Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The 2016

Social Community Teams against Poverty (The Netherlands, 19-20 January 2016)

Comments Paper – Malta1 Mary Grace Vella University of Malta

Darlene May Gauci Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity

1. Malta: Policy Context and Service Provision Through modernisation and globalisation, Malta is experiencing various socio- cultural changes which greatly impact on its macro-institutional context. Despite its close-knit community and relatively “sheltered” lifestyle and mentality, in line with other EU trends, one observes an increasing complexity in poverty and social exclusion. Poverty and social exclusion2 have indeed become more complex in present-day reality, where one can experience different forms of deprivations and disadvantages, along with an increased sense of relative deprivation arising from a more consumerist and competitive culture. The complexity of poverty and social exclusion delineates the need to combat poverty in a more effective and efficient manner. In December 2014, the Government of Malta launched the “National Strategic Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion (2014-2024)” with the aim of mapping Malta’s strategic policy to address poverty and social exclusion through a comprehensive, long-term, results-oriented, participatory and partnership approach based on the values of solidarity, equality, dignity and respect for fundamental human rights and social justice. Whilst this strategy aims to provide a policy framework that promotes the well-being and improves the quality of life for all vulnerable groups, particularly children, elderly persons, unemployed persons and the working poor are given additional attention. The document puts forward various strategic policy actions combating poverty, both universal and targeted, under a number of key dimensions of well-being, namely income and benefits, employment, education, health and environment, social services, and culture. Malta is considered as having a hybrid social model which reflects various ideological stances through a combination of the Conservative, Liberal, Socio- democratic Continental and Southern European model (Bugeja, 2010). This results from various historical, geographical and socio-political circumstances which were important for the development of Malta’s welfare provision including its colonial history, geographical location, the importance of the Church, and EU membership. This approach is reflected through a wide range of universal and targeted benefits which act as a safety net through the provision of “a set of programmes, benefits

1 Prepared for the Peer Review in Social Protection and Social Inclusion programme coordinated by ÖSB Consulting, the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and Applica, and funded by the European Commission. © ÖSB Consulting, 2015 2 In 2014, Malta’s “at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate” stood at 23.8 % (22.9 % for males and 24.7 % for females) which compares to the EU average of 24.4 % (23.5 % for males and 25.2 % for females) in the same year (MFSS, 2014, Eurostat, 2015). As in other EU Member States, the AROPE for children, elderly people and other vulnerable groups, particularly those who are unemployed or living in jobless households, tends to be higher than that of the general population.

1

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

and supports designed to ensure that people do not lack the basic necessities of life” (Mims, 2011), as well as specific measures for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Based on this notion, the social benefit system provides for both contributory and non-contributory allowances through the provision of short-term, long-term and in-kind benefits (Bugeja, 2010). Over time, “Successive Maltese governments have manifested their commitment to maintain state social security whilst developing new social services for the needs of late modernity” (Abela, 1999, para. 3). Indeed, throughout the last number of years, has been developed on “the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, participation, decentralisation, prevention, empowerment and self-reliance with a special focus on the family” (Abela, 1999, para. 2). As in other EU Member States, social policy in Malta is undergoing a process of change characterised by “an increasing awareness that the ever expanding, universalist and bureaucratically run has to be gradually contained, modified and replaced” (Abela, 1999, para. 1). This entails “a shift from state universal provision towards targeted benefits” (Abela, 1999, para. 4) as well as “from dominant state welfare towards informal care provision3”. Through this process, institutional welfare structures of the state have and are giving way to a welfare-mix in civil society. These developments are further accompanied by reforms which aim to promote greater decentralisation of social welfare services, the flourishing of public-private- partnerships in health and social care, a rights-based as opposed to a charity-based approach, and greater differentiation and specialisation of services, particularly “enabling” services4. Apart from reflecting new needs and evolving realities, arising from socio-demographic trends and lifestyle changes, such changes also reflect an emerging ideology based on a more corporatist culture combined with an active inclusion and participatory approach. Despite the sustained provision of universalistic measures, such reforms are also leading to greater conditionality in social welfare service provision, particularly in the uptake of social benefits. Whilst ensuring adequate income support to those who for a reason are not in a position to access the labour market through increased focus on active inclusion, employment is increasingly being perceived as the most effective way to help people come out of poverty and social exclusion5. These developments which aim to enhance self-reliance and autonomy from the state, correspond to further initiatives in the area of active citizenship such that “The participation of service users and other relevant stakeholders is increasingly being acknowledged as a principal objective in the development of social inclusion and social protection policies, both as a tool for individual empowerment and as a governance mechanism” (Gauci and Grima, 2015).

