Comments paper - Malta Social Community Teams against Poverty, The Netherlands 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 welfare 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, social policy 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 welfare state 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