Authors of the research: Marija Vujošević Branislava Žarković. Associates: Milena Timotijević Aleksandra Simović Đorđe Smiljković Biljana Maričić

Transcription

1

2 The research done by: The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade HOUSING CENTER, Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade Authors of the research: Marija Vujošević Branislava Žarković Associates: Milena Timotijević Aleksandra Simović Đorđe Smiljković Biljana Maričić Consultations: Biljana Kosanić Design: Jovana Timotijević Number of copies: 200 Printing: KLIK PRINT Belgrade, Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

3 Housing Center, Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia Social Housing in Supportive Environment (SHSE) Research concerning the achieved project results In 2003 the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in cooperation with and with the financial support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation initiated the project of «Social housing in supportive environment» aiming at reduction of poverty and social exclusion of refugees and internally displaced persons who, as per all the surveys and strategic documents (in particular the Strategy for poverty reduction and National strategy for resolving the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons) were estimated exceptionally marginalized and with the highest poverty and social exclusion risk. The project was to provide the refugees who opted for integration in Serbia, especially those accommodated in collective centers, being socially most vulnerable category, with dignified conditions for social integration solving their basic livelihood problems, including housing. That is how the concept of a new service in the field of social protection has been developed - Social housing in supportive environment. In cooperation with the local self-governments, Centers for Social Work, Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia and UNHCR, at first in 17 municipalities and later in another 4, (after 2005 and with the support of other donors) this service has been provided to 1090 persons in 404 constructed housing units. The experience of this project actualized the issue of social housing in Serbia for socially vulnerable groups, including the domicile population and it has certainly contributed to resolving some issues in the Law on Social Housing. Owing to these projects, local self-governments started recognizing more and more their role and responsibility in providing for socially vulnerable populations (from IPA funds of EU in this year 256 units are being bulit in 17 new municipalities). Ljiljana Lučić State Secretary The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia Project Social Housing in Supportive Environment is one of the finalists of the international competition World Habitat Awards for 2009 ( The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 3

4 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION 8 The initial situation, reasons and objectives of the research, concept and development of the project of Social Housing in Supportive Environment (SHSE) 2. RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH Territorial distribution and constructed buildings Legal frame Beneficiaries Beneficiaries profile statistical and demographic data Indicators of beneficiaries social inclusion Main stakeholders Center for Social Work Host Family Municipality - Town Problems and Suggestions Good practice examples CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47 Аnnex 1 - Summary of implemented and ongoing projects 52 Аnnex 2 Housing Center profile 54 ABBREVIATIONS BPRM Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration of USA EU European Union EAR European Agency for Reconstruction EC European Commission IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IDP Internally displaced persons SR Family income support NGO Non-governmental organizations NIP National Investment Plan of the Republic of Serbia NEA National Employment Agency of the Republic of Serbia SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SIF Social Innovations Fund UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNDP United Nations Development Programme CSW Center for Social Work 4 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

5 Preface This report resulted from a research of the effects of the programme Social Housing in Supportive Environment (hereinafter referred to as SHSE) on the improvement of the beneficiaries life quality, poverty reduction and the degree of social inclusion, carried out jointly by the Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups Housing Center and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia in the partnership with Centers for Social Work in 21 municipalities in the period March - October Formulating of the research conclusions and printing of this report were made possible with the funds of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration of the United States of America (BPRM). The research implementers express their deepest gratitude to UNHCR and BPRM for recognizing the significance of this research and making it possible. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 5

6

7 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 7

8 1 Introductory information Initial situation, reasons and objectives of the research, concept and development of the project of Social Housing in Supportive Environment 1.1 Initial situation The Republic of Serbia is the country with the highest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe and one of the countries that host the persons with the longest refugee status in the world. There are about persons with refugee status in Serbia in this moment. The number of refugees has been reduced from persons in the period for about 80%. This drop in the number of refugees manly resulted from their integration in Serbia (more than persons have obtained the Serbian citizenship), which also represents the largest integration process in Europe. As per the data of the Commissariat for Refugees for 2009, Serbia also hosts internally displaced persons form the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija and on the territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija there are additional internally displaced persons. A big number of extremely vulnerable refugees and internally displaced persons have been sheltered in collective centers, in which persons are presently living in inadequate conditions. 1 According to international documents concerning human rights, especially the Convention on refugee status from 1951, the state is obliged to create the conditions for social integration of those refugees who decided to stay in Serbia. Social integration in the local community means, in addition to formally obtaining the citizenship, creation of the conditions for solving their basic existential needs (housing, provision of livelihood subsistence, health care, education) and equal rights to inclusion in all forms of social life. In its endeavor to create the conditions for integration of the most vulnerable categories of refugees living in collective centers and needing family income support, who opted for staying in Serbia, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, in the period 2003 / 2005, at the initiative and with the donated funds of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation - SDC (for construction of the buildings), in cooperation with the local self-governments, Centers for Social Work, Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia and UNHCR, developed the project Social Housing in Supportive Environment as a new form of social protection in 17 municipalities. In the course of time Social Housing in Supportive Eenvironment has been recognized as a sustainable programme for solving the social integration of the vulnerable refugees and internally displaced persons in the local environment, but also for providing for the local vulnerable population. After 2005, other donors have continued financing the project. Nowadays this form of social protec- 1 The Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia, October Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

9 tion exists in 21 municipalities. Altogether persons live in 404 housing units. Nowadays a big number of municipalities in Serbia are interested in further development of this form of protection. It has proved to be an adequate, efficient and economical approach to providing for the most vulnerable. The concept of Social Housing in Supportive Environment has provided a new, deinstitutionalized and decentralized form of care for the most vulnerable categories of the population, who need special support for a dignified life. At the same time, it builds the capacity of the local community, in regards to both the infrastructure (construction of buildings that are at the disposal of the local community) and the field of services that meet the inhabitants needs for social protection (the services can be adjusted to different categories of the vulnerable). 1.2 Reasons and objectives of the research Within the activities of the Ministry aiming at the facilitation of the refugees and internally displaced persons integration and further improvement of the services in local communities a need was recognized to carry out a research that would provide an insight into this new form of social protection in local communities, its influence on upgrading the beneficiaries life quality, as well as positive and negative experiences and possible guidelines for further development. The research was initiated by the Ministry and NGO Housing Center that was involved in the concept creation in 2003 and has been constantly implementing it since then. The research included: 1. Collecting of the programme results indicators, especially in regards to: achieved beneficiaries social inclusion level of beneficiaries integration and upgrading of their social position representation and position of the Rroma population in the project 2. Analysis of the collected indicators 3. Detection of the problems that the active participants face (beneficiaries and Host Families, Centers for Social Work and local communities), 4. Recommendations for future programme development 1.3 Research methodology The research was carried out in 21 municipalities and towns in Serbia in which the project was implemented by The analysis was performed on the grounds of the data obtained through the questionnaire distributed to the Centers for Social Work and subsequent interviews with all the Centers for Social Work, representatives of all the local self-governments and random specimen of beneficiaries and Host Families. Upon statistical and quality processing of the data conclusions were made and recommendations were given for solving the existing problems and further development of SHSE programme. This document is the result of the analysis of the gathered data. The document is planned to be grounds for discussion at a conference related to the exchanging of the experiences gained so far and stating the problems and their possible solutions. The final objective of the conference is to determine directions in which this form of protection should be further developed and the priorities in further improvement of the beneficiaries life, with participation of all interested parties (representatives of the Centers for Social Work and local self-governments from the municipalities in which this form of protection already exists, Host Families, the Ministry, Housing Center and some donors). The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 9

10 1.4 Social Housing in Supportive Environment (SHSE) Concept Social Housing in Supportive Environment is a right and a special form of social protection exercised by individuals and families who, due to psychological and physical condition, old age, disease, lack of financial means or other circumstances need additional assistance and support. This form of protection belongs to so-called extended social rights. It is regulated by local self-governments through the Decision on social welfare (right to the service and conditions that a beneficiary should meet) and the funds for its functioning are also provided by the local self-government. The buildings are property of the local self-governments that provide funds for its capital and regular maintenance. These structures are intended exclusively for meeting the needs for citizens social protection, with no possibility of buying off. The buildings are usually built and equipped with donors funds. Local governments are obliged to provide the construction land equipped with the necessary infrastructure, urban planning and technical documents, technical supervision of the work execution and regular maintenance of the building, to organize a public invitation for usage of the service and regulate, with the relevant Decision, conditions for usage and provide the funds for its functioning. Center for Social Work runs the building and takes care of its maintenance and proper usage, as well as of meeting the beneficiaries needs within its realm. Like for other social welfare rights in the competence of the municipality, the right to usage of this service is determined by the Center for Social Work, after which the relevant contract is concluded with each beneficiary (under the conditions defined by the Decision of the local self-government). The service comprises two basic elements: а) Housing, under the conditions determined by the Decision of the local government б) Different services of support to the beneficiaries. Housing is provided in the buildings built for that purpose. The units are of different size and are designed for accommodation of different number of persons, ranging from one to five (depending on the needs of the beneficiaries in the specific local community). Each building comprises common facilities common living room, laundry, as well as a developed area surrounding the building (gardens, common terraces), where the social contacts and joint activities of the tenants and their neighbours take place. Rendering different services of support to individuals and families, adjusted to their individual needs, is a continuous process consisting of a number of activities and services rendered by the Center for Social Work with the assistance of the Host Family. 1. Center for Social Work follows-up the needs of the beneficiaries, defines the type of support needed by a specific beneficiary (family), renders the services in its competence, cooperates with other services, NGOs and other organizations in the local environment as to enable rendering of their services and undertakes the necessary measures to ensure the complete and continuous support. In addition to direct, individual support in its capacity (psychological, social, financial support, assistance in solving family relationships, supervision of exercising parental rights and such like), connecting and mediating with other services in regards to exercising rights and necessary support, 10 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

