. Every year, the Council submits a report of its activities to the Minister of Social Security and Labour, which is then presented and discussed at a Council meeting.
Source: https://www.ndt.lt/neigaliuju-reikalu-taryba-2/; OECD Policy Questionnaire on Personalised Services for Vulnerable Groups.
Challenges to co‑ordination across state institutions at national level
The Ministries of Health and the MSSL also reported using cabinet meetings, standing committees and ad hoc meetings for general policy co‑ordination. Overall the Centre of Government (CoG), which includes the Office of the government and the Ministry of Finance in Lithuania, does not appear to play a prominent role in co‑ordinating ministries’ efforts in support of integrated policies and services to vulnerable groups.
Inter-institutional action plans, dedicated co‑ordination bodies and CoG involvement can facilitate cross-sector and cross-stakeholder co‑ordination by clarifying roles and responsibilities and creating incentives for officials in public institutions. The lack of clarity and incentives, however, are considered major challenges to inter-institutional co‑ordination by the MSSL, according to survey replies. Another important barrier for inter-institutional co‑ordination identified by the MSSL and MoH is the lack of human and financial resources in the lead ministry and in other ministries and agencies, according to survey replies.
At the legislative level, representatives of the national government and municipalities, as well as representatives of NGOs and service providers may be invited to take part in hearings organised by the Seimas Committee on Social Affairs and Labour and the Committee on Human Rights. No significant challenges were reported by ministries in terms of their co‑ordination with the Seimas.
Co‑ordination of measures and initiatives
Beyond policy co‑ordination, ministries and agencies at the national level may also co‑ordinate for specific programmes, measures and initiatives. For instance, the Ministry of Education (MoE) delivers professional education services to prisoners through vocational education providers in direct collaboration with the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice. The MoE is also launching the project “Career Guidance Equal Opportunities for Everyone” which aims at ensuring that every student from first grade and through lifetime will be able to receive career guidance consultation. The project will include the recruitment of 475 career specialists (one in each school, including vocational education schools) providing career information, guidance and counselling and guide to internship opportunities, including for people with disabilities and young people out of the education system. The MoE also discussed the project with the Prison Department to ensure that prisoners will be able to access the services as well, which could be helpful for preparing their social reintegration once they will be released. The MoE is also collaborating with the MSSL on the establishment of 11 regional career centres, which will bring together a variety of professional profiles providing career services, including psychological services, career orientation, and opportunities for internships. The initiative will also be supported by staff from the Youth Affairs Department of the MSSL working with young people with fewer opportunities. While ministries seem to co‑ordinate and collaborate on specific measures and programmes, there is a risk of such co‑ordination taking place on an ad hoc rather than more systematic basis.
2.4.2. Co‑ordination at the local level and across levels of government
Driving impactful change for vulnerable groups requires co‑ordinated action in the implementation of policies, programmes and measures at the local level. Such co‑ordination however can prove difficult. For instance, Chapter 3 highlights that co‑operation across service providers is not systematic nor sufficient and that effective co‑operation practices are missing between the local offices of the Public Employment Service and the Social Services Divisions in municipalities. Similarly, stakeholders reported co‑ordination challenges between municipalities and the Probation Service in the implementation of services for the second stage of social reintegration of people on parole and ex-prisoners (i.e. the 12 months after release). Indeed, the Probation Service was already providing services for prisoners released on parole before the introduction of the new procedures, which instead assigned significant responsibilities in this area to municipalities. As highlighted by this example, the lack of clear responsibilities and of institutional co‑ordination mechanisms at the local level can give rise to duplication and fragmentation of services for vulnerable groups.
Inter-institutional co‑ordinators as a model for local co‑ordination for vulnerable groups
Some municipalities aim to promote integrated approaches to the delivery of services for children and young people at risk through inter-institutional co‑ordinators. The role and responsibilities of the co‑ordinators are defined in the Description of the Procedure for Co‑ordinated Provision of Educational Assistance, Social and Healthcare Services (2017[32]), adopted jointly by the Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Social Security and Labour and Ministry of Health. These municipality officials are tasked with co‑ordinating the provision of services for people aged 0‑18 (the range is extended to 0‑21 for people with high and very high special needs). They co‑ordinate the provision of educational assistance, social and health services, collecting and analysing the application information, processing requests, co‑ordinating across institutions and divisions, handling complaints, co‑operating with service provides, and chairing meetings of the commission deciding on the applications for co‑ordinated services, among others. While divergent interpretations of the responsibilities of these co‑ordinators and questions of financial and human capacities impact their effectiveness, stakeholders overall agreed with the high value added provided by these functions. During the interviews conducted by OECD, respondents agreed that it could serve as a possible model to ensure a co‑ordinated delivery of services at the local level for vulnerable groups. For example, Kaunas district municipality is reportedly considering the establishment of an inter-institutional co‑ordinator for people with disabilities. At the same time, respondents discussed the possibility of establishing inter-institutional co‑ordinators targeting people in vulnerable situations more broadly, to ensure effective use of resources and avoid duplication of efforts.
Co‑ordination across levels of government
Effective co‑ordination across levels of government is indispensable to translate national policies and frameworks into programmes and tailored services at the local level, as well as to inform national policy making with the perspectives gathered and needs identified in different local contexts. The Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania (ALAL) represents the interests of Lithuania’s 60 municipalities vis-à-vis the national government and international organisations and it promotes collaboration across municipalities. It is recognised as an important stakeholder in informing national policy making: representatives of the ALAL are often part of national-level co‑ordination bodies, including the Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities and the Working Group monitoring the implementation of the procedures for the social reintegration of ex-prisoners. The ALAL also co‑ordinates consultations with municipalities on draft laws and other legal acts in the field of social security. The Ministry of Health similarly reported conducting consultations with the ALAL on health policies and services for vulnerable groups. Within the ALAL, the Social Affairs Committee is particularly relevant for vulnerable groups as it is responsible for making proposals to the ALAL Board in the field of social security. In this field, ALAL also organises trainings and events targeting municipal staff in charge of social security issues and it publishes thematic publications and training material.
However, besides ad hoc meetings, no formal mechanisms exist to ensure co‑ordination between the MSSL and municipalities on policies and services for vulnerable groups. Surveys results from municipalities and the MSSL indicate that significant barriers persist to vertical co‑ordination, due to, among others, the lack of political will and leadership in ministries and municipalities, insufficient interest and incentives for staff, as well as the lack of institutional capacities and mechanisms (Figure 2.2). The MoJ does not report any challenge; the MoH reports lack of financial and/or human capacities in the ministry as the only (moderate) challenge.
Figure 2.2. Reported challenges in co‑ordinating the provision of public services across levels of government
Note: The figure shows the replies of the Ministries of Social Security and Labour (MSSL), Justice (MoJ) and Health (MoH) and the average score across the replies of 57 municipalities to the question “In your municipality/ministry’s opinion, from a scale from 1 to 5, to what extent do the following elements represent a challenge when co‑ordinating the design and provision of public services with national-level institutions (notably Ministries)/municipalities? [1: it is not at all a challenge; 5: it is a major challenge].”
Source: OECD municipality survey and OECD Policy Questionnaire on Personalised Services for Vulnerable Groups.
2.4.3. Co‑ordination with non-governmental organisations
NGOs’ involvement in identifying service needs and policy making
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[12]) recognises that stakeholder participation in the policy cycle increases government accountability and improves the evidence base for policy making, among others. While this chapter focuses on the involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in policy making and service delivery for vulnerable groups, it is important to recognise that, for NGOs to fulfil this role, they rely on protected and promoted civic space and targeted support.
The Law on the Development of NGOs (2013[23]) established the Council of NGOs, consisting of 20 members and meeting approximately once a month. The Council has advising functions on policies for the development of NGOs and other policies that are relevant for the NGO sector (Box 2.4).