2. Governance of Social Policy: A move towards Decentralisation In line with the increased recognition of the multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral aspects related to well-being, various initiatives are being implemented within the local context to mainstream social protection issues across different policy areas, and improve service provision to better reflect the needs and empower communities. Such initiatives entail meaningful reform in the coordination and

3 Family, friends, neighbours, civil society and the commercial organisation of care. 4 “Enabling services”, such as children’s services are provided free of charge to working parents or those pursuing full-time training or educational courses. 5 Active inclusion is identified as a main priority focus in various national strategic documents, such as the “National Strategic Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion 2014-2024” as well as the National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2014 (NSR) and National Reform Programme (NRP) measures.

2

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

governance structure of the social protection system through greater decentralisation and enhanced collaboration and ownership. The main responsibility for the provision of social welfare services lies with central government through the Ministry of the Family and Social Solidarity (MFSS) which is responsible for social policy in general including family and child policy, social housing, social security, pensions, and other solidarity services, as well as issues concerning disability, the elderly and community care. The establishment of Local Government in 19936 gave greater powers and autonomy to local communities on various levels (The Government of Malta, 2009), however such powers tend to be significantly limited in terms of social welfare provision which continues to be the prerogative of central government. Though the coordination of social welfare remains largely centralised, over the years there have been various efforts contributing towards greater decentralisation in service provision and programme implementation. One of the earliest initiatives in this regard was the setting up of social security district offices spread around the Maltese islands7 aimed at “reaching out to provide assistance and advice on social security matters” (Department of Social Security, 2014). Another development in the provision of decentralised initiatives on a community level took place around 14 years ago, through the setting up of an “ACCESS” community-based family centre in Cottonera, followed by the setting up of another three centres in other disadvantaged localities. This model presents a one-stop shop approach offering multiple services and support on a number of areas including training, employment, social benefits, childcare service, as well as a wide range of social work and community services aimed at combating poverty and social exclusion. Since 2014, the centres have been transformed into LEAP Centres which specifically aim to combat poverty and social exclusion through a more grassroots outreach-oriented and integrated approach. Following this successful LEAP pilot project, locally-based Family Resource Centres and Regional Development Centres are currently being set up with the aim of providing a point of reference within the community through the provision of various forms of social support. These Centres also aim to foster more inclusive communities through the empowerment and participation of disadvantaged groups, and collaborative networking among stakeholders. Besides the LEAP project, the Maltese government is in the process of implementing “a major restructuring exercise of the Foundation for Social Welfare Services (FSWS)8 which will result in the setting up of a new agency” (Dalli, 2015). The agency will be structured on three pillars providing for: family services9; children services10 and; general community services11 (Dalli, 2015). Through this reform,

6 through the enactment of the Local Councils Act (Chapter 363, Laws of Malta) and its entrenchment in the Constitution of Malta in 2001 (Act No. XIII of 2001). 7 22 in Malta and 2 in Gozo. 8 Since 1998, FSWS has been the main social welfare services provider in Malta, incorporating the “Sedqa” and “APPOĠĠ” agencies, and later on in 2001 integrating “Sapport” agency. “These three main agencies offer a holistic combination of prevention, support and treatment services, both on a community and residential setting within the fields of substance abuse; children, families and adults in need; and disability.” (Gauci and Grima, 2015, p. 2). 9 Incorporating child and adolescent support services, family-oriented services such as family therapy, positive parenting coaching and domestic violence, and addiction services. 10 Incorporating issues related to adoption, looked after children and fostering. 11 Incorporating initiatives aimed at combating poverty reduction and social exclusion, community development and outreach and the provision of health services, including St Vincent De Paul, Boffa Hospital and Mater Dei Hospital.