11 the Center, in compliance with the beneficiaries needs, in order to strengthen them and activate their potentials, organizes different activities adjusted to the tenants and the local community (for children, adults, elderly). Activities are organized through health, entertainment and recreational workshops, building their capacity to use their working abilities and such like. The Center does not organize and carry out all these activities on its own but in cooperation with other subjects in the local community (medical center, school, Red Cross organization, local community, NGOs, different associations), by including the beneficiaries into their programmes and projects using (and developing) the volunteers resources. Center for Social Work monitors the work of the Host Family, trains it and provides the necessary support in its work. 2. Host Family is a beneficiary of one of the units in the building, is able to work, functional, well accepted in its environment, socially vulnerable (this is also a form of support to this family), which has a very important role: a. It provides support to the beneficiaries in the sense of a good neighbours assistance b. It maintains a constant contact with the Center for Social Work, and occasionally with other institutions and provides necessary services (support) to the beneficiaries, c. As a good host the family takes care of the building and the surroundings, informs the Center for Social Work about the problems and needs, d. With its attitude and activities, it facilitates creation of positive atmosphere and mutual respect among the tenants and wider surroundings, develops good neighbourly relations and contributes to integration in the local community. Project development Social Housing in Supportive Environment (SHSE) was created in 2003 with the objective to provide dwelling for the most vulnerable refugees in collective centers and local populations. Until 2005 the project was implemented with SDC funds in 17 municipalities in Serbia, in cooperation with the local communities, Centers for Social Work, Serbian Commissariat for Refugees and UNHCR. Two pilot projects (Apatin and Požega) in 2003 were intended exclusively for the tenants of collective centers, more specifically elderly persons with no family care who could live independently with occasional additional support, and self-supporting single parents with children. As a reply to the needs of the remaining refugee families living in collective centers, the category of beneficiaries was extended in 2004 (families that could not provide for themselves due to family supporter s or a family member s illness, reduced working ability, disability or a chronic disease, children with no parental care attending regular schools or in the phase of becoming independent in the house on the half-way and such like). After 2005 and closure of SDC Humanitarian Aid Programme, funding of the building construction was taken over by other donors - EU, through EAR, UNHCR, UNDP, BPRM, ЕC, Government of the Republic of Serbia, Government of Germany and private donors such as Humanitarian Fund of Snežana and Vlade Divac. Since then the internally displaced persons living in collective centers have been included in the programme as well. In the years to come construction of a bigger number of buildings has been planned only by the end of 2009 from the budget of IPA Funds for 2007 additional 252 units will have been built in 17 municipalities, among which 12 are new ones. Commissariat for Refugees, through the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, from the budget of NIP for 2008 provided construction of additional 20 units. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 11

12 Education of the stakeholders By 2006 the project concept included education of the Centers for Social Work, local self-governments and Host Families as one of its components, which was necessary due to the innovative character of the project. In the period from February 2005 till November 2006 five gatherings were held with the support of SDC and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, which were directed towards strengthening of the professionals from the Centers for Social Work and local self-governments (the first three workshops) and the Host Families, beneficiaries with working ability and professionals from CSW (the workshop held in November 2006). The Ministry was, since the beginning of the development of this type of support, one of the most important participants in its creation. However, in 2006 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy withdrew from the implementation of the project and the development of this form of protection and they are fully transferred to the local self-governments, while the exchange of the experiences and education were completely omitted. Social Housing in Supportive Environment represents an innovative form of social protection, which is fully in competence of the municipalities. The beneficiaries need different forms of assistance and support, with an individual approach and consideration of their problems and needs for a specific support. Special emphasis is given to encouraging of the beneficiaries to become fully aware of their own potentials, to become more active and take full responsibility for their own lives using the resources of the community. This type of support to the beneficiaries requires a continuous cooperation of the local Center for Social Work, local self-governments, as well as of all other subjects in the local environment (health care, education, employment, NGO and such like) and it represents a comprehensive model of protection. That is why for an efficient implementation of this form of protection exchange of experiences, good practice, education of Host Families, professionals of CSW and local self-governments as well as of the beneficiaries themselves, are essential. 12 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

13 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 13

14 2.1 Territorial distribution and constructed buildings By the end of October 2009 programme SHSE was implemented in 21 municipalities and evenly distributed throughout Serbia. All the buildings were built on high quality locations, in the built-up tissue, in the vicinity of public services and well connected to other town facilities. The buildings are equipped with electrical installation, waterline, sewerage, and wherever it was possible, they were connected to the remote central heating system and household gas installation. Until 2005 the buildings were mainly typical ones, with 12 or 13 units distributed in two buildings comprising GF + 1 (ground floor and one upper floor). Housing units had an area of m2, and they were intended for accommodation of two persons so that two single people shared accommodation in one unit. Average area of the residential space per person was m2. The units did not have individual electric meters. The buildings did not have any cellars, auxiliary facilities or the terraces, which proved to be a major disadvantage. This was due to the fact that until 2005 the project was funded by the Humanitarian Aid Programme of SDC and the funds were very limited. In addition, as this project was a new approach to providing accommodation to the most vulnerable and its results were not visible yet, it was qualified as an expensive and luxurious one, which significantly affected the need to reduce the expenses. Lack of auxiliary facilities, small area of the flats, common electric meters and accommodation of two non-related single persons together were the most frequent complaints of the beneficiaries of the projects implemented until These complaints were registered in the questionnaires and during the interviews with the Centers for Social Work and the beneficiaries. Despite the fact that most of the municipalities have made efforts to reduce and solve the problem with their own means, there are still traces of original deficiencies. 14 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

15 After 2005 financing of the programme was taken over by the European Union through European Agency for Reconstruction, within CARDS programme. That was an opportunity to get an insight into the project experiences gathered during the monitoring performed by Housing Center in 2005 and to eliminate the negative ones. The first results of the project were evaluated and the project expenses got their confirmation. At the donor s initiative, standards in the flats and buildings were upgraded and the problems registered in the earlier period have not been repeated any longer. The area of an average unit has been increased to 40 m2 and different structures of the flats have been provided, including the flats for single persons. Average area per person has been increased to 13 to 15 m2 (for the single that area is m2). Each unit has got its own pantry and terrace. The buildings are no longer designed as typical structures. Each building, with its outline and number of floors, fits into the town planning conditions of the location. Number of the units also varies from one project to another and it meets the needs of the local community concerned. The structures are designed as to enable interaction and contact with the neighbours thus contributing to the beneficiaries social integration. Since the beginning of the implementation, a big attention has been paid to the common facilities as the spaces for contact and communication common living rooms, laundries and terraces. The ground floors of the buildings are accessible for people with disabilities. The buildings are of high quality construction, and since they are relatively new, they have not required any big maintenance expenses so far. Some individual cases of failures on water line and electrical installation have been registered but they have been successfully rectified. During the visits to the buildings a lot of flowers and trees have been noticed. The tenants and the Host Families, mainly at the initiative of the Host Families, invest a lot of effort and affection in cultivation of their surroundings. This has been recognized as another indicator of the beneficiaries integration and their feeling of belonging to the housing community....this is a really nice part of Valjevo. A new settlement, it is quiet, and we are in the part where the primary school is, as well as the kindergarten, infirmary, post office, and we joke that we are in the very center of the New Settlement. But in fact we are the church is here, and the public transport that takes us to the town center in ten minutes. I find it even better than the center. My child is 20 meters from school; we are the first neighbours with the school...this is a small area but very well organized, functional, warm in winter, I don t have to worry where my child is going, and where from.... Somehow I feel calm... (Vesna Koljančić, beneficiary of SHSE, Valjevo) The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 15

16 2.2 LEGAL FRAME According to the Social Welfare and Citizens Social Security Law of the Republic of Serbia this form of protection is fully in the realm of the municipalities. By Article 9, para 4 of the Law it is determined that, in addition to the rights defined by the Law, the municipality can, with its Decision, in compliance with its financial capacity, determine other rights in the field of social welfare, a bigger scope of rights defined by the Law and more favourable conditions for their exercising, as well as other forms of protection, providing that it has allocated the necessary funds in its budget. Strategic documents of the Republic of Serbia (Poverty Reduction Strategy, Social Protection Development Strategy, Sustainable Development Strategy and such like), define as its priority development of different services in the community that are in the capacity of the local self-governments (decentralization), which meet the needs of their inhabitants, especially the support needed by the vulnerable categories (children, elderly, refugees and displaced persons and such like). The services should be in the best interest of the beneficiaries, accessible, rendered in the least restrictive environment (in the beneficiary s home), with the beneficiary s participation, responsibility, independence and activation of his or her own potentials and ensure the integrity and continuity of the protection (support). All local communities on the territory of which the buildings for this form of protection have been built, except for the municipality of Rakovica, have recognized the need for a special support to their beneficiaries and have entered this form of protection as a right in their Decisions on social welfare (in one of them adoption of the Decision is in the process), or a special Decision has been adopted related just to this form. The municipality of Rakovica, although it signed the Agreement that obliged it, in compliance with the principles stated in the concept, to define this form of protection and the conditions for its usage, has failed to do that. The contracts signed with the beneficiaries are not clear enough and leave room for abuse. As in the meantime some other Belgrade municipalities have expressed their interest in this form of protection, the City of Belgrade is expected to decide in respect to development of this service. 16 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