Box 2.4. Lithuania’s Council of NGOs
The Council includes nine representatives of state institutions (Office of the President of the Republic, Office of the government and Ministries of National Defence, Culture, Social Security and Labour, Justice, Interior, Agriculture and Education, Science and Sports), one representative of the Association of Lithuanian Municipalities and ten representatives of NGOs identified by umbrella NGOs among their member organisations. For instance, the Council includes representatives of the Lithuanian Disability Organisations Forum (which unites 15 organisations collectively representing the interests of around 300 000 people with disabilities),1 of the Lithuanian Youth Council (the biggest umbrella structure for Lithuanian national youth organisations, uniting 67 member organisations collectively representing more than 200 000 young people)2 and of the Coalition of Human Rights Organisations.3 The Council is responsible for evaluating legal acts regulating NGOs, submitting proposals on the development of NGOs to state and municipal authorities, submitting proposals in regards to projects in support of NGOs, and advising authorities on drafting laws on NGOs.
Source: (Minister of Social Security and Labour, 2021[33]), Order on Approval of the Staff of the Council of Non-Governmental Organisations; (Republic of Lithuania, 2013[23]), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Development of Non-Governmental Organisations.
While the Council of NGOs is an advisory body to the whole government, its work is supported by the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, which provides Secretariat functions by appointing one secretary who co‑ordinates and organises meetings and prepares the agenda and relevant documentation. The Council does not have its own budget to organise its meetings and conduct activities: instead, the MSSL provides funding for the organisation of an annual forum event with local councils of NGOs and covers some expenses for conducting surveys. According to the interviews conducted by OECD, the Council has been significantly strengthened and has gained relevance in the policy debate over recent years. For instance, through the creation of a dedicated working group, the Council participated in the revision of the volunteering law of Lithuania and contributed with proposals. However, it remains unclear to what extent the Council is leveraged as a forum to gather information, evidence and advice from NGOs on policy areas beyond the development of the NGO sector: for instance, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice did not report any engagement with the Council of NGOs. In Finland, the government established the Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy (KANE) in 2007, with the purpose of fostering interaction, co‑operation and collaboration between civil society and the government. Finland’s experience points to approaches to enable the impact of such councils in policy making processes (Box 2.5).
Box 2.5. Finland: Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy (KANE)
In January 2022, the government appointed the fourth Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy for the period 2022‑26. The Board is currently chaired by the Secretary General of the Finnish Red Cross and works under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice. KANE is responsible for overseeing the general conditions in which civil society is engaged with the government.
Composition
KANE consists of a Chairman, a Vice‑Chairman and a maximum of 19 other members, including representatives from civil society, research, the business sector, ministries and other public agencies. The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities is also a member of KANE. When evaluating applications of civil society organisations (CSOs) to become a member, attention is paid to the scope and versatility of the applicant’s networks and its possibilities to participate in the activities. KANE also aims to provide a platform for smaller CSOs and organisations representing vulnerable groups.
Operations and activities
KANE is involved in the preparation of government policies and programmes, holds public debates with decision-makers and CSOs and takes part in government negotiations and parliamentary committees. It also prepares or participates in studies, reports and guidebooks. For instance, in 2018, KANE issued a guide for public officials working at a municipal level on building partnerships with civil society. The guide highlights good practices, maps existing partnership models in municipalities and provides a practical checklist to support public officials to prepare their engagement with CSOs.
KANE is consulted on legislation that impacts the operation of civil society as well as the overall government’s programme. KANE also seeks to appoint delegates to and is invited to participate in law-drafting inter-ministerial working groups and working groups formed to deliberate on policy and regulatory changes and service provision set up by other organisations and Ministries. This practice helps KANE shape strategic objectives and overall structure of new proposed legislation and policy.
Two civil servants in the Ministry of Justice provide Secretariat functions to KANE. KANE’s operations are also supported by a specific budget line in the State budget, although it remains reportedly limited.
Co‑operation with ministries and with the local level
To tackle potentially low interest of members, the agenda of KANE is designed by the members to ensure that the issues discussed are of interest to them. Integrating regional and local voices remains one of the priorities for KANE to strengthen its work and impact. While a few small NGOs based outside the capital are directly involved in KANE, others are involved through surveys, meetings and seminars.
Planning and evaluating activities and informing the next cycle
At the beginning of its mandate, KANE must adopt a strategy lasting for the duration of its term. Priorities and strategic vision for the term are set through member statements, meetings and workshops. The current board also aims to complement its multi-year strategy with annual work plans. KANE monitors, reports and evaluates its activities. It delivers mid-term and final reports, evaluating the results of its work, tracking successes and providing recommendations for the next board. In some cases, evaluations are outsourced to external evaluators.
Sources: (Ministry of Justice of Finland, 2022[29]), Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy (KANE); (Association of Finnish Regional Authorities, 2018[34]), Organisations as a partner of the province; (Ministry of Justice of Finland, 2021[35]), Final report of the Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy 2017‑2021; interviews conducted by the OECD with public officials from Finland’s Ministry of Justice.
The Law on the Development of NGOs also mandates for similar Councils of NGOs at the municipality level, with responsibilities on providing advice and proposals to municipalities on the development of NGOs, participating in the preparation of legal acts in this field, but also participating in monitoring public services and participating in the development of policies in other relevant fields. Yet, 25% of municipalities responding to the OECD municipality survey reported that a Council of NGOs does not exist in their municipality, a significant share of respondents that may also depend on lack of awareness among public officials about these Councils even when they exist. Furthermore, among municipalities where such Council exists, 26% of them indicate that the Council does not meet regularly. Almost all the local Councils of NGOs (95%) are supported by an official of the municipality for administrative purposes (i.e. secretariat functions), but very few (9%) have their own budget. Equipping the Councils with an official of the municipality has been highlighted as useful in co‑ordinating the work of different divisions of the municipality with NGOs. The extent to which these Councils play a significant role in local decision-making also varies across municipalities. Indeed, 88% of the municipalities that have a Council of NGOs involve it to discuss policies and programmes to support the development of NGOs and 77% to discuss the design and delivery of public services. However, the share decreases to 63% when it comes to involving the Council of NGOs in monitoring public services in the municipality. Some stakeholders suggested that the role of local Councils of NGOs might be undermined in cases in which the municipality major chairs the Council: this appears to be the case in 7% of the local Councils of NGOs, according to survey replies. The impact of these local Councils may also vary depending on the existence and capacities of local NGOs to participate in decision-making. Advocacy and participatory activities indeed require time, resources and capacities that smaller, local NGOs may not have. Furthermore, stakeholders highlighted that in some municipalities there may also be an outright lack of NGOs, while in other municipalities the number of NGOs and their engagement in policy making is reported to rise.
Involving NGOs that advocate for and work with vulnerable groups can support evidence‑based policy making that is informed by a variety of perspectives. Article 7 of the Law on Legislative Framework provides the basis for public consultations. It recognises that the purpose of public consultation shall be to ensure openness and transparency in legislation, to get feedback from the public on the issues of legal regulation and their solutions, to allow the public to influence the content of a draft legal act and to submit proposals relating to the legislative initiatives and draft legal act, among others (Republic of Lithuania, 2012[36]). All draft laws have been systematically published on the website of the Seimas for public comments since 2009 through the legislative information system, giving citizens the possibility to comment on draft laws (OECD, 2015[1]). Institutions also have to present arguments in case they are not taking into account citizens’ comments. When it comes to policy making for vulnerable groups, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education reported conducting public consultations with the wide public as well as targeted consultations with NGOs. Yet, every institution seems to apply its own methods and practices for public consultations, using their own means to announce them and their own tools and methodologies to conduct them and report about them, if at all (OECD, 2015[1]).