3

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

Child Protection Services12, will fall under the remit of the Justice Ministry, while Aġenzija Sapport will become an autonomous body under the remit of the Parliamentary Secretary for the Rights of People with Disability (Dalli, 2015). This restructuring process which should result in the setting up of 18 community centres will focus more on prevention and early intervention on a community and grassroots level. Due to these outreach components, such a model should provide a more efficient, comprehensive response to the social needs of surrounding communities. Moreover through the use of multidisciplinary teams made up of social workers, community workers, psychologists and other professionals, these reform initiatives along with the consolidation of the LEAP project are envisaged to act as a cluster- based network which facilitates a more integrated and holistic approach to the needs of individual citizens and communities. An important aspect of these teams concerns the role of community workers, which is still an innovative concept within the local context. The role of community work is not yet well-defined and prescribed through legal frameworks or specific professional guidelines. Another recent initiative which is seen to contribute towards more active citizenship and participation as well as the development of more evidence in the area of wellbeing, concerns the President’s Foundation for the Wellbeing of Society (PFWS) set up in 2014. The PFWS, a non-profit entity established with the aim of advising the President of Malta on issues contributing towards a better quality of life, seeks to foster an inclusive and democratic participatory framework by creating a safe space for dialogue and participation, in its search of academic and popular wisdom. For this purpose, apart from various fora dealing with a number of social aspects such as disability, childhood, families and communities, the Foundation has set up the following entities: a National Institute for Childhood, an Observatory for Living with Dignity, a Centre for Freedom from Addiction, and a National Family Research Centre which focuses on family-related matters (PFWS, 2015).

3. The SCT Model: Comparability and Transferability to the Maltese Context As in the host country of this Peer Review, in Malta, poverty is defined as a complex multi-faceted aspect which goes beyond mere financial poverty and material deprivation. The adopted definition indeed takes due account of diverse forms of vulnerabilities and multiple forms of disadvantage arising from both personal circumstances and structural conditions. As in the Dutch model, the uptake of social benefits and other social welfare services is mainly related, to poverty issues and low socio-economic status. Whilst still providing for a wide array of universalistic benefits, in the last number of years Malta has also increasingly linked the uptake of social benefits with conditionality measures and means-tested mechanisms. Similarly, authorities may oblige unemployed persons on social benefits to carry out unpaid work for “the benefit of society”. Uptake of social assistance including unemployment assistance (and other non-contributory benefits) is also attached to obligatory attendance to job interviews as well as courses and training programmes which may enhance employability prospects13. This idea of conditionality is still gaining ground within the local context however such measures as in the case of the Dutch scenario also tend to be considered as fair and just by the general public, which suggests a move away from the pure welfare state model towards a more active inclusion approach.

12 Dealing with cases of child abuse and neglect. 13 Apart from social benefits, such persons are also granted a „stipend“ (to elaborate more – whether it is of minimum wage or just a stipend).

4

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

In Malta, the role and scope of the multi-disciplinary teams acting within the context of the existing and proposed community centres is mainly related to service provision, rather than being directly responsible for policy development, which still tends to take place on a centralised level by the respective Governmental Departments. For example, whilst provision of social benefits is largely administered through social security district offices at the local and regional level, such offices follow eligibility criteria formulated at the national level through the Department of Social Security within MFSS. In Malta, community teams do not fall into the residual framework model; a model where government only intervenes when the market and the informal family support network fail. The Maltese government is still the main provider even within the context of close-knit family support and a more emergent corporatist culture. Despite increased focus on corporate social responsibility, the private sector is not in any way held responsible for social welfare provision, though it is considered as playing a vital role in facilitating and providing opportunities for employment. For this purpose, various measures and initiatives are in place to promote social enterprise and to encourage private entities to engage vulnerable groups in the labour market. As in the peer-reviewed model, in Malta, there is no single blueprint for the provision of community-based social welfare services, though SCTs and such teams take various forms and structures. Likewise, the original formation and application of the multi-disciplinary approach of SCTs in Malta occurred mainly in the mental health sector, which was then broadened in scope and applied to other contexts. At present, SCTs in Malta are not as yet formalised through any legal structure or other formal framework or . As in the host country, in Malta there tends to be a lack of adequate knowledge in general regarding the scope and role of SCTs. A main challenge in the Dutch model concerns uncertainty about the dual role of SCTs since they play both a very broad role by acting as generic first entry point to the access of services, as well as a specific role through their provision of specialised services. In Malta, at present, SCTs act as the single first entry point for social welfare service provision, through outreach oriented work by community workers who provide support and advocacy both within and outside the frameworks of the multi-disciplinary team. Contact with the SCT may also take place following referral by other specific professionals. The coordination of service provision by one case manager is however still not fully functional within the local context, resulting in the lack of a fully comprehensive and coherent service provision. Thus, whilst the work of multi-disciplinary teams tends to promote a more integrated approach where one looks beyond the client’s needs in isolation, such an approach still tends to be rather fragmented in terms of holistic service provision. The role of SCTs should become more formalised through the consolidation of the LEAP programme and the envisaged reform in social welfare provision. It may also be the case that the important, emerging role of community workers is still not fully appreciated and perceived on par with that of other professionals. There still seems to be a lack of clarity among professionals and lay persons alike regarding the role that is played by community workers. This calls for accompanying measures which strengthen the profession of community workers, and address the informal power dynamics in multi-disciplinary work by raising greater awareness amongst professionals about the values of collaborative work, team-building and networking. Similarly to the Dutch model, the practice of SCTs to combat poverty and social exclusion is a fairly new phenomenon in Malta, and large-scale evidence-based