17 The Decisions made so far determine the right, regulate the conditions for its exercising in compliance with the citizens needs, specific situations and capacities of the municipalities, and just in one of the municipalities conditions for its exercising, i.e. its functioning, have not been determined. According to the Decisions, in all the municipalities the town/municipality holds the right to use the buildings, while the Center for Social Work is entrusted with the management of the building. Expenses for the capital maintenance are always provided from the municipal budget, and most of the municipalities have also entrusted the Centers for Social Work with the maintenance of the buildings. The Decision in the municipality of Vranje has especially emphasized the responsibility of the Center for the usage of the building for the intended purpose and improvement of the beneficiaries position, but it has not been entrusted with the maintenance of the building. In compliance with the Decisions, the beneficiaries of this form of protection in all the municipalities are elderly persons and couples, self-supporting single parents (with children), families with a member suffering from a chronic disease or hindered in physical and psychological development. Most of the municipalities have anticipated that the beneficiaries can also be young people without parental care who are in the phase of becoming independent, and in one of them also children and the youth hindered in development. Almost all municipalities have defined as their priority beneficiaries persons with no financial means (meaning that the beneficiaries at the same time receive family income support in some municipalities it is a condition that they have to be single parents with children and families with a bigger number of members). In respect to the elderly, in some municipalities a condition has been determined that they do not need other people s care and assistance, while in some other municipalities that is exactly a precondition. Other conditions determined in some municipalities are - People with no housing provided whose income does not exceed 50% of the average monthly salary in the municipality in the previous month, with no relatives who according to the Family Care Law are obliged to participate in their sustenance (Paraćin) - Beneficiaries of the allowances for other people s assistance and care if they have no property, and whose average monthly income in the last three months preceding the application date does not exceed 50% of average salary in the municipality (Zaječar) - Persons suffering from a serious chronic disease and have no property, whose average monthly income in the last three months preceding the application date does not exceed 50% of average monthly salary in the municipality (Zaječar) - Families with three or more minor children with no property whose average monthly income in the last three months preceding the application date does not exceed 50% of average monthly salary in the municipality (Zaječar) - Exceptionally other persons if the expert team of the Center for Social Work estimates that the need is exceptional and immediate (Zaječar, Petrovac na Mlavi). The Decisions in Vranje, Niš and Kragujevac define as a condition for displaced persons from inadequate private accommodation a minimum two-year residence on the town territory. By the Decision of the municipality of Crna Trava it is determined that SHSE is intended for: «providing for the citizens living in precarious conditions, without proper housing, who have inner potentials and with the professional assistance of the Center for Social Work and the Host of social housing, relying on each other, can overcome the obstacles of social character, loneliness and fear of disease, as long as they do not need other people s assistance and care». The Decision also anticipates that exceptionally the building can be temporarily, and for a period not longer than one year, used by individuals or families without proper housing, who do not meet other condition from The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 17

18 the Decision, providing that they agree to bear the costs of the rent (in accordance with the prevailing regulations) and all other costs related to usage of the housing unit. It is important to mention that in this municipality there used to be a collective center for refugees, which was closed, as well as that since the beneficiaries moved in until this very day the full capacity of the building has not been occupied by the beneficiaries who this form of protection, both by its concept and by the Decision of the municipality, was intended for. At the same time, being a small municipality, exceptionally undeveloped and strongly affected by depopulation, it needs human resources. In compliance with the Decisions, selection of the beneficiaries is mainly done by the Centers for Social Work that also issue the Decision on termination of the right. In the municipality of Crna Trava the Center needs approval of the Municipal Council, and in the municipality of Požega selection is in the capacity of the Managing Board of CSW at the proposal of the expert team of CSW, while in a number of municipalities a special Commission is appointed consisting of the representatives of CSR, the municipality and the Commissariat formed by the Managing Board of the Center. The municipality of Vranje has regulated only the first selection of beneficiaries, while the conditions for new beneficiaries will be subsequently determined by a special document. The right to this form of protection in all municipalities (as for other rights in the field of social welfare) is determined by the decision of CSW, and rights and obligations, both for beneficiaries and Host Families, are regulated by a contract signed with the Center for Social Work. Contracts on usage of this service have been signed with the beneficiaries in all municipalities, except in Rakovica. In most cases they have been signed for an unlimited period, for as long as the beneficiaries meet the conditions. In a number of municipalities they have been signed for a defined period (2, 5 or 10 years). In most Decisions reconsideration of the usage right (revision) is proscribed, most often once a year, and in some of them quarterly. The Decisions determine that the beneficiaries lose the right: - When the expert team of the Center for Social Work estimates that the beneficiary needs another form of protection, in case that there is a change in his or her family, work, legal or ownership status that affects his or her right to use the building, - If he or she does not use the space and equipment for the intended purpose, - If his or her behaviour breaks the house rules and disturbs other tenants in their undisturbed usage of the accommodation (few cases so far, exceptionally), - If they do not pay the expenses, - By the beneficiary s death. In some Decisions it has been specified that the family members of the diseased continue to exercise this right. Beneficiaries participation in tenancy related expenses In all municipalities the Decisions determine that the beneficiaries participate in covering the expenses related to accommodation with their income exceeding the minimum social security determined by the Social Welfare and Citizens Social Security Law. Some municipalities, in accordance with the Decisions, cover the expenses with the funds from their budget (fully or partly) for heating, compensation for the Host s work, and in one municipality all the expenses are covered from the budget, although the Decision proscribed beneficiaries participation. The Host Families in most municipalities fully cover their expenses themselves. Compensation for Host s work Compensation for Host s work is determined in relation to the nominal monthly amount of family income support for a four-member family, and it ranges, in the municipalities with a bigger number of beneficiaries in the building, up to 2.5 times bigger amount. Compensation in the majority of the municipalities is part of the price for the services borne by the beneficiaries according to their income exceeding the amount of social security. By the Decision in Crna Trava no compensation is anticipated for the Host s work. 18 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

19 Conditions for Host Family s functioning, Host Family s and beneficiaries rights and obligations In some municipalities the Decisions on the Rights themselves regulate in detail the conditions, Host s obligations and rights: in Crna Trava it is determined that the Host Family is allocated a two-room flat, and the condition is that they have no proper housing, have members with working capacity, have finished the training organized by CSW according to the programme for fosterers, that have an ability to develop good neighbourly relationship and encourage mutual support among the beneficiaries. The Host Family is responsible for respecting of the house rules and submits, at the request of CSW, reports on the situation in the building. It can be replaced for its misconduct, irresponsible relation towards the beneficiaries and the situation in the building, as well as for personally caused damage in respect to conduct, relationship and property. The Decision in the municipality of Valjevo defines special conditions for the Host: the family members have to be able to work, the Host should have finished the training programme for foster families, and they have to be well integrated in the community. They should also have practical skills needed for repairs in and outside the building and in the garden. They should also be tolerant in relations with other people coming from different cultural background and with different values. As per the Decision in Zaječar, the Host of social housing can be a socially vulnerable family with no proper housing that is considered a functional family according to the criteria for selection of foster families defined by the Law. Certain municipalities have issued additional documents (Regulation Books concerning the house rules), which provide more detailed procedures for exercise and termination of the rights, obligations and responsibilities of beneficiaries and Host alike. Some unusual solutions have been mentioned, which very often cause confusion, are inapplicable, limit the independence and are not in accordance with the Decision, such as: -In the beneficiaries selection process the Center for Social Work applies Regulation Book concerning the housing needs of the beneficiaries the question is whether the conditions for exercising the right to Social Housing in Supportive Environment are the same as for solving housing needs? - Usage of hot-plates and other heating gadgets is forbidden does that mean that nobody can use any additional energy source in the flat (between two seasons, for example?). Isn t that an unnecessary restriction of living conditions? The municipality of Požarevac has made the most detailed definition of the Host Family s rights, obligations and responsibilities, in two Regulation Books adopted by the Managing Board of the Center for Social Work in 2005: 1. The Regulation Book Concerning the House Rules that determines the basic rules in regards to the Host Family and beneficiaries conduct. Some of the rules that are not comprised in the documents issued by other municipalities: - They are obliged to maintain good neighbourly and interpersonal relationships among them, the Hosts are obliged to encourage tolerance and cooperation among the beneficiaries, with mutual support and full respect of personal integrity and dignity of others - In order to ensure security at night, the Hosts are obliged to lock the buildings from 10:00 p.m. until 06:00 a.m. The beneficiaries are obliged to inform the Host in due time if they have a serious need to come in later or leave before the said hours. - The measures anticipated for non-conformance with the Regulation Book. Measures of warning and last warning before expulsion are given by the manager and the Managing Board of CSW decides on expulsion. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 19

20 2. Regulation Book Concerning the Beneficiaries and Host Family s rights, obligations and responsibilities. The Regulation Book determines that the beneficiaries are divided into two categories: - Beneficiaries with preserved capacities for independent living (they move, maintain personal hygiene, put clothes and shoes on, perform everyday tasks in their homes and other functions of independent living without other people s assistance); - Beneficiaries with slightly reduced abilities (those who can perform the above specified activities, but with bigger effort and difficulties for which reason they need other people s, full or partial, assistance in performing more difficult activities, such as general cleaning of the flat, washing and ironing, shopping for everyday things and medicines, etc.). Categorization of the beneficiaries is performed by the expert team of CSW. General duties of the Host Family are compulsory training, cooperating with the Center for Social Work and beneficiaries, encouraging good cooperation between the beneficiaries and the domicile population in order to achieve a better integration, respecting the house rules and taking care that other beneficiaries do the same. More concrete duties of the Host Family in relation to other beneficiaries are to observe, with due diligence, that the building and equipment are used for the intended purpose, to take the measures necessary for removing the risks of damage and to propose to the Center the relevant measures, to maintain the hygiene in common premises inside the building and in the adjacent surroundings on daily basis, to ensure timely provision of fuel, to take it over and ensure optimum heating in the winter period, as well as to ensure that the access to the building is free from ice and snow. In addition, concrete duties of the Host Family are to perform twice a year general cleaning of the flats of the beneficiaries with reduced abilities, to do the laundry and ironing at the beneficiaries request, to maintain regular contacts with the beneficiaries twice a day, in the morning and in the evening to check on their health and possible needs in regards to shopping: means necessary for everyday life, medicines or to help them reach the nearest medical institution. All these duties are valued in percents in the Regulation Book, and the compensation for the Host s work (amounting up to the level of family income support for a four-member family) belongs to the Host only if the building is fully occupied and when all the beneficiaries are in the second category. Measures are anticipated in case that the Host Family fails to comply with their obligations, depending on the gravity of the resulting consequences (warning, final warning before expulsion and expulsion). This Regulation Book also defines the beneficiaries and Host Family s running costs and their participation in their covering. Beneficiaries participate in compensation for Host with contributions, providing that it is reduced in the summer months for the part related to the jobs that are only done in the winter period. Efficient functioning of this form of social protection requires continuous work and engagement of the Center for Social Work. The municipal Decisions on the citizens social protection determine, among other things, obligation to allocate funds from the municipal budget for financing of the jobs related to exercising the rights within its realm, which the local self-govrnmenrs are also obliged to by the provisions of articles of the Social Welfare and Citizens Social Security Law. In practice, in a bigger number of municipalities no additional funds have been provided for these new jobs of the Center. 20 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