Ministries can also involve NGOs via dedicated mechanisms and channels, beyond general public consultations. For instance, stakeholders highlighted that large umbrella NGOs have good opportunities to interact with ministries on policy issues at the national level and pointed to the example of NGOs advocating for people with disabilities and their engagement in the Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities (Box 2.3). In particular, among others, the Council works to ensure that NGOs for people with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in relevant policy making and have access to governmental support (e.g. funding), together with other NGOs. While the MSSL and the Council encourage other ministries to involve NGOs when dealing with issues relevant to vulnerable groups, the awareness on the importance of consulting NGOs may vary across ministries, with some more sensitive than others. For instance, the Ministry of Justice did not report any engagement with the Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities and did not report any specific co‑ordination mechanism to co‑operate with NGOs more generally. On the other hand, the Ministry of Health reported undertaking consultations with the Council for the Affairs of People with Disabilities in relation to healthcare policy making and indicated, more widely, involving NGOs through targeted public consultations. The Ministry of Education (MoE) also reported efforts to consult NGOs and students’ associations in its policy making, although they largely collaborate with large umbrella organisations. For instance, consultations often place at national and regional level with the Adult-Learning Association. On vocational education, the MoE reported co‑ordinating with service providers, while also holding monthly meetings with employers’ associations and confederations at leadership level. Challenges in co‑ordinating with NGOs on the design and delivery of public services for vulnerable groups are explored below.
NGOs’ involvement in service delivery
The Programme of the 18th Government of the Republic of Lithuania encourages the transfer of part of the provision of public services to NGOs (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[4]). Involving NGOs in the delivery of public services for vulnerable groups can help inform their design as they may be more aware of the issues faced by the groups they work with; they can also help reach out to target groups, increase their awareness and promote their access to the services. For instance, according to survey replies, 89% of responding municipalities co‑operate with NGOs to get in contact with target groups. NGOs may also provide services for vulnerable groups themselves and clients may prefer receiving services from NGOs in some cases: however, questions of financial and human capacities as well as accountability and service continuity arise in this area as further explored below.
According to survey replies, NGOs are currently involved in the provision of social services in 96% of responding municipalities. Furthermore, stakeholders reported that NGOs play a prominent role in running day care centres and in providing leisure activities and other “soft services” to people with disabilities. For instance, Kaunas district municipality reported that 16 NGOs provide social care services and that, in addition, nine childcare day centres and one elderly care centre in the municipality are operated by NGOs. Similarly, Marijampolė city municipality highlighted the involvement of NGOs in running childcare centres and community homes. However, as highlighted in Chapter 4, state and municipal institutions have traditionally been the predominant provider of social services. This is confirmed by survey replies from municipalities: while 62% of municipalities buy some social services from NGOs, only 56% of them involve them directly in the provision of existing or new social services.
Beyond social services, for which municipalities are responsible, public institutions can involve NGOs in the delivery of other public services to vulnerable groups. For instance, as highlighted in Chapter 4, the Ministry of Justice and its Prison Department, with the support of Norway Grants, are implementing a pilot initiative aiming to strengthen the availability and access of reintegration services to inmates and probationers provided by NGOs. The MSSL also launched a tender process for EUR 100 000 to provide social integration services to ex-prisoners, including individual aid and assistance, and to raise public awareness and positive attitudes in society toward ex-prisoners: the tender process was won by NGO Caritas. In the field of employment services, the Public Employment Service local offices direct clients to NGOs in case specific services are not provided by the PES or other service providers, or in case job-seekers are looking to take part in volunteering activities. In some cases, for instance in Kaunas district municipality, the local PES office has signed co‑operation agreements with NGOs for the provision of services, exchange of information and participation in joint projects. The central PES office also reported having in place a strategy of co‑operation with social partners outlining modes and tools of co‑operation. However, co‑ordination between local PES offices and NGOs for the delivery of employment services to vulnerable groups does not appear to be carried out in a structured way.
A number of factors appear to pose significant challenges for municipalities in involving NGOs in the delivery of services, in particular when it comes to social services (Figure 2.3). Lack of human and financial capacities of NGOs is by far the most common challenge identified by municipalities (75% of them); it is also considered a major challenge by the MSSL, according to survey replies. The lack of capacities also risks generating a vicious cycle when combined with the current procedures to involve NGOs in delivering services. Indeed, public service delivery is largely organised through public tenders and open competitions that favour lowest-price proposals. As NGOs tend to have more limited financial capacities and as they tend not to own premises, infrastructure and equipment (rather often renting at market price), NGOs may face more difficulties in proposing a lower price for a given service and hence lower chances of winning competitions compared to other private sector providers, public institutions and municipal institutions. In turn, these factors might limit the involvement of NGOs in the delivery of services and prevent them from consolidating their internal financial and human capacities.
Figure 2.3. Reported challenges in involving NGOs in the delivery of social services
Note: The figure shows the share of municipalities (among the 57 responding ones) that reported each element to be a challenge when answering the question “In your opinion, what are the main challenges in involving NGOs in the provision of social services in your municipality? Please select ALL options that apply.”
Source: OECD municipality survey.
Issues of capacities are also linked to the project-based approach taken to service delivery: when NGOs are involved in the delivery of services, they are often involved on the basis of projects and/or time‑bound contracts. This approach entails risks for all sides. On the side of NGOs, gaps between one project and another constitute a risk for the sustainability of its operations. Stakeholders also highlighted that, while exempt from income tax, NGOs are required to reinvest any accumulated funds within specific timeframes, hence preventing them from building up financial reserves as buffers between projects. These dynamics, in turn, make it difficult for them to retain skilled and trained staff, posing a risk to the financial and human capacities of NGOs. On the side of clients, the approach and dynamics outlined generate the risk of disruptions in service delivery, in particular for vulnerable groups who rely most heavily on the continuity of support measures. On the side of the government, this approach might prove unsustainable and undermine the implementation of policies and services. For instance, the MSSL reported the project-based approach to the involvement of NGOs as a key issue that hindered the implementation of the process of de‑institutionalisation of care for people with disabilities and children without parental care.
Stakeholders from selected NGOs and municipalities suggested an alternative system where municipalities would “buy given services at a given price” from service providers, be it public, private or non-governmental ones. According to the survey results, 62% of responding municipalities already buy social services from NGOs. For instance, Švenčionys district municipality reported starting to buy services from NGOs directly. Similarly, Marijampolė city municipality reported having used open competitions to award service contracts while prioritising NGOs. Furthermore, while it may prove more difficult to redistribute existing services from municipality providers to NGOs, the role of NGOs could be strengthened by involving them in the provision of new services: 56% of responding municipalities reported involving NGOs directly for the provision of new social services. In Marijampolė city, for instance, the municipality reaches out to NGOs when they intend to start providing a new service that the municipality and other providers are not delivering. The municipality also reported supporting the NGOs with “start-up funding” and methodological assistance to deliver new services. At the same time, as also emphasised in Chapter 4 municipalities may be reluctant to provide, or fund NGOs’ provision of new services that are not included in the Catalogue of Social Services.
46% of responding municipalities highlighted the lack of NGOs as a problem in itself; this is considered a moderate challenge by the MSSL as well, according to survey replies. This is an underlying issue that underscores the importance of strengthening the development of NGOs more widely at the national and local levels, and not just their involvement in service delivery. The next section explores further the type of support provided to NGOs for their development. The extent to which national and local institutions are willing to invest in strengthening the NGO sector depends, among others, on the awareness of the value‑added brought to the policy and service areas by NGOs. Lack of political will, leadership, interest and awareness in national ministries and in municipalities might pose significant challenges in this regard. While only 6% of responding municipalities indicated that lack of awareness or interest among municipality officials represent a challenge to involving NGOs in the provision of social services, other stakeholders highlighted these as significant barriers. This is sometimes coupled with other factors that make officials prefer municipality providers for the delivery of services: 16% of responding municipalities highlighted higher price of services offered by NGOs to be a challenge, 19% reported that the quality of services offered by NGOs is lower and 18% expressed that municipality officials may have a preference for private‑sector and/ow municipality service providers for other reasons.