5

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

evaluations on their effectiveness have not as yet taken place within the local context. Preliminary analysis14 of the effectiveness of SCT practice however suggests that as in the peer-reviewed model, these have led to: greater cooperation with civil society and other grassroots organisations, a more outreach- oriented approach within deprived localities, a more bottom-up approach to service provision leading to a less bureaucratic and a more accessible structure which humanises and empowers service users. This facilitated access to services is seen to have overall led to: greater efficiency and less duplication of work, improved sharing of information, mutual understanding and a healthy sense of ownership amongst stakeholders and service users in general. It has also led to greater opportunities for cooperation between government, civil society and private entities as well as across ministries. However, this evaluation has also identified a number of weaknesses and limitations mainly arising from the: lack of sufficient human resources, resulting in limited opportunities for collaborative work; disappointment arising from the heightened expectations; concerns regarding data-protection issues and; reluctance against the innovative changes by some professionals and other stakeholders. The evaluation also highlighted the need to further facilitate communication between agencies (St Jeanne Antide Foundation, 2015). Indeed, despite its different social inclusion challenges, governance mechanisms and structures, Malta tends to share a number of similarities, both in terms of advantages and challenges faced by the Netherlands regarding its use and application of SCTs.

4. Way Forward and Recommendations As observed from the above overview of Malta’s governance structure in terms of its social welfare provision, various developments are currently taking place, shifting social policy further away from the conservative traditional welfare model. The local context is indeed moving towards a more decentralised, grassroots- oriented and rights-based approach underpinned by greater active inclusion and participation of stakeholders in social welfare provision. A main characteristic and underlying motivation of this reform is the recognition of the vital role played by community teams in the coordination and provision of social welfare at a regional and local level. Notwithstanding these developments, it is acknowledged that more work needs to be sustained to fully benefit and reap the advantages presented by the effective and efficient use of SCTs. More focus needs to be placed to truly advance “co-creation” rather than a top- down approach in social welfare provision. This negotiated approach between service providers and service users should help to enhance ownership of one’s care- plan as well as increase the likelihood of follow-up and compliance. The role of social welfare professionals should primarily be one which enables and empowers service users and disadvantaged groups. Such processes are directly related to the need for more meaningful consultation and active participation of service users in the development, implementation and evaluation of policies at all levels of service provision. Greater cooperation also needs to be enhanced between State providers, grassroots voluntary organisations and other private entities for a more efficient use of resources. More emphasis needs to be placed to ensure that multi-disciplinary teams are truly addressed to enhance the holistic development of users through an integrated life-course approach. Further attention also needs to be addressed to reduce bureaucratic procedures and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of