21 2.3 BENEFICIARIES Beneficiaries profile statistical and demographic data In October 2009 in buildings of SHSE there were altogether persons, i.e., 426 families. They use accommodation in 404 housing units built in 21 municipalities in Serbia. a. Target groups of beneficiaries In the first years of implementation, until 2005, the project was exclusively intended for the needs of refugees dwelling in collective centers throughout Serbia. The project objectives were strictly related to the strategy for closure of the collective centers, which in 2003 was coordinated and systematically implemented by the Government of the Republic of Serbia, i.e., the Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia. In 2003, when the project implementation started, there were 344 active collective centers in Serbia that hosted refugees and internally displaced persons. In 2005 the Serbian Government adopted the National Strategy for Solving the Problems of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, by which it confirmed its determination to close the collective centers. Since 2006 on the programme has been intended for internally displaced persons as well, and not just those accommodated in collective centers but for those who live in inadequate private accommodation as well. Since then the project has not been so linked to the closure of the collective centers, but also to the provision of dignified living conditions to the most vulnerable. Accommodation of internally displaced persons in the buildings of SHSE is planned to last until the conditions have been met for a safe and voluntary return of families and individuals to Kosovo and Metohija, providing that they need social assistance. 2 2 Excerpt from the Contract on Cooperation in Project Implementation, Niš 2007 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 21

22 Since the very beginning of the project implementation it has been determined that up to 20% of the housing units shall be intended for the needs of domicile vulnerable population. As per the Contract on Cooperation signed by the partners prior to commencement of each project implementation, which has been in force since 2006, beneficiaries are socially vulnerable refugees and internally displaced persons and families from collective centers or inadequate private accommodation and socially vulnerable persons or families from the local community, interested in this form of housing, as follows: 1. Socially vulnerable persons and families that, due to a physical or mental disease, a chronic disease or disability of a family member cannot provide livelihood subsistence. 2. Self-supporting single parents and 3. Elderly persons single and couples, able to live independently. domicile population 18% Refugees 51% Internally displaced persons 31% Refugees Internally displaced persons domicile population Out of the total number of beneficiaries, 560 persons (51%) entered the programme with the refugee status, 347 persons (31%) are internally displaced persons and 197 persons (18%) entered the programme as domicile population. All the beneficiaries from domicile population are beneficiaries of family income support, very often on the grounds of working disability. Those are persons and families that had been beneficiaries of the services rendered by the Center for Social Work for years. Out of total number of 907 accommodated refugees and IDPs, 822 persons (91%) came from collective centers and 85 persons, (9%) from inadequate private accommodation. Number of persons coming from inadequate private accommodation is proportionally small because private accommodation was included in the project only in Percentage of persons coming from collective centers illustrates the influence that SHSE project had on the closure of collective centers in Serbia. b. Family structure An average SHSE beneficiary family has got 2,37 members. There is a big proportion of singles families - 21%, the number of which, according to the report of the Commissariat for Refugees, is growing in collective centers as the process of their closure is proceeding. The biggest number is of two-member households 38%. 22 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

23 six-member 4% five-member 5% four-member 17% 72 three-member 15% 65 two-member 38% 163 single-member 21% Until 2006 no separate housing units were anticipated for singles households, but they shared a housing unit even if they were not related. Minimum family size was two members. For that reason, as per the results of the research, there is a bigger number of families than the units (singles households were treated as one-member families). Their ratio is 426 families to 404 units. There are still non-related singles sharing housing units and that is a big cause of dissatisfaction among the beneficiaries, although this approach was abandoned in In the projects implemented after 2006 about 10% of the total number of built housing units is allocated to singles. c. Age structure Age structure has been changing over the years while at the beginning of the programme beneficiaries were mainly elderly people, during the implementation and analysis of the needs, selfsupporting single parents with children and other socially vulnerable families, who due to a physical or mental disease, a chronic disease or disability of a family member cannot provide livelihood subsistance 3 have become the predominant beneficiary category. That change contributed to heterogeneous age structure of beneficiaries, representing both young and elderly ones, men and women alike. > 55 years old 25% 0-6 years old 3% 7-18 years old 23% You know what the main problem here is two women who had not known each other before live together. You cannot put them together Shall I cook or shall she cook There is always some kind of injustice. It would be a good deed to separate them. A really good deed (Velinka Vulić, Pančevo) years old 34% years old 15% Women (585) are 54% of beneficiaries and 46% are men (505). Persons older than 55 represent 25% of beneficiaries, while 18% of beneficiaries are elderly people over 65 and 26% are children up to 19 years old. 3 Excerpt from the Contract on Cooperation in Project Implementation, Kragujevac years old 7-18 years old years old years old > 55 years old The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 23

24 d. Ethnical structure Beneficiaries of SHSE programme are mainly Serbs, refugees from Bosnia and Croatia and internally displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija. Until 2006 the programme was exclusively intended for refugees. After 2006 IDPs have become the prevailing beneficiary category. Rroma 17.2% Rroma 5.5% other IDPs Rroma 17.2% 82.8% 94.5% Rroma 5.5% 94.5% In our building there are Albanians and Serbs and Rroma and we live normally. (Miroslav Ristić, host family, Niš) Official data of the Republican Institute of Statistics indicate that the percentage of Rroma population registered as IDPs is about 11%. It is considered, however, that among IDPs there are over Rroma persons (19%) who mainly live in slums, with no address or personal documents. In collective centers there are about Rroma persons, which represent about 20% of the total number of accommodated persons. 4 In relation to the total number of accommodated IDPs, percentage of the Rroma population in SHSE project is 17% (60 persons), and it is proportional to the participation of Rroma population in the total number of IDPs in Serbia. In relation to the total number of the accommodated, representation of the Rroma population is 6%. In the past few years in Serbia a lot of prejudice has been registered following the attempts to solve the housing problems of the Rroma. During the implementation of SHSE projects no difficulties have been noticed in regards to accommodation of the Rroma beneficiaries. Rroma beneficiaries of SHSE project are included in the systems of social welfare and education; very often they are employed or have some work engagement. In some cases Rroma families are beneficiaries of self-employment programme and included in vocational training programmes. Neither the Centers for Social Work nor the beneficiaries of the Programme have mentioned any conflicts among the beneficiaries and problems that would be due to their different ethnical background. It can be concluded that SHSE project provides conditions for cohabitation and equality of all beneficiaries regardless of their ethnical origin, especially the Rroma tenants. e. Educational profile Beneficiaries educational structure is very unfavourable. They are mainly illiterate and semi-literate persons or persons with only primary education, with no qualifications, who come from rural environment and lived in collective centers for many years. Their capacities to actively struggle against the challenges of a new environment, after the war and refugee status traumas, including finding employment, are very low. They are additionally debilitated by a long period of living in collective centers that led to a passive approach and loss of initiative. This very low level of education and a long lasting exposure to traumas are the main reasons that categorize them among the persons that, in addition to proper housing solution, need a support in the process of social integration. 4 Official presentation of the Serbian Commissariat for Refugees, 24 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

25 4% 8% 39% illiterate 49% primary school secondary school hiher vocational education Total of 8% of beneficiaries older than 18 are illiterate and 49% have only primary education (in Serbia, percentage of illiterate inhabitants is 3,6% and 24% have only primary education 5 ). Beneficiaries with secondary or high education (4%) are either members of Host Families or beneficiaries children who have finished schools. Beneficiaries educational profile stated by the research provides additional evidence that their extreme social vulnerability almost 2/3 of the poor in Serbia are those who have finished only primary school or some lower level of education, which corresponds to the profile of beneficiaries of SHSE. Poverty is closely related to the educational level and consequently to the status of persons and households at the labour market. It is a vicious circle in which the beneficiaries are, and they need support to get out of it. f. Health and social status persons with disabilities 8.4% others 63% single parents 10.7% elderly persons 17.8% j elderly persons single parents persons with disabilitie others Out of the total number of accommodated people, 22% have medical problems and suffer from a chronic disease. Total of 8% of beneficiaries are people with disabilities, 11% are families of selfsupporting single parents. In addition, 18% of beneficiaries are elderly people over 65 (and it is well-known that these people in average suffer from three or more diseases) who very often need medical services and different types of support for a good-quality life. 5 Republican Institute of Statistics, Belgrade, The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 25

26 g. Working ability As per the processed data concerning the insight into beneficiaries medical records and decisions issued by the commissions for disability, which was performed by the Centers for Social Work, altogether 385 beneficiaries (35%) are with working ability. It is a big question, though, if they are RE- ALLY and up to which degree able to work although they are physically well. Beneficiaries of SHSE suffer from deep psychological traumas caused by the war, displacement and long-lasting living in collective centers that are not visible at first sight but debilitate their capacities and represent an obstacle in working engagement and integration. The remaining 65% of adults are beneficiaries without working ability (elderly people, children attending schools, persons with disabilities, and such like). h. Individuals and families that have left the project Total number of 56 persons have left the project so far (5%). Out of that number 15 persons have died while 41 persons have left the project as their circumstances have changed family reunion, purchase of a village household, return to the country of origin and such like. It is assumed that new life circumstances have brought an improvement to the families and a better solution. 4% 1% 95% left died others Two families have been moved out because they disturbed other beneficiaries and failed to respect the house rules and conduct standards despite expert consultations and interventions of the Center. Vacant units were occupied by socially vulnerable domicile population. Selection of the new beneficiaries was done by the Center for Social Work, i.e., the Commission apponited by the local selfgovernment, according to the criteria defined by the municipal Decision on social protection Indicators of beneficiaries social inclusion Successful social integration is not possible without availability of all human rights and conditions created by the state in provision of a good-quality life in accordance with the level achieved in the society. These conditions should ensure possibilities for fulfilling the basic living needs (in the field of housing, employment, education, health care, culture and such like), with activation of personal 26 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