On the practical side, stakeholders also shared further elements that might limit effective co‑ordination between municipalities and service providers, including NGOs, such as on data-sharing. These aspects are further explored in Chapter 3.
2.4.4. Policy recommendations
Co‑ordination across institutions at national and local levels
While the MSSL plays a leading role in the design and delivery of social and employment policies, including for vulnerable groups, co‑ordination across various governmental and non-governmental stakeholders is crucial for a coherent and co‑ordinated approach. Co‑ordination at the national level is often supported by inter-ministerial action plans and ministerial orders, but it is hampered by lack of institutional mechanisms and lack of human and financial resources in the lead ministry and in other ministries and agencies. 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 the procedures for ex-prisoners remain 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.
The lack of clear responsibilities and of institutional co‑ordination mechanisms at the local level can give rise to duplication and fragmentation of services for vulnerable groups. Some municipalities have aimed to promote integrated approaches to the delivery of services for children and young people at risk through inter-institutional co‑ordinators, which are considered to have facilitated co‑ordination despite a lack of dedicated financial and human capacities in some municipalities to support this function.
Finally, the lack of political will and leadership in some ministries and municipalities, insufficient interest and incentives for staff, as well as the lack of institutional capacities and mechanisms have been reported as significant barriers for co‑ordination between national-level ministries and municipalities.
To strengthen a co‑ordinated approach to supporting vulnerable groups at the national and the local level and across levels of government, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Ensuring high-level political commitment on the provision of integrated and co‑ordinated policies and services for vulnerable groups, in particular for ex-prisoners and young people leaving care.
Supporting the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of inter-ministerial action plans and orders to operationalise policy frameworks and long-term strategies through formal inter-institutional bodies, in particular by strengthening the functions, activities and capacities of the inter-institutional working group for the implementation of the procedures for ex-prisoners and by establishing an inter-institutional body for youth affairs, under the leadership of the Department of Youth Affairs, and taking procedural and practical measures to ensure active participation of all members in such inter-institutional bodies.
Strengthening co‑ordination on policies and services for vulnerable groups at the local level, for instance by strengthening inter-institutional co‑ordinators for specific target groups or establishing them for people in vulnerable situations more widely, supported by clear definition of their responsibilities and adequate human and financial capacities.
Promoting co‑ordination between the national government and municipalities on policies and services for vulnerable groups by including selected municipalities in national inter-institutional bodies for vulnerable groups and by conducting broader consultations with municipalities through in-person and digital means, with methods tailored to the availability and needs of municipalities.
Co‑ordination with and involvement of NGOs
Councils of NGOs can provide an effective mechanism for co‑ordination between public authorities and NGOs on matters linked to the development of the NGOs sector as well as more broadly to gather information, evidence and advice in other policy areas. At the national level, the Council of NGOs appears to have been strengthened over recent years, although its role in policy areas beyond the development of the NGOs sector remains limited. At the sub-national level, the lack of NGO councils, the lack of awareness among public officials and the ad hoc nature of the councils’ meetings are identified as important challenges.
NGOs are involved in the provision of social services and some local PES offices have signed co‑operation agreements with NGOs for the provision of employment services. However, a more significant role of NGOs in public services provision is hampered notably by lack of awareness or interest among municipality officials and public procurement procedures favouring lowest-price proposals.
To strengthen co‑ordination with NGOs in public service provision to vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Equipping Councils of NGOs at national and municipality level with adequate resources and ensure active participation of government and municipal officials in the Councils of NGOs.
Strengthening the operations of Councils of NGOs at national and municipality level, for instance by setting strategic objectives and following progress through annual working plans to enable co‑operation across stakeholders and enhance impact.
Strengthening the engagement of Councils of NGOs at national and municipality level in policy areas beyond the development of the NGOs sector by inviting them to consultations on relevant draft laws, policies and strategies and to inter-institutional bodies and by consulting them consistently at the municipality level on policy and service decisions relevant to vulnerable groups.
Promoting awareness among public officials at both national and local level about the importance of involving NGOs and Councils of NGOs in the design and delivery of policies and services relevant to vulnerable groups and strengthen their skills to do so, by elaborating and disseminating guidance material (e.g. manuals) and conducting capacity-building and awareness-raising activities (e.g. workshops, conferences, communication campaigns, etc.).
2.5. Securing adequate financial and human capacities to deliver for vulnerable groups
Designing and delivering policies and services that are tailored to the needs of vulnerable groups requires relevant ministries, agencies and municipalities to be equipped with adequate financial and human capacities. Public institutions can also support non-governmental organisations in building their capacities to ensure they can be effectively involved in policy making and service delivery.
2.5.1. Financial resources in state institutions
According to Lithuania’s Constitution, the state budgetary system consists of an independent state budget and independent municipal budgets (Art. 127). Public budgets are submitted to the Seimas for approval and are executed by the government. Each year, the Ministry of Finance prepares draft financial indicators of the state budget and municipal budgets. Each Ministry then prepares the respective budgets on the basis of the financial indicators for a certain year and in co‑ordination with respective subordinate institutions and the Ministry of Finance.
In the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the preparation of the draft budget is informed by information on the estimated needs to implement existing and new programmes, measures and laws and by discussions at the management level. The draft Strategic Action Plan is submitted to the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellery of the government for negotiations on the maximum appropriations limits for the coming year and the identification of priorities, based on which the ministry then adjusts the strategic activity plan and draft budget. Once the state budget is approved by the Seimas, the activity plan and budget are revised accordingly if necessary and implemented by the ministry and its subordinate institutions.
Municipalities have the right to draft and approve their own budgets, to impose local duties and levy local taxes, with a certain degree of autonomy within the limits set by law (e.g. in relation to balanced budgets) and by the annual financial indicators, and in line with the responsibilities and tasks for which they are responsible (European Committee of the Regions, 2022[37]). Municipalities can raise revenues through shared taxes (personal income tax) and local taxes (e.g. land tax, real estate tax, and stamp duties) as well as through municipal charges, fees and duties. At the same time, revenue autonomy at the municipality level remains below the EU average: only 12% of municipalities’ total resources are raised by municipalities themselves, compared to 53% on average across the EU in 2017. Similarly, local revenues represent 3% of total government revenues in Lithuania compared to the EU average of 13%, with an overall limited fiscal autonomy compared to the EU average (European Commission of the Regions, 2022[38]).
In particular, poorer municipalities find it difficult to provide targeted policies and services for vulnerable groups. For instance, only 3.5% of the total municipal budget was devoted to social services in 2020 on average: Chapter 4 provides further information on the financing of social services. The central government manages a mechanism of fiscal equalisation across municipalities by transferring resources, based on natural persons’ income taxes, to less wealthy municipalities through general grants from the state budget to local ones (European Commission of the Regions, 2022[38]). In addition, the central government can transfer funds from the state budget to municipalities specifically for the provision of public services delegated to municipalities. For instance, in 2022, the MSSL provided municipalities with KEUR 171 544 in the form of special target grants for the delivery of public services (and benefits) under the Ministry’s competence, including among others for the provision of social services, measures for the protection of the rights of young people and employment support programmes. These grants are equivalent to 3.8% of the total appropriations planned for the MSSL in 2022. The Ministry of Health also provides grants to municipalities to ensure specific healthcare functions: in 2022, these amount to KEUR 28 465, which is equivalent to 2.4% of the budget of the ministry.
The implementation of laws, frameworks, models and action plans to design and deliver integrated services to vulnerable groups require stakeholders to be equipped with adequate financial capacities. For instance, 1.4% of the planned budget of the MSSL for 2022 is dedicated to the provision of social care to people with severe disabilities. For the social integration of ex-prisoners, the MSSL has allocated EUR 100 000 for 2021 and EUR 100 000 for 2022 for the recruitment of social workers working in prisons on the first stage of social integration. After 2022, however, the responsibility to fund these posts will lie with the Ministry of Justice and its Prison Department. For young people leaving care, the MSSL has planned to transfer 0.12% of its total 2022 budget to municipalities to support young people leaving care. Furthermore, the MSSL, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health currently fund the municipalities’ inter-institutional co‑ordinators for youth at risk in equal shares: the creation of co‑ordinators for other vulnerable groups would require adequate financial resources.
2.5.2. Human resources in state institutions
The development of human resources in state institutions is a key element to ensure an effective delivery of policies and services for vulnerable groups. The OECD Recommendation on Public Service Leadership and Capability (OECD, 2019[15]) underlines that a professional, capable and responsive public service is a fundamental driver of citizens’ trust in public institutions. Ensuring that civil servants working for and with vulnerable groups have the right skills and capabilities is thus crucial to deliver on their needs and interests.
As discussed above, the lack of human capacities is often considered a key challenge for ministries, municipalities, agencies and NGOs alike. Figure 2.4 shows data on the reported composition of the workforce in the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health. In both the MSSL and the MoJ, the ratio between official staff working on policy and official staff working in administrative functions is slightly higher than 2 to 1. The MSSL also has dedicated staff working on vulnerable groups, which is line with the fact that it is the leading entity in delivering for these groups. In particular, the MSSL reported having one staff member working in the horizontal policy and project management group on ex-prisoners, and two staff members working for young people leaving care (one in the Social Services Division and one in the Equal Opportunities, Equality between Women and Men Division), on top of staff who works on young people more broadly. The staff working for these two target groups are fewer than those working for people with disabilities, which include five staff members in the Targeted Assistance Division, one staff member in the Family and Child Rights Group (with a focus on children with disability), the Head of the Social Services Division and the Head of the horizontal policy and project management group. Beyond numbers, building human capacities necessitates reinforcing the technical skills, experience and expertise of existing and future staff.
Figure 2.4. Composition of the workforce of selected ministries
Note: The figure shows data for the Ministry of Social Security and Labour (MSSL), the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Ministry of Health (MoH). For the MoH, the category “other” is equivalent to the total official staff employed by the ministry as data is not available broken down by area of work/job function.
Source: OECD Policy Questionnaire on Personalised Services for Vulnerable Groups.
Adequate human capacities are necessary in Ministries as well as in implementing agencies that have significant responsibilities in delivering policies and services to vulnerable groups. For instance, staff of local offices of the Public Employment Service reported being supported through manuals and trainings on all relevant processes by the central PES office and the MSSL. At the same time, stakeholders highlighted staffing challenges in the PES, in particular in terms of capacities to deal with specific vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities. Chapter 3 includes further information on the human capacities of Lithuania’s Public Employment Service.
When it comes to ex-prisoners, one staff in the re‑socialisation unit of the Prison Department co‑ordinates all the social workers that provide services in prisons for the first stage of the reintegration of ex-prisoners, prepares statistical reports, ensures training and development opportunities for social workers and takes care of any immediate issues. Furthermore, as also highlighted in Chapter 4, in 2020 there were around 25 social workers for an inmate population of over 4 500, according to data provided by the Ministry of Justice. While social reintegration services focus on those who are about to leave prisons, more than 2 100 sentenced persons were released over the course of 2020, according to the Ministry of Justice. It is unclear to what extent social workers assigned to prisons receive methodological assistance and trainings from the Prison Department. The MSSL reported organising trainings for social workers in municipalities (responsible for the second stage of reintegration), to which social workers assigned to prisons also take part at times. Limited human resources and training opportunities, compared to significant responsibilities, might pose a challenge to effective implementation of policies and services.
Lack of human capacities at the local level, notably in municipalities, has also been underlined as an important challenge as discussed in the sections above. As an example, inter-institutional co‑ordinators for young people at risk are normally one staff for the whole municipality. Furthermore, stakeholders reported that the profile of the staff in charge of this post may vary significantly across municipalities, highlighting the need to strengthen regular trainings and methodological assistance tools. The National Agency for Education under the Ministry of Education is responsible for organising and delivering training activities for the inter-institutional co‑ordinators.
2.5.3. Government support to building NGOs’ capacities
The transfer of delivery of some services to NGOs is a clear priority for the Government of Lithuania (Government of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020[4]). While involving NGOs in the delivery of public services for vulnerable groups can generate a number of benefits, it also requires that NGOs have the human and financial capacities needed to support government in this crucial area of work.
Given the challenges reported in this area (see previous sections), the government and municipalities can consider supporting NGOs in strengthening their capacities. Figure 2.5 shows the type of support provided to NGOs by municipalities for the provision of social services, according to survey replies. In particular, financial support is provided by 85% of responding municipalities, while premises, equipment, and logistical support is provided by 67% of them. Methodological assistance and capacity-building opportunities are more limited as only 56% of municipalities provide such support to NGOs. Only three municipalities did not report providing any of these support measures.
Figure 2.5. Municipalities’ support to NGOs for the provision of social services
Note: The figure shows the share of municipalities (among the 55 responding ones) that reported each type of support provided to NGOs when answering the question “How does your municipality support NGOs in the provision of social services? Please select ALL options that apply.”
Source: OECD municipality survey.
At the national level, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour is responsible for the development of NGOs. Indeed, the MSSL provides financial support to NGOs, for instance via competitions for project implementation. As an example, the MSSL’s budget for 2022 includes EUR 100 000 to finance projects of NGOs aimed at the implementation of social integration activities of ex-prisoners. According to survey replies, the MSSL also provides trainings and capacity-building activities to NGOs, while it does not provide methodological support nor premises, equipment and other logistical support. The Ministries of Justice and Health did not report providing any type of support to NGOs.
During the COVID‑19 crisis, the MSSL also assured three waves of special government subsidies to support NGOs in their response to the COVID‑19 crisis, helping them in the areas of personal protective equipment, wages of new employees hired due to increased workload or bonuses paid to existing employees for additional work, and trainings on safe provision of services during the pandemic. At a more structural level, the establishment of a NGOs Fund was mandated in February 2020 to implement relevant provisions of the Law on the Development of NGOs. Once fully operational, the Fund is mandated to support the development of NGOs, regardless of their focus area and without linking financing to the provision of services. The Fund will be financed by the Ministry of Finance and the MSSL and managed by a Fund Council whose composition will be decided by the MSSL in consultation with the Council of NGOs. In Latvia, the government established a fully-government-funded NGOs Fund in 2015 with the purpose of strengthening the sustainable development of civil society, mobilise stakeholders in a more cohesive and effective way and ensure equal access to funding for NGOs (Box 2.6). The experience of Latvia demonstrates that a government-financed NGOs Fund driven by participatory and bottom-up approaches and with light administrative processes can play a significant role in strengthening the NGOs sector and its capacities to take on public service responsibilities.
Box 2.6. Latvia: NGOs Fund
Since 2016, the NGOs Fund is managed by the Society Integration Fund (SIF), a public foundation under the institutional supervision of the Prime Minister’s Office. The SIF works primarily with and receives funding from the Ministry of Culture when it comes to NGOs.
Purpose and objectives of the Fund
The creation of a horizontal NGOs Fund aimed at providing opportunities for support to all NGOs, regardless of focus area. It aims at strengthening NGOs institutional and human capacities, fostering democratic values, promoting co‑operation and building NGOs advocacy capacities.
Key outcomes and impact
By 2020, the NGOs Fund had enabled 153 organisations to implement a total of 254 projects, and issued contracts for the implementation of projects for nearly EUR 3 million in total. The amount of state budget financing has also increased from EUR 400 000 in 2016 to 1 888 088 in 2022. In 2022, 43% of the selected projects focused on civil society, 23% on vulnerable groups and 15% on young people. An impact report commissioned by the government found that the NGOs Fund has a unique and growing role in developing the non-governmental sector and in building the capacity of a wide diversity of NGOs.
Micro and macro projects
The NGOs Fund distinguishes between micro and macro project tenders, which helps promote competition among equally experienced organisations and provide more opportunities to smaller NGOs. Micro projects receive maximum EUR 10 000 in funding for projects lasting maximum 10 months, while the limits are raised to EUR 33 000 per year for a maximum 22 months for macro projects.
Monitoring and evaluation efforts
The SIF is mandated by law to regularly evaluate the NGOs Fund and report to the SIF Council. In addition, the SIF has introduced ex-post monitoring and evaluation in collaboration with external researchers, which is carried out on a yearly basis. Findings from monitoring and evaluation efforts are used to maintain accountability towards governing bodies, enhance trust within government and in society and inform changes in the design of the NGOs Fund.
Providing guidance to NGOs
In 2021, out of 162 total applications to the NGOs Fund, 19.7% were rejected due to lack of funding, while 16% were rejected for low quality and 8.6% were rejected for compliance reasons. Administrative complexities and limited awareness may also limit applications in the first place. To tackle these issues, the NGOs Fund provides guidelines on the application submission and eligibility requirements as well as on the administrative procedures once the contract is awarded. This practical guidance is organised through factsheets, instructions and guidelines as well as video tutorials. The NGOs Fund also organises (virtual and in-person) seminars to promote awareness about the Fund among NGOs and prepare them for the application process, as well as for NGOs that are recipient of funding on how to prepare and submit interim and final reports.
Sources: (Government of Latvia, 2015[39]), Conceptual Message “For a state‑funded NGO Fund”, http://tap.mk.gov.lv/doc/2015_12/KMKonc_301015_NVO_fonds.2433.docx; (Latvian Academy of Culture and SIA, 2020[40]), Evaluation report on the activities (results and contribution) of the program “NGO Fund” financed from the state budget, https://www.sif.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/petijums-nvo-fonds-kluvis-pieejams-plasakam-sabiedribas-grupam; (Social Integration Fund, 2021[41]), Regulations of the competition of the programme “NGO Fund”, https://www.sif.gov.lv/lv/nvo-fonds; interviews conducted by the OECD with officials from the Society Integration Fund.
2.5.4. Policy recommendations
Financial and human capacities in state institutions
Designing and delivering policies and services that are tailored to the needs of vulnerable groups requires relevant ministries, agencies and municipalities to be equipped with adequate financial and human capacities. Poorer municipalities find it difficult to provide targeted policies and services for vulnerable groups, with limited budgets to dedicate to personalised services and inter-institutional co‑ordinators. The lack of human capacities is considered a key challenge by ministries, municipalities and PES, in terms of ensuring both adequate number of staff and appropriate skills and competences. For instance, in 2020, around 25 social workers co‑ordinated reintegration services for an inmate population of over 4 500 under the co‑ordination and oversight of one staff in the re‑socialisation unit of the Prison Department. Municipalities also reported facing challenges in recruiting staff equipped with the appropriate skills and methodological tools.
To secure adequate financial and human capacities to deliver services for vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Assessing budget needs for relevant ministries, agencies and municipalities to deliver on the needs of vulnerable groups and ensuring adequate financial resources to meet them, including through the transfer of funds from the state budget to municipalities for specific functions.
Ensuring adequate numbers of staff in policy design and service co‑ordination and delivery in all relevant institutions at national and local level and ensuring 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.
Government support to building NGOs’ capacities
While involving NGOs in the delivery of public services for vulnerable groups can generate a number of benefits, it also requires that NGOs have the human and financial capacities needed. The NGOs sector is supported by the MSSL and municipalities mainly through financial support, premises/equipment and, to a lesser extent, trainings and capacity-building activities (especially at the national level). Once fully operational, the NGOs Fund is expected to provide further support by the MSSL to the development of the NGOs sector.
To secure that NGOs have adequate financial and human capacities to deliver for vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Providing clear information (e.g. on procurement evaluation and award criteria), implementing trainings and capacity-building programmes and providing methodological guidance for NGOs, especially at local level, to participate in service delivery for vulnerable groups.
Taking 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 providing multi-year grants to 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 in order 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.
2.6. Monitoring and evaluating policies and services for vulnerable groups
This section looks at efforts in place to monitor the implementation and delivery of policies, services and programmes to vulnerable groups, which is key in understanding what works and what does not, identifying bottlenecks or duplications and taking appropriate action. It also looks at efforts in the area of policy evaluation, i.e. the structured and evidence‑based assessment of the design, implementation or impacts of a planned, ongoing or completed public intervention to assess its relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. This section is complemented by findings from Chapter 4 on data gaps in the area of social services; and from Chapter 3 on data exchanges and IT infrastructure and tools to support monitoring activities.
2.6.1. Monitoring policies and services for vulnerable groups
Monitoring efforts at the national level
The Ministry of Social Security and Labour monitors the implementation of its bi‑annual Strategic Action Plans (SAP). Data is collected through surveys that are prepared by employees of the ministry and co‑ordinated across departments: the quality of surveys and data hence critically depends on the competences of employees. Yet, according to survey replies from the MSSL, the lack of trained, specialised staff in the ministry is identified as a major challenge to monitoring efforts. The MSSL also reported the lack of a monitoring framework and the lack of guidelines, manuals and methodological tools as major shortcomings.
Monitoring the implementation of policies, services and programmes for vulnerable groups requires collecting and analysing data and evidence from a variety of stakeholders. For instance, the Employment Law (2016[20]) clarifies that the Public Employment Service is responsible for monitoring developments in the labour market as well as monitor the implementation and assess the efficiency of employment measures. The MSSL also provided general guidance on the PES’ monitoring activities through a ministerial order. Based on this and on an internal order of the director of the PES on the detailed set-up of monitoring activities, the central office of the PES monitors advancement on the objectives and targets included in its annual strategies quarterly as well as annually and it makes its monitoring indicators publicly available.
To improve cross-stakeholder co‑ordination in monitoring efforts, the implementation of the Action Plan for the Transition from Institutional Care to Family and Community-Based Services for Persons with Disabilities and Children without Parental Care (2014‑23) is monitored by an inter-institutional monitoring group, which includes representatives of the MSSL and other line ministries, municipalities and NGOs. The inter-institutional monitoring group meets on a quarterly basis. Similarly, an inter-institutional monitoring group, led by the MSSL and the Ministry of Justice, has been established to monitor the implementation of the procedures for the reintegration of ex-prisoners. It is composed of representatives of the MoJ and its Prison Department, the MSSL, the Probation Service, municipalities and NGOs. During interviews conducted by the OECD, stakeholders explained that the group works primarily as a forum for all involved stakeholders to find solutions to practical issues and to discuss proposed adjustments but does not conduct regular monitoring activities per se.
For policies and services targeting people with disabilities, the existing monitoring system is more elaborated than for the two other groups covered by this project. Key indicators and monitoring indices exist to keep track of the implementation of programmes and delivery of services. In particular, the Department of Disability Affairs of the MSSL monitored the implementation of the National Programme for the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities (2013‑20) by collecting and presenting evidence in the form of two indices. The Disability Quality of Life Index is based on indicators on accessibility of physical and digital infrastructures, employment, participation to cultural and sports activities and on the protection of the rights of people with disabilities. It is complemented by the Equal Opportunities Index, which is based on indicators on equal opportunities for people with disabilities in the fields of education, employment, consumer protection and participation in society. According to survey replies, the monitoring information was leveraged to inform the preparation of an Action Plan for Social Inclusion that outlines objectives, targets, measures, timelines, appropriations and responsible executors. However, reportedly, the monitoring exercise has been hindered by co‑ordination challenges. A 2020 Audit Report on the Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities, conducted by the National Audit Office of Lithuania, found that the information that the Department for the Affairs of the Disabled received from the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Transport and Communications was insufficient to assess the level of accessibility of public buildings and transport facilities for people with disabilities (part of the Disability Quality of Life Index) and hence to plan appropriate measures to improve the situation (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2020[42]). At the same time, the Audit Report clarifies that the two Ministries are not directly obliged to collect data and evaluate the accessibility of all public buildings and transport facilities (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2020[42]).
Overall, information on the monitoring efforts of other ministries and agencies remains scarce. For instance, according to survey replies, the Ministry of Justice does not monitor either the implementation of its strategies or the quality of legal services provided in Lithuania. While the Ministry of Health reports conducting such activities, information on their monitoring efforts remains scarce.
Monitoring efforts at the local level
The Law on Social Services (Republic of Lithuania, 2006[17]) mandates municipalities to create dedicated units to monitor the quality of the social services provided in the municipality’s territory. 7% of responding municipalities reported they do not monitor the provision of services at all, and only 9% of responding municipalities reported having a dedicated monitoring unit. The lack of dedicated units can pose significant challenges in terms of lack of human capacities (as reported by 67% of responding municipalities) and in terms of lack of trained, specialised staff (as reported by 44% of responding municipalities).
The scope of monitoring also varies significantly across municipalities: for instance, during interviews conducted by the OECD, some municipalities explained their monitoring activity only consists in dealing with complaints received by users of specific services. The lack of clear roles and responsibilities is considered as a key challenge by 28% of responding municipalities. The quality of monitoring activities at the municipal level is also hampered by lack of methodological guidance: 65% of responding municipalities highlight the lack of monitoring frameworks, guidelines, manuals, and other methodological tools as a key challenge for their monitoring activities. This is matched by survey data showing that only 25% of responding municipalities have their own monitoring framework and only 15% of them follow a national monitoring framework.
Monitoring activities appear not to be carried out in a structured way in most municipalities. As shown in Figure 2.6, slightly less than half of responding municipalities (49%) prepare monitoring reports on a regular basis (e.g. at least annually) or gather information on key performance indicators. Furthermore, only 15% of municipalities have established a system to collect data on key performance indicators. In light of the lack of specific systems to collect data and the lack of mechanisms to ensure the quality of data collected (which exist only in 21% of the responding municipalities), the availability and quality of data and information might be severely hampered, with risks for the quality of monitoring results. Notably, 60% of responding municipalities do not use the evidence produced through monitoring activities to inform decision making, showing challenges in closing the feedback loop between monitoring activities and decisions taken in response.
Figure 2.6. Elements of monitoring activities in municipalities
Note: The figure shows the share of municipalities (among the 53 responding ones) that reported different elements that apply to their monitoring activities when answering the question “Which of these statements apply to your monitoring activities? Please check all that apply.”
Source: OECD municipality survey.
2.6.2. Policy evaluation
Policy evaluation aims at providing a structured and objective assessment of a policy or reform initiative, its design, implementation and results. In most central ministries in Lithuania, analytical capacities are dispersed through line departments and understaffed policy units (OECD, 2021[43]). The Strategic Decision Support and International Co-Operation Division of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour is instead considered a good example to promote quality policy evaluation (OECD, 2021[43]). This division can be consulted by any department of the MSSL if it needs to assess the fiscal impact of a draft legislation, including redistributive impacts through microsimulation. The division is also responsible for developing regular ex-ante and ex-post policy evaluations (e.g. on poverty and income inequality) as well as specific evaluations for the ministry to ensure evidence‑based policy making when planning reforms. The division uses data mainly from the Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) and EU tax-benefit microsimulation model (EUROMOD). Considerations of specific vulnerable groups could be included in ex-ante policy evaluations on planned reforms or draft laws as well as on the ex-post evaluation of policies. For instance, the MSSL conducted an ex-post assessment of the impact of the COVID‑19 mitigation package (2020[44]), considering its impact on, among others, the risk of poverty among people with disabilities.
To assess cross-sector impacts of policies, evaluations rely on effective co‑ordination measures between ministries and stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations. For instance, according to survey replies, the MSSL involved NGOs in the preparation of different reform scenarios on child benefits. The MSSL then conducted an assessment of the various reform scenarios, which was then presented to NGOs. However, overall, co‑ordination with other institutions remains fragmented and largely dependent on the content and purpose of the specific policy evaluation. The same issue appears also at the level of municipalities, where only 10% of responding municipalities reported conducting services evaluations in collaboration with other government institutions and 17% with non-governmental organisations. There appears to remain significant scope to strengthen the use of policy evaluations in relation to the needs and concerns of vulnerable groups at the national and local levels.
2.6.3. Policy recommendations
Monitoring and evaluating policies and services for vulnerable groups is critical to understand what works and what does not, identify bottlenecks or duplications and take appropriate action. At the national level, the MSSL monitors the implementation of its bi‑annual Strategic Action Plans (SAP) and, to some extent, action plans and programmes for specific vulnerable groups. At the local level, the scope of monitoring activities varies significantly across municipalities. Significant challenges to monitoring efforts at either level concern the lack of specialised staff, monitoring frameworks, guidelines and manuals. Cross-stakeholder co‑ordination in monitoring efforts remains ad hoc, despite the existence of inter-institutional monitoring groups for ex-prisoners and for the de‑institutionalisation process for services for persons with disabilities and children without parental care. Moreover, evidence produced through monitoring activities at the local level do not systematically inform decision-making. There also remains significant scope to include considerations of the needs and user experiences of vulnerable groups in ex-ante and ex-post policy evaluations at national and local levels.
To strengthen monitoring and evaluation of policies and services for vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Establishing and disseminating national monitoring and evaluation frameworks to be applied to policies and services for vulnerable groups, including quantitative and qualitative metrics, key performance indicators and benchmarks.
Strengthening institutional skills and capacities to conduct monitoring and evaluation activities on policies and services for vulnerable groups, including by recruiting and retaining specialised staff, elaborating and disseminating guidance material (e.g. manuals, guidelines) and conducting regular trainings and capacity-building activities.
Reinforcing cross-stakeholder co‑ordination in monitoring and evaluation efforts on policies and services for vulnerable groups by defining and assigning clear institutional responsibilities, providing a clear framework, establishing appropriate institutional mechanisms for stakeholder participation and strengthening sharing of data and inter-operability of systems.
Establishing institutional mechanisms and processes to ensure that the evidence produced through monitoring and evaluation activities informs decision-making on policies and services for vulnerable groups.
2.7. Key policy recommendations
This section brings together key policy recommendations from this chapter on how to improve public governance arrangements to deliver integrated policies and services for vulnerable groups and to strengthen the role of NGOs in policy making and service delivery for vulnerable groups. Detailed policy recommendations are included in each of the above sections.
Key policy recommendations
Improving public governance arrangements to deliver integrated policies and services for vulnerable groups
To improve public governance arrangements to deliver integrated policies and services for vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Conducting consultations with national and sub-national government, civil society organisations, service providers and target groups to understand 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.
Broadening the focus of government action for people in vulnerable situations beyond social and employment policies and services and ensuring 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.
Providing 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.
Promoting 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.
Ensuring adequate numbers of staff in policy design and service co‑ordination and delivery in all relevant institutions at national and local level and ensuring 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.
Developing and disseminating 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.
Strengthening the role of NGOs in policy making and service delivery for vulnerable groups
To strengthen the role of non-governmental organisations in designing and delivering policies and services for vulnerable groups, the Government of Lithuania and municipalities could consider:
Developing 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.
Strengthening 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).
Considering 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).
Taking 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.
References
[34] Association of Finnish Regional Authorities (2018), Organisations as a partner of the province, https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/julkaisut/2018/1937-jarjestot-maakunnan-kumppanina.
[2] Brezzi, M. et al. (2021), “An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance 48, https://doi.org/10.1787/b6c5478c-en.
[28] DCMS UK ; UK Cabinet Office (2021), VCSEs: A guide to working with government, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vcses-a-guide-to-working-with-government (accessed on 2022).
[38] European Commission of the Regions (2022), Lithuania- Fiscal Powers, https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Lithuania-Fiscal-Powers.aspx.
[37] European Committee of the Regions (2022), Division of Powers, https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Lithuania-Introduction.aspx.
[19] Genienė, R. (2021), Socialinių paslaugų vystymas ir teikimas psichosocialinę negalią turintiems asmenims stacionarių globos institucijų pertvarkos perspektyvoje, Vilniaus Universitetas, https://talpykla.elaba.lt/elaba-fedora/objects/elaba:98858117/datastreams/MAIN/content#page=62&zoom=100,72,356.
[39] Government of Latvia (2015), Conceptual Message “For a state-funded NGO Fund”, http://tap.mk.gov.lv/doc/2015_12/KMKonc_301015_NVO_fonds.2433.docx.
[6] Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2021), 2021-2023 Action Plan for Lithuania’s Participation in the International Initiative ’Open Government Partnership’, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Lithuania_Action-Plan_2021-2023_EN.pdf.
[30] Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2021), Decision on on the approval of the social inclusion development programme of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania, manager of the 2021-2030 development programme, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/dd582180438311ec992fe4cdfceb5666.
[3] Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2021), Economic Recovery and Sustainability Plan “Next Generation Lithuania”, https://finmin.lrv.lt/uploads/finmin/documents/files/Naujos%20kartos%20Lietuva%20planas.pdf.
[4] Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2020), Resolution No XIV-72 on the Programme of the Eighteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania, https://lrv.lt/uploads/main/documents/files/PROGRAMME%20OF%20THE%20EIGHTEENTH%20GOVERNMENT%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20LITHUANIA.pdf.
[7] Government of the Republic of Lithuania (2012), Lithuania’s Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030”, https://lrv.lt/uploads/main/documents/files/EN_version/Useful_information/lithuania2030.pdf.
[40] Latvian Academy of Culture and SIA (2020), Evaluation report on the activities (results and contribution) of the program “NGO Fund” financed from the state budget, https://www.sif.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/petijums-nvo-fonds-kluvis-pieejams-plasakam-sabiedribas-grupam.
[31] Lauringson, A. and M. Lüske (2021), “Institutional set-up of active labour market policy provision in OECD and EU countries: Organisational set-up, regulation and capacity”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 262, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f2cbaa5-en.
[33] Minister of Social Security and Labour (2021), Order on Approval of the Staff of the Council of Non-Governmental Organisations.
[8] Minister of Social Security and Labour and Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (2020), Order on the Approval of Description of the Procedure for Social Integration of Persons Released from Correctional Institutions.
[10] Minister of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania (2014), Order on the Approval of an Action Plan on the Transition from Institutional Care to Family and Community Services for Disabled Persons and Children without Parental Care for 2014-2020, https://socmin.lrv.lt/uploads/socmin/documents/files/pdf/9950_a1-83order.pdf.
[32] Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Social Security and Labour and Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania (2017), Order on the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for Coordinated Provision of Educational Assistance, Social and Health Care Services, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/a3d680508cc111e7a5e2b345b086d377?jfwid=bkaxli4e.
[29] Ministry of Justice of Finland (2022), Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy (KANE), https://oikeusministerio.fi/en/advisory-board-on-civil-society-policy#:~:text=Advisory%20Board%20on%20Civil%20Society%20Policy%20(KANE),of%20the%20Finnish%20Red%20Cross.
[35] Ministry of Justice of Finland (2021), Final report of the Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy 2017-2021, https://oikeusministerio.fi/julkaisu?pubid=URN:ISBN:978-952-259-836-3.
[44] Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania (2020), Assessment of the COVID-19 mitigation package, https://socmin.lrv.lt/uploads/socmin/documents/files/Trumprastis_poveikio_vertinimas_2020%2Bcovid_18052020_clean%20(1).pdf.
[9] Ministry of Social Security and Labour of the Republic of Lithuania (2012), Order on the adoption of strategic guidelines for the deinstitutionalisation of social care homes for children with disabilities left without parental care, adult social care homes for persons with disabilities, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.437781?jfwid=).
[42] National Audit Office of Lithuania (2020), Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities, https://www.valstybeskontrole.lt/EN/Product/23939/social-integration-of-persons-with-disabilities.
[5] 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.
[11] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People, OECD/LEGAL/0474, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0474.
[14] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Public Policy Evaluation, OECD/LEGAL/0478, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0478.
[22] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[43] OECD (2021), Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision Making and Policy Evaluation for Long-term Development, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en.
[15] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Public Service Leadership and Capability, OECD/LEGAL/0445, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/%20en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0445.
[12] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD/LEGAL/0438, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[1] OECD (2015), Lithuania: Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264235762-en.
[13] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement, OECD/LEGAL/0411, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0411.
[20] Republic of Lithuania (2016), Employment Law of the Republic of Lithuania, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/b9ca8ad03de611e68f278e2f1841c088/asr.
[18] Republic of Lithuania (2014), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Support for the Purchase or Rental of Housing, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/e944ee00600111e4bad5c03f56793630/asr.
[23] Republic of Lithuania (2013), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Development of Non-Governmental Organisations, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/d1e6be90747611e3b675ad30753d4b1b/asr.
[36] Republic of Lithuania (2012), Law on Legislative Framework, https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/9560/file/LITH_law%20on%20legislative%20framework.pdf.
[17] Republic of Lithuania (2006), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Social Services, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.270342/asr.
[16] Republic of Lithuania (2005), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Social Integration of Persons with Disabilities, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.2319/asr.
[21] Republic of Lithuania (2000), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State-Guaranteed Legal Aid, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.EAA93A47BAA1/asr.
[24] Republic of Lithuania (1996), Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Public Procurement, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/TAR.C54AFFAA7622/asr.
[41] Social Integration Fund (2021), Regulations of the competition of the programme “NGO Fund”, https://www.sif.gov.lv/lv/nvo-fonds.
[26] UK Cabinet Office (2021), Social Value Act: information and resources, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-value-act-information-and-resources/social-value-act-information-and-resources (accessed on 2022).
[25] UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2022), The role of Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations in public procurement, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-voluntary-community-and-social-enterprise-vcse-organisations-in-public-procurement.
[27] UK Government Commercial Function (2020), The Social Value Model, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940826/Social-Value-Model-Edn-1.1-3-Dec-20.pdf (accessed on 2022).
Notes
← 2. Gallup World Poll, database.
← 3. While some of the assessment and recommendations contained in this chapter may also apply to Civil Society Organisations more broadly (e.g. charities, and foundations), this chapter focuses on NGOs, as requested by the Lithuanian authorities.
← 4. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a multilateral initiative composed of 78 national members, a growing number of local governments and thousands of civil society participants that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote open government. Lithuania adhered to the OGP in 2011.
← 6. According to the MSSL responses to the 2019‑20 OECD Youth Governance Surveys.
← 7. These programmes together form Lithuania’s long-term (2021‑30) strategy in the areas of income inequality reduction, reduction of social exclusion, inclusive labour market, family policy and accessibility of the environment for people with disabilities.