14 Arising from a S.W.O.T. analysis of the LEAP (pilot) project carried out with a number of stakeholders (SJAF, 2015).

6

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

services. This could be better ensured through the formalisation of the SCT as the first entry point to prevent multiple contact, duplication of work and overlapping of services, as well as through the adoption of the main case worker approach to facilitate the coordination of services. The main challenge to the effective and efficient use of SCTs is however likely to be linked to the adoption of a different working culture reflected through true collaborative work and the adoption of less hierarchical and bureaucratic approaches. Another main success factor concerns the need for a policy change which shifts the focus of social welfare provision from a crisis interventionist approach to a more preventative and early interventionist level. Besides acting through a more outreach and grassroots level, this should help to better address the needs of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged as well as those of the ‘invisible poor’ who are more difficult to capture by standard and traditional social protection services. This entails a “civilising” process of social welfare provision through the establishment and consolidation of partnerships among a wide range of social actors. Recognition is indeed made that “the survival of the welfare state in Malta, as in other European countries, depends on its ability to shift its concern from the re-distribution of economic resources towards the development of preventive measures and participative social projects between agencies of the state, families, self-help groups, communities and other non-government organisations” (Abela, 1999, para. 30). Malta is still on a learning curve regarding the implementation of SCTs to combat poverty and social exclusion in a comprehensive and holistic manner. Despite the clear differences between the good practice examined in this Peer Review and the Maltese scenario in terms of scope, governance structure and role of SCTs, the Peer Review is seen as providing a highly relevant example of the effective utilisation of SCTs for combating poverty and social exclusion through an integrated, less bureaucratic and a more humanistic and empowering approach. Its transferability to the local context, however, would need to take due account of the policy context in which such structures operate, including its specific and diverse social protection challenges and the particular historical developments in social policy and governance mechanisms. Preliminary analysis on the use of SCTs through their decentralised, outreach- oriented and “enabling” approach in combating poverty and social exclusion within the local context, demonstrates that such teams are a highly efficient and effective governance tool for promoting greater access to high-quality social protection services. Thus, they can also be considered as an important mechanism for promoting greater sustainability and adequacy of the social protection system, sustaining the view that, “reform in the welfare system should not be an exclusive exercise in economics, but should take into consideration social, political and administrative dimensions” (Abela, 1999, para. 29). Moreover, through their collaborative and decentralised structures, SCTs help to promote greater participation and involvement of all relevant stakeholders leading to more empowered and inclusive communities. The consolidation of SCTs thus compliments Malta’s policy for local governance that: “The nature and scope for devolution and empowerment should be expanded to encompass aspects that are more close to the heart of the fabric of the local community and which have a higher relevance and impact on the socio-economic environment, welfare and prosperity” (The Government of Malta, 2009).

7

Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 2016

Bibliography Abela, A. M. (1999). Demands for Welfare: The State and Civil Society in Malta. Retrieved from http://staff.um.edu.mt/aabe2/Welfare.htm Bugeja, I. (2010). Welfare Regimes: Exploring the Maltese Social Policy Model. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/360125/Welfare_Regimes_Exploring_the_Maltese_Soci al_Policy_Model Dalli, K. (2015, September 2). Concerns at restructuring plans for social services. Times of Malta. Retrieved from http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150902/local/concern-at- restructuring-plans-for-social-services.582824 Department of Social Security (2014, March 27). Annual Report 2013. Retrieved from https://socialpolicy.gov.mt/en/Publications/Documents/Annual%20Report%202013 .pdf Eurostat (2015, December 17). People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex [ilc_peps01]. Retrieved from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do Gauci, D. M., and Grima S. (2015). Peer Review: Children First – pilot local consultation platforms on child poverty (, 13-14 January 2015), Malta Comments Paper. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=2100&moreD ocuments=yes&tableName=news MFSS (2014). National Strategic Policy for Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion: Malta 2014-2024. Mims, B. R. (2011). Faced Behind Sacred Walls: Readdressing the Advocacy Role of the Church in a Disenfranchised Community. NewBookPublishing.com, a division of Reliance Media, Inc.: Apopka. PFWS (2015). Entities/Fora. Retrieved from http://www.pfws.org.mt/en/home St Jeanne Antide Foundation (2015, October). Outcome of SWOT analysis of LEAP Project. SJAF e-magazine, 94, 8. Retrieved from http://www.antidemalta.com/Newsletters/SJAF%20Magazine%20Nr%2094%20- %20October%202015.pdf The Government of Malta (2009). Malta Policy for Local Governance. Retrieved from https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Local%20Councils/Documents/Maltese%20Lo cal%20Governance%20Policy%20070409.pdf

8