27 potentials of each individual, ie., the support of the society which they need to achieve a goodquality life. Social inclusion is defined as a process that enables those who risk poverty and social exclusion to get the possibility and means that they need for full participation in economical, social and cultural life and achievement of the living standard and wellbeing that are considered normal in the society where they are living. It ensures a bigger participation in decision-making process, which affects their lives and exercising of basic rights. 6 Research on the effects of SHSE project on the SHSE beneficiaries inclusion degree relied on the following measurable indicators of social integration: a. Obtaining of citizenship Out of 560 persons that initially had the refugee status and on that grounds entered the project, in September 2009 only 111 persons still had it. Total number of 449 persons (81%) have changed their status and have become citizens of Serbia since the moment of moving in into a building of SHSE. If that fact is taken as an indicator of achieved conditions for social inclusion and refugees will for social integration, it can be considered that it has been successfully achieved. In comparison to 2006 when 37% persons changed their status, the process has made a big progress. It means a lot to people to live like all the others, and not as refugees, in collective centers. (Miroslav Ristić, Host Family Niš) in the moment of moving in in % in % present state in % Persons who still have the refugee status explain this with inability to obtain personal documents in the country of origin, despite efforts of the Centers for Social Work and Commissariat for Refugees to provide them assistance in that respect. It has been noticed, however, that some individuals are manipulating with their status as there is nothing to oblige them to give their refugee ID back and abandon the refugee status once they have obtained the citizenship of Serbia. They are doing this trying to achieve as big security for their family and themselves as possible. However, doing so they themselves suffer damage as in this way they cannot get the family income support offered by the social welfare system (family income support, rights to financial support to their family and such like). Altogether 349 beneficiaries (32%) have the status of IDP and are citizens of Serbia. Percentage of the domicile population is 18%. b. Employment Out of 385 persons with working ability only 106 (27%) have a legal employment. Out of the total number of those in work 34 persons, (32%) have got an employment after moving into the buildings 6 Council of the EU, 2004: 8 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 27

28 of SHSE. Centers for Social Work helped 17 persons to get a job, i.e. 50% of the newly employed have found a job with the assistance of the Center for Social Work....You know, I will never permit myself to fall down to family income support as long as I can. As long as I can. We don t want to live upon someone s alms because we are able to work, and the two of them could do some work. I d rather they do some work, it would be better for them as well, than to wait to alms. (Ljubica Šimandli, beneficiary of SHSE, Niš) 28% 7% 3% 62% unemployed with no working ability unemployed with working ability employed before moving in employed after moving in Percentage of newly employed persons, i.e., the persons who got a job after moving in into the buildings, especially of the persons assisted by CSW, illustrates the support provided in overcoming the obstacles at the labour market and contributing to their social integration. That support is very important in difficult employment conditions caused by the following: - Beneficiaries low educational level, - High unemployment rate in Serbia, - Insufficient cooperation between the Centers for Social Work and the National Employment Agency (NEA) in a number of municipalities, - Questionable working ability of a big number of beneficiaries with formal working ability which is due to the traumas they have gone through, - Effects of family income support, i.e., temporary compensation for IDPs on their passive approach to employment 7 Experts believe that family income support does not encourage persons with working ability to work. Centers for Social Work emphasize that there are no mechanisms for work activation of the beneficiaries who receive family income support which results in a poverty trap. The beneficiaries, on the other hand, believe that unemployment is their main problem as well as that a job is what they need most. They stress out that they are not able to find a job themselves because of their low level of education or because unemployment is generally high. 8 Activation through full-time employment or alternative activities such as voluntary work, education of adults or supported work is a way to help people overcome difficulties at the labour market and thus contribute to their own social inclusion. Measures taken in Niš should be emphasized as a positive example. Namely, one-time assistance to the beneficiaries with working ability is conditioned by their participation in public works organized by the local government. A big rate of persons with a long-lasting unemployment has been registered those who have been out of work for more than 12 months. The longer they are unemployed the less chance they have to get a job again. Effects of a long-lasting unemployment are giving up on looking for a job and inactive status discouragement and their exclusion from the labour market and services of NEA. 7 Beneficiaries of a temporary compensation from Kosovo and Metohija, Group 484, September Document concerning family income support and children protection in Serbia, The World Bank and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, June Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

29 c. Children s education It is rather encouraging that all the children aged 7-19 living with their parents in the buildings of SHSE attend primary or secondary schools on regular basis 226 children or 100%.Total number of 39 children are at university, out of which number one is at master studies. That is these children and their parents shortest way out of poverty and at the same time an indicator of their social inclusion. It is important to say that this refers to Rroma children as well, i.e., all Rroma children in SHSE are included in educational system....my child is my main preoccupation now, to provide her education each parent has a dream to give her or his child livelihood (Vesna Koljančić, beneficiary of SHSE, Valjevo) pre-school 6.8% 157 primary 53.6% d. Family income and livelihood subsistence Total number of 218 families (51%) have no income at all. Among them the domicile families are predominant as many as 151 families (69%). This is due to the fact that one of the conditions for the domicile population was that they are beneficiaries of family income support, mainly on the grounds of working inability. 77 secondary 26.3% Educational level 38 university 12.9% 1 master's 0.3%...That is why this computer course organized by the Center for Social Work down in the common living room is as good as gold for us.... I say, let them be safe and sound and they can study not to suffer like this one day. There are a lot of Rroma children whose parents are illiterate and they have nobody to help them, so that this especially means a lot to them. (Biljana Radovanović, Host Family, Kragujevac) Pensions are received by 15% of beneficiaries (162 persons), 10% of beneficiaries (106 persons) are employed and receive monthly salary. Family income is scarce and it is difficult to survive upon it. Beneficiaries stated a constant lack of money as their biggest problem. Money is scarce mainly for basic necessities medicines and food. In addition, it is difficult to pay communal services and electricity bills and a big number of families can do it with delays or not on regular basis. e. Family income support and social assistance A big number of families that are beneficiaries of SHSE have obtained the right to receive family income support, more precisely 151 families out of 430 accommodated ones (35%). Percentage of family income support beneficiaries in SHSE projects is very high since in Serbia the rate of family income support beneficiaries is 1% in relation to the number of households. 9 Conditions for obtaining the right to family income support and caregiver s assistance are regulated by the the Social Welfare and Citizens Social Security Law. Family income support is a regular monthly financial aid that belongs to individuals or families whose income is below the minimum level of social security determined by the Law. 9 Social protection and social inclusion in Serbia, The Institute of Economics, Belgrade, 2008 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 29

30 one-time assistance 46% family support 14% caregiver's benefit 9% family income support 35% Number of families Number of families using the service Number of families not using the service In accordance with the Social Welfare and Citizens Social Security Law and Family with Children Income Support Law, a lot of beneficiary families of SHSE project receive, in addition to family income support and caregiver s benefit, child benefit. Total number of 37 families (9%) receive caregiver s benefit, 61 families (14%) receive child benefit, while 198 families (46%) have received one-time assistance. These data are another confirmation of the beneficiaries high vulnerability but also of the level of their inclusion in the social welfare system of Serbia. Out of 16 Rroma families in SHSE projects, 9 families receive family income support and 13 receive child benefit. Rroma families that do not receive family income support receive temporary compensation from Kosovo and Metohija. That proves that Rroma beneficiaries have also obtained personal documents since for both family income support and child benefit a lot of documents have to be submitted, which is a big burden for beneficiaries, especially the Rroma ones. Rroma families very often do not even have the basic documentation residence registration and citizenship. Centers for Social Work helped all the beneficiaries who had no documents to obtain them. Coverage of Rroma families with social protection in SHSE project is very high. Both the beneficiaries of the assistance and the institutions rendering it agree that the amount of family income support in Serbia is too low to really affect their living standard. However, for the families that have no other income, family income support is of major significance. Monthly benefits are important because they are regular and certain. They are especially valuable for Rroma families, disabled persons who are not able to work and families with a big number of members. As per the data of the World Bank for 2003, poverty rate of the beneficiaries of family income support still remains very high despite receiving these transfers. f. Subventions Obtaining of the right to family income support is important as criteria for obtaining other kinds of assistance such as free of charge school books, transportation, medical treatment and such like. Beneficiaries of SHSE, being the beneficiaries of family income support, exercise the right to all subventions recognized at the local and republican level. By a decision of Public Electric Company at the republican level it has been determined that all beneficiaries of family income support are entitled to reduced electricity bills for 30% up to a certain number of spent kilowatts. At local level, each local slef-government, by its Decision on social protection of its citizens, in ac- 30 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

31 cordance with its own capacities and concrete needs, determines additional benefits for the most vulnerable ones and they differ from one municipality to another. In most municipalities beneficiaries of family income support have free of charge transportation, use soup kitchen and such like (types of subventions are specified in the chapter describing the role of municipality). In a lot of municipalities, beneficiaries of SHSE have got additional subventions besides those received by other socially vulnerable citizens in the municipality, which were determined by the local community recognizing their extreme sensitivity. In Apatin, for example, beneficiaries are completely exempted form paying all communal expenses, in Vranje they are exempted from all communal expenses related to usage of the flats including central heating, except for electricity bills, in Bač, although not determined by the municipal Decision, all communal expenses and electricity bills are paid from the municipal budget, in Kraljevo beneficiaries are exempted from garbage collection and TV subscription, etc. For these reasons, sometimes, collocutors in the Centers for Social Work point out that other socially vulnerable citizens (who are not beneficiaries of SHSE services) are not in equal but rather less favourable position. (Representatives of the municipality and CSW in Paraćin, for example, think that the beneficiaries are over-protected in relation to the rest of the population). g. Participation in payments of flat usage related expenses Current expenses related to beneficiaries living in the buildings include: 1. Financial means for existence of those beneficiaries who have no income or have income below the level of social security defined by the Law and 2. Funds for consumption of electricity, water, heating and public utility services. The municipality shall determine more in detail, by its Decision on the rights in the field of social protection, how the current expenses are to be paid 10, which means that each municipality or town, in compliance with its capacities but also with the stated needs of the beneficiaries, defines which expenses and to which extent are to be paid by the beneficiaries. The research shows that, in compliance with the respective Decisions: families (26%) do not participate in payment of any expenses, - 92 families (21%) partly participate in payment of the expenses, families (53%) pay their expenses themselves, This means that for 47% of the families expenses are paid, partly or fully, by municipality or town respectively. do not pay anything 26% pay the costs party pay the costs themselves pay the costs themselves pay the costs party do not pay anything While selecting the beneficiaries for this building priority was given to the tenants of collective centers. They were used to not paying anything for years and now they are complaining for having to pay. (Vranje, Director of CSW) Beneficiaries expect not to pay communal services, which they were used to living in collective centers, and failure to meet these expectations is a big source of dissatisfaction. In addition, in collective centers they got used to having all their problems solved by someone else and not worrying about anything. (Bajina Bašta, Refugee Trustee). 10 From the Contracts on Cooperation, made in accordance with the concept and are the same in all municipalities The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 31

32 People lived in collective centers and are used to not having to pay anything (Niš, social worker in CSW). Payment of expenses is a big problem for beneficiaries of SHSE as the lack of money is one of the most frequently mentioned problems. A lot of municipalities have recognized the level and complexity of these beneficiaries social vulnerability. In some municipalities local self-governments have met the needs of some beneficiaries with some, sometimes with very high, subventions. Nevertheless, in a big number of cases beneficiaries do not pay their obligations regularly or completely refuse to pay even those highly subsidized prices for public utility services. Besides beneficiaries objectively difficult financial situation, additional reason for this is the influence of beneficiaries long-lasting living in collective centers. h. Beneficiaries additional investments in the building Despite beneficiaries difficult financial situation they managed to find money (their own or donors ) and energy for additional investments into buildings and housing units that they are using. These investments mainly include interventions that would improve living conditions and have been given in places where the municipalities have no funds, and sometimes no understanding for beneficiaries initiatives to do that for them. Beneficiaries investments mainly referred to the following: - Telephone installation in flats, i.e., registration of telephone line and payment of taxes (Niš), - Cable TV installation (Niš), - Landscaping and greenery in the area surrounding the building (in almost all municipalities), - Construction of auxiliary buildings as temporary structures in the building yards, which made up for the lack of auxiliary facilities (Novi Sad, Crna Trava), and such like. Beneficiaries initiated investments in improvement of the housing conditions, achieved an agreement concerning the value of the investments and shared the expenses. Doing that they managed to obtain favourable prices and donated assistance, which reduced the expenses of their investments. i. Beneficiaries satisfaction level Being asked in the questionnaire how high, according to the Center, beneficiaries satisfaction level is (between 1 and 10) the Centers gave their average mark according to which the beneficiaries satisfaction degree has been graded as 7. They are asking for what they lost there. And nobody can give them that. (Vranje, Director of CSW) In the interviews with beneficiaries it has been stated that their satisfaction level with the project is high, although there are some issues that they are not satisfied with such as: - Obligation to pay HostFamily s work, - Lack of livelihood subsistence, - Lack of employment possibilities, - Lack of possibility to buy the flat off, (and even if that were possible, they would have no funds for that), - Uncertainty in regards to how long they can stay in the building - Insecurity of their status if their life situation changes and such like Centers for Social Work emphasize that beneficiaries expectations are sometimes unrealistic as nobody can compensate them for what they lost in the war and during the refuge. 32 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

33 2.4 MAIN STAKEHOLDERS Center for Social Work Center for Social Work is the main unit in the social welfare system in Serbia and it performs public powers and professional tasks in implementation of social welfare and social work on the municipal level. Center for Social Work is the pillar of SHSE projects. It is a creator and the main actor around which the supportive environment and protected living conditions develop. Rendering different services to individuals and families in SHSE project is a continuous process, which consists of a number of activities provided by Center for Social Work and Host Family. The role of the Center for Social Work is to observe the needs of the beneficiaries, define the needed type of assistance, render the services in its realm, cooperate with other services, NGOs and other organizations in the local environment in order to facilitate their performance and engagement, as well as to provide a continuous support. 1. Rendering social protection services In accordance with the prevailing Social Welfare and Citizens Social Security Law, beneficiaries can exercise the following rights: - Family income support - One-time assistance - Caregiver s benefit - Benefit for care and assistance with housework The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 33 There is a wide range of services so that it could be said that there are no unavailable services that might be needed by the beneficiaries of this form of housing, but even when being offered the beneficiaries have not been interested in using them. (Pančevo, a social worker in CSW)

34 - Daycare - Services of clubs for children and the elderly - Food on wheels - Informing and advising - Residential care - Psychological support - Urgent intervention services and such like. The research confirms that beneficiaries of SHSE exercise these rights, sometimes directly addressing the Center for Social Work and sometimes through interventions of professional services of CSW upon stating the beneficiaries needs in situ. The Center tried to resolve all beneficiaries existential problems first it was planned to organize workshops and other activities once they have settled down. It seems that only now is about the time to start the programmes. (Valjevo). The Center provides psycho-social support in individual cases, in the situations of extreme conflicts. Due to this lack of resources, CSW does not organize through workshops and work group any activities that could, in addition to resolving the existing problems, encourage integration and creation of the feeling of community, as well. (Bajina Bašta) Sometimes special programmes for beneficiaries are organized by hosts on behalf of the Center. And they are very successful. (Niš, Host Miroslav Ristić). Centers for Social Work visit beneficiaries of SHSE on regular basis and know the situation of each of the individuals and families in detail. Although they encourage them to use some programmes that would strengthen them (workshops for children, different activities for the elderly, in cases when they are organized or there is a possibility for that) the initiative for specific services and interventions is on them. It is a common opinion of Centers for Social Work that it is important that beneficiaries know who to turn to for assistance and they will get it, but they do not wish to overwhelm them with their frequent visits. Too frequent visits of professionals, in the opinion of CSW, beneficiaries feel as a control, which is most probably due to their insecurity in respect to the duration of their stay in the flat they are using as they do not own it. Nevertheless, whenever they need a service from CSW, beneficiaries do not hesitate to ask for it. For example, when beneficiaries need services of a nurse, an elderly care provider, physiotherapist, and such like, they are rendered it. Services are funded from the project budget that the Center occasionally receives or from the regular budget of the Center (local self-government). The research has stated that beneficiaries try to live independently as much as it is possible and choose to rely on their own capacities. 2. Assistance in obtaining the documents All Centers for Social Work assisted the beneficiaries in obtaining the documents and bore the expenses related to taxes for obtaining the citizenship of Serbia, wherever it was possible. A big number of beneficiaries have become citizens of Serbia and have been integrated in the local community. Beneficiaries very often manipulate with obtaining their personal documents and abandoning refugee status. Despite obtaining the citizenship, they have not all terminated their refugee status there is nothing to oblige them to do that, and they hope to get some other rights or assistance in that way. 3. Assisting beneficiaries in finding employment Centers sometimes organize trainings for beneficiaries of SHSE with working ability as a form of assistance in finding employment. Mediation and trainings are intended for unemployed beneficiaries with working ability and those who have some kind of work engagement but without employment. Response is excellent but problems appear when concrete support and employment are offered as the ones with working ability do not give sign of themselves, there is silence as they prefer to work unregistered. (Kragujevac, a social worker in CSW) In Vranje, for example, CSW has been offering employment programme training and job for elderly care providers. None of the self-supporting mothers has applied. Most probably they fear that work engagement might disqualify them for compensation they are receiving from the state as employed IDPs from Kosovo. That kind of fear was confirmed by recent research conducted by Group 484. Temporary compensation, although minimum, being a regular source of income, gives people possibility to refuse jobs Beneficiaries of temporary compensation from Kosovo and Metohija, Group 484, September Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

35 4. Workshops and trainings Centers mainly haven t got enough resources to organize activities with beneficiaries, and they are not additionally paid for that. They are overburdened with other activities so that they rarely organize special programmes. Centers do everything from calculating beneficiaries obligations, preparation of Decisions, psychological support to beneficiaries, professional monitoring of specific family situations, to provision of heating fuel, maintenance of the buildings, and such like. Lack of resources is the main reason for which the number of workshops is not bigger Host Family Interactive workshops should be organized that would develop the skills of cohabitation, which is due to disturbed interpersonal relationships. We have no mediator in the Center and that is why we have not organized them so far. (Jagodina) The main innovative element of SHSE project and one of its pillars is (in addition to Center for Social Work) engagement of a Host Family that provides everyday good-neighbourly support to beneficiaries during their social integration in the new environment as a parameter of the values of solidarity and tolerance. According to the concept, and as defined by the contract on cooperation, Host Family is a person with working ability, member of a socially vulnerable refugee or IDP family or a family from domicile population of the same category 12. Priority in selection has been given to families coming from collective centers. The research has shown that there is a direct and proportional relation between the Host Family s personality, i.e., quality of their work and achieved quality of interpersonal relationships in the building. Host Family is unquestionable generator of the feeling of belonging to the neighbourhood community and tenants identification with it. 1. Host Family s profile In average Host Family has got four members two adults and two children. Average age of Host Family is Adult family members are able to work and in a big number 44.6% they are in work. High employment rate of Host Families corresponds to their level of education, which is higher compared to other beneficiaries. In average, adult Host Family members have finished a secondary school. All Host Families are either refugee or IDP ones. Children who are of schooling age all attend regular schools. At the beginning of implementation, Host Family would get the biggest flat in the building, in the center of the top floor. That indirectly influenced the power distribution in the building, and in this way it was even more emphasized that it was in the Host s hands. Later on that approach was abandoned and now Host Families get flats that are in accordance with the number of their members, and in this way it has become equal with other beneficiaries. 2. Training of Host Family Contract on Cooperation anticipates that Centers for Social Work organize and perform training of Host Families (Article 9, para 8, Obligations of Center for Social Work). Majority of CSW has not organized trainings for Host Families. Most of the Hosts think that they were trained during the workshop held in Novi Sad in 2006, which was organized by the FORUM of the Centers for Social Work included in the programme since 2005 altogether 17 Centers for Social Work, i.e., 81%. In addition to representatives of the Centers for Social Work and municipalities, representatives of the beneficiaries and the Host Families took part in this workshop. Defining of the Host Family s role was a very important segment of the workshop. Discussions and group work were held to define what it means to be a good Host, how Host Families should position themselves 12 Excerpt from the Contract on Cooperation, Vranje, 2009 Host Families should be motivated for training in respect to building capacity for direct work with people. (Ljubinka Cvetanović, lawyer of CSW Vlasotince Crna Trava) The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 35

36 in establishing good-neighbourly relationships and solving conflicts, what the relation is between Host Families and Centers for Social Work and such like. Since 2006 until this very day, workshops have not been part of SHSE programme. Their absence has been very noticeable and the need for them has been very explicit. The research has confirmed that there is still need for training of Host Families. 3. Obligations of Host Families As anticipated by the project concept, the main obligations of Host Families are to provide a goodneighbourly support, initiate dialogue and communication, promote solidarity and principles of self-help and to be the support to and contact of the Center for Social Work that, in case of need, can provide services of its professionals. Sometimes, however, focus of Host Family s engagement is more on technical issues and maintenance of the building. In Vranje, for example, the Host is at the same time a stoker for central heating, who also maintains the system in the winter. The only training he has ever had is training for the serviceman of central heating boilers at the Public University for Education of Adults in Vranje. His main duties are heating and maintenance of the building. All other aspects of his engagement have been neglected in this way. The Host, on the other hand, thinks that the compensation that he receives is too low in respect to his obligations related to central heating. In Bajina Bašta, the Host Family cleans all common premises due to which fact some of the tenants do not feel personal responsibility in regards to hygiene maintenance in the common premises and do not provide their contribution. The research has confirmed that the way Host Family s role is performed is one of the main factors for efficient and good-quality support, as well as that it is important that relevant Book of Rules for functioning of this form of protection, and the contracts that are concluded with Hosts, clearly define the role and obligations of Host Families. In our opinion, Host Family should support more the basic system of values, upgrading of common natural cohabitation, as well as to develop forms of cooperation between beneficiaries, neighbours and institutions and animate beneficiaries in their free time, i.e., not to rely in everything on the Center for Social Work. (Apatin, Director of CSW) 4. Paying compensation for the work of Host Families Initially, it was anticipated that beneficiaries, proportionally to their income, pay the work of Host Families themselves. That was established in order to build up the Host Family s responsibility towards the beneficiaries rather than towards the Centers for Social Work or municipalities. However, these payments to the Host Families have become a sore point of the project. Beneficiaries obligation to pay the Host Family has created a tension and open conflicts that have prevented the Host Families to perform their roles. The conflict appeared between the beneficiaries and the Host Families but also among the beneficiaries themselves in the cases where some of them paid their obligations themselves and the municipality paid for the others which was due to their very low income. For that reason in a lot of municipalities the Centers for Social Work initiated a change of the manner the Host Family is paid in and arguments and misunderstandings stopped. In some places, the municipality has taken over the obligation to pay, while in some others the Host Family renounced their right to compensation in return for usage of the flat free of charge. However the Host worked better when he was paid for his work (CSW Vranje) 5. Host Family s problems Tenants very often do not understand the role of a Host Family. Their expectations from the Host Family are too big in regards to all problem solving from regular maintenance of their flats to life quality protection and Host Families cannot meet them. Some beneficiaries do not take care of the hygiene of common facilities and act irresponsibly towards the property and installations in the building. Some do not respect the regulations and the house rules or do not wish to cooperate they are inaccessible, uncommunicative, and lack will to integrate in the local community. In order to ensure that a Host Family performs successfully its very complex tasks within SHSE projects its education and strengthening are essential. 36 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

37 2.4.3 Municipality - Town The basic precondition for implementation of a SHSE project is political will and motivation of a local community to participate in the project and provide significant financial means for construction land and its infrastructure. Initial financial participation of local community is in average about 25% of the total construction value, sometimes even more than that. Local community, once the building has been finished and beneficiaries moved in, finances all the rights defined by the Decision on extended rights, as well as the compensation for the work of Host Families. The key guarantee of SHSE project sustainability is the local community. The role of the local community in promotion and insurance of social inclusion in SHSE programme is confirmed by the following parameters: 1. Additional investments Despite high costs related to their participation in the project, local communities, on their own initiative, have invested in SHSE projects funds that are much bigger than what the Contract on Cooperation obliges them to. This is another confirmation that local communities recognize the beneficiaries high vulnerability and make an effort to facilitate the process of social integration. Additional funding provided by the local communities (they differ from one municipality to another, in accordance with the beneficiaries needs and capacities of the municipality) refers to: 1. Execution of asphalt roads up to the building (almost all municipalities) 2. Greenery, pedestrian paths, benches (almost all municipalities) 3. Laundry drying racks (almost all municipalities) 4. Provision of garbage containers (all municipalities) 5. Gas installation up to the buildings (Kragujevac, Temerin, Vrbas) 6. Building connection to town sewer, instead of septic tanks (Vrbas) 7. Allocation of the land for construction of temporary auxiliary buildings, preparation of town planning documents and issuance of building permits (Novi Sad). 8. Fixed phone installation in the flats 9. Equipment for the common premises such as TV sets, computers, connection to the Internet and cable TV (Kragujevac, Valjevo, Kraljevo) 10. Development of the location in the neighbourhood for construction of another building of SHSE subsequently implemented with the funds donated by UN-HABITAT Programme and the Government of Japan (Valjevo, Kraljevo, Niš) 11. Installation of a phone boot in front of the building (Kraljevo, Temerin) 2. Beneficiaries working engagement In all local communities in Serbia there is a problem of high unemployment rate and scarce employment opportunities. A lot of municipalities have tried, through their Centers for Social Work to obtain working engagement for the beneficiaries. 3. Financial support and subventions In addition to subventions for electricity bills for beneficiaries of family income support (the republican level), beneficiaries of SHSE also receive a big number of supports and subventions provided by the local community, either through the Decisions of the Managing Boards of different companies that give the subventions or through the Decisions of the Municipal Assembiles. The most frequently registered subventions and services on the local level are: One-time assistance (all municipalities) Payment of the flat-usage related costs to some beneficiaries (almost all municipalities) The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 37

38 Reduction of the price for public utility services (almost al municipalities) Whole-day stay at school for children in junior classes of primary school (Vrbas) Benefits for public transport (almost all municipalities) Soup kitchen (all municipalities) School stationery and assistance in learning for children (almost all municipalities) Help with housework where it is needed (almost all municipalities) Exemption from payments for garbage collection, construction land development, TV subscription (Kraljevo, Vranje) Heating expenses for all beneficiaries (Vranje, Apatin) Provision of fuel for buildings with central heating (Niš, Kraljevo, Bajina Bašta, Bač) 4. Initiatives Activities of Centers for Social Work and local governments concerning the project adjustments to the local needs In Bač, two efficiency flats were unoccupied for a long time. The municipality is now using them for temporary/emergency accommodation, i.e., as a shelter for violence victims or accommodation of single parents until they find another solution (although without respective legal document). Food for the people accommodated as emergency cases is organized in the hotel at subsidized social prices and is paid by the municipality. In Apatin, preparations are in process for extension of the building of SHSE and construction of an annex in order to provide space for establishing a house on half way for children who are leaving the Home for Children without Parental Care. Children engagement has been planned in the house in providing assistance to the elderly in SHSE and encouraging of common activities. The house on half way already exists in some projects of SHSE (Pančevo, Loznica) where a number of flats have been intended for that purpose from the beginning. In Temerin, the number of common living rooms has been reduced from two to one, to match the tenants needs. In one of the living rooms the service of CSW has been organized that creates and leads the programmes of the open protection. In Požega, the common living room used to be given, for a few hours a day, for the needs of daily care of the children with behaviour disorders. About 20 children that had not been pronounced corrective measures were included in the programme as a prevention activity. The daily care stopped with its work which is due to the lack of sanitary facilities. The project was funded by the funds of SDC and subsequently of SIF. Upon termination of funding from the project funds, the daily care terminated its work. In the meantime, the municipality has been considering a possibility of extending the common living room, roofing of the terrace and forming of sanitary facilities as to enable continuation of the project that would be funded by the municipality. The municipality is considering the possibility to build a wall around the terrace/porch and glaze and cover it in order to provide a fully equipped space for daily care for the children. The children would be engaged in joint programmes and activities with the elderly. Preparation of the main design for this extension of the building is underway. In Crna Trava a few housing units were empty for years the refugees who had initially been accommodated in them left Crna Trava and new ones did not want to come to Crna Trava. Then the municipality decided to rent the empty flats to domicile population without proper housing. The amount of the rent is defined by the Decision of the Municipal Department for Urban Planning (about RSD per month). With the money collected from the rent the Municipality covers the electricity bills for those beneficiaries who cannot pay them themselves. This is an example of how in one SHSE project both SHSE and rented housing can function. 38 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

39 2.5 PROBLEMS AND SUGGESTIONS Analysis of the data obtained in the research has shown that certain problems appear in almost all the municipalities where the project has been done first of all the problems are related to uncertainty in regards to a stable and sustainable financing from the municipal budget, insufficiently defined conditions for termination of the right to use this service, and the conditions for filling in the vacancies. Centers for Social Work from the majority of the municipalities say that it is necessary to provide a legal framework that would define these issues in detail in the form of municipal Decisions on extended rights in the filed of social welfare, and/or amendment to the new Social Welfare Law and/or by extending the existing Regulation Books for selection of the beneficiaries of SHSE. In addition to a detailed formal legal regulation, there is a big need for trainings at the initial stage of the project in order to inform all the partners engaged in the project about their obligations and possibilities within the SHSE project, as well as for a continuous exchange of experiences. Comments of the beneficiaries and the Host Families are mainly characterized by their difficult social and economical position. Most frequently mentioned problems are their bad financial situation, inability to pay communal expenses and expensive medicines. This is understandable as the programme has been created exactly for the needs of the most vulnerable categories of population. In these circumstances examples of the municipalities that have helped the beneficiaries with a number of subventions and benefits in addition to the standard social welfare services represent examples of good practice. In addition, in the municipalities where the beneficiaries were obliged to participate in the compensation for the Host Family s work there was additional burden for their meager budgets and caused a lot of animosity and unrealistic expectations in regards to the Host The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 39

40 Family, and this model has been recognized as impractical and in these cases it has been recommended that this obligation is taken over by the municipality. Beneficiaries attitudes show that the direction that further growth and development of the project should go in is certainly creation of an organized and systematic mechanism of strengthening the beneficiaries that would meet their needs, facilitate their integration into the new community and develop their capacities for independent living. In order to make it possible for the Center for Social Work to provide these services it is very important that the local self-government recognizes the significance of the programme for the local system of its citizens social welfare as well as to provide the funds in the budget not only for maintenance of the building but also for the professional work of the workers of CSW and implementation of the programme Problems pointed out by the local self-governments, Centers for Social Work and beneficiaries Problems pointed out, both in the questionnaires and subsequent interviews, by the Centers for Social Work, beneficiaries, Host Families and local self-governments, the researchers have grouped in six basic categories, in accordance with their character. Grouping is based on the frequency of a problem and the level up to which the problem is general for the project of SHSE: 1. Problems related to legal regulation: The municipal Decision has not been defined precisely enough or is not respected Insufficient definition of the service of SHSE Insufficient definition of the legal aspects concerning: a. The rights of the municipality to handle the building upon the expiration of the Contract on Cooperation (10 years) b. The beneficiaries rights to use the flat when there is a change in their circumstances under which they got it in compliance with the formal legal documents (especially for single mothers when their children finish school) c. Filling in of the vacancies d. The Conditions and replacement of the Host Family e. Expulsion of the beneficiaries who do not comply with the conditions of the contract signed with the Center for Social Work 2. Beneficiaries problems: 2.1. Beneficiaries social and economical position: Bad financial situation Lack of funds for life, medical treatment and basic needs Unemployment, scarce income, inability to find a job Inability to pay communal expenses Continuous need for financial support and assistance in food and medicines Payments for the Host Family s work 2.2. Duration of the right to use the flat: Beneficiaries uncertainty in regards to the duration of their right to use the flat beneficiaries concern what is going to happen to them once the grounds upon which they are using the building have changed, it is not clear when they have the right to stay in the building Their wish to buy the flats off as the only security 40 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

41 2.3. Interpersonal relationship problems: Problems with interpersonal relationships caused by different participation in payment of expenses (between the beneficiaries who pay for themselves and those whose expenses are paid by the municipality) Problems caused by the beneficiaries participation in payments for the Host Family s work (tensions and conflicts between the beneficiaries and the Host Family) Sharing of the flat by two single persons who are not related Failure to obey the house rules and regulations of cohabitation Beneficiaries irregular payments of the expenses Beneficiaries irresponsible behaviour in regards to the hygiene in the common premises, property and installations in the building Problems in the work with beneficiaries stated by the Centers for Social Work and the Host Families: Passivity, dependence, lack of initiative, lack of beneficiaries will for active participation in resolving their own social and economical position Beneficiaries have difficulties in accepting rules 3. Problems of the Centers for Social Work: Insufficient financing of the workers of the Centers for Social Work for their engagement in SHSE projects Excessive regular work load 4. Problems related to the host family s role and work The tenets do not understand the Host Family s role and expect too much from them (in respect to the repair of all minor deficiencies in their flats and maintenance of the hygiene in the building) Host Family has no capacity to encourage the development of the sense of community and cooperation, insufficiently motivates and starts initiatives with the beneficiaries, has no ability to organize joint activities Host Family relies too much on the Center for Social Work Host Family does not want to antagonize with the beneficiaries Host Family does not know how to mediate and is not flexible enough in finding problem solutions Host Family has neither affinity nor psychological capacity for work with people 5. Problems related to the buildings and infrastructure Small living area in the flats (for projects until 2005) Lack of auxiliary premises sheds, pantries, laundry (for projects until 2005) Common electric meter and water gauge (for projects until 2005). Electricity bills are paid according to the number of family members and not according to the consumed kilowatts, due to which fact those beneficiaries who pay the bills for themselves have an impression that the others have no interest to save electricity and make high bills. 6. Other problems: Partners in project implementation have completely withdrawn from the project results monitoring and further cooperation (the Ministry, Commissariat and UNHCR) The number of housing units for the needs of socially vulnerable domicile population from the local community, especially children leaving institutions or prison, is insufficient. Lack of organized activities and different contents in the buildings. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 41

42 Solutions of the problems suggested by the local self-governments, Centers for Social Work and beneficiaries 1. Suggestions related to legal regulation: Issuance of the municipal Decision on extended rights in the field of social welfare Adoption of a legal document at a higher level that would be binding for the tenants in the buildings A bigger involvement of the municipality is required in providing funds for the work of the workers assigned to do the jobs The guidelines are required for the direction of the project development upon expiration of the contract, when the town is to have the building on its independent disposal Adoption of the Regulation Book that would define more in detail the conditions and further functioning of the project (length of usage, replacement of Host Families, filling-in of the vacancies) A clearer definition of the partners roles, standards and types of services within the project is needed This form of protection should be regulated by relevant legal documents It should be defined who is to select the new beneficiaries instead of the partners in the project and who selects the existing ones The Decision on the rights in the field of social welfare should be changed as to define that the compensation for the Host Family s work is to be paid from the municipal budget Guidelines are needed in respect to definition of the role of the local community in sustaining this form of protection 2. Suggestions concerning the financial support: The local community should participate in covering of the beneficiaries communal expenses The municipality should pay the compensation for the Host Family s work Assistance in medicines, food, one-time immediate financial assistance Assistance in finding employment 3. Suggestions concerning the duration of the right to use a flat: That this form of housing is durable (possibility for purchasing?) That the contracts are not renewed once a year but in longer intervals That the right to use the flat is a life-long right Revision of the right to use a flat and compliance with the conditions is needed 4. Suggestions concerning the improvement of interpersonal relationships and the host families work: Training of the Host Families and their strengthening for work with people Payment of the Host Family compensation from the municipal budget Focus on the joint activities Involvment of the volunteers organizations in organization and development of social activities for the beneficiaries Development of guidelines for the programmes through which the beneficiaries will be encouraged to get additional income and better leisure time management Development of concrete programmes for group work with the beneficiaries in the form of psycho-sociological support 42 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

43 Bigger support of the local community in encouraging initiatives and motivation of the beneficiaries and implementation of the principle from help to self-help Frequent tenants meetings 5. Suggestions concerning technical changes, repairs and maintenance of the buildings: Maintenance of the buildings should be given to expert persons and organizations, such as the Town Housing Agency Construction of auxiliary buildings for the tenants pantries (for projects until 2005) Installation of individual electric meters and water gauges (for projects until 2005) 6. Other suggestions: To increase the participation of the domicile vulnerable population A continuous monitoring and evaluation of the programme are required Continuation of all the partners support, considering the experience and good practice Bigger financial support from the local self-governments Local self-governments should change the purpose of the building so that the flats are suitable for other social welfare services house on the half way for children or supported living of people with disabilities Separation of non-related singles sharing one unit (for projects until 2005). The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 43

44 2.6 GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES New capacities for SHSE funded by the municipalities intended for the domicile population, Apatin Upon the beneficiaries moving in into the newly built SHSE buildings, the collective center in which they had been accommodated was closed down. Following the closure, the municipality renovated the building of the collective center, which is in the ownership of the municipality, to form the additional housing units for domicile vulnerable population, who use the flats under the same conditions as for SHSE. Beneficiaries of this programme are the elderly with no family care, persons with disability and self-supporting single parents with children. FLOWER STREET, Temerin: In Temerin, in the buildings of SHSE a humanitarian and ecological action TEMERIN active community was organized with the objective to: - Involve the beneficiaries/tenants and the wider community in creation of nicer living conditions and more humane surroundings; - Reduce the beneficiaries passivity and social isolation; - Upgrade the quality of the leisure time and cohabitation conditions; - Strengthen the good-neighbourly relations and cooperation and - Encourage voluntary work in the socially responsible community. Within this idea, the participants were engaged in general cleaning of the buildings, painting of the exterior joinery, hoeing and trimming of the plants; park management, and flower planting from the Temerin nursery. The manifestation included: official opening of the first FLOWER STREET, organization of a children art colony JUNIOR ART, marking of the buildings with the names of fragrant flowers daisy, 44 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

45 lily of the valley, daffodil and hyacinth that were chosen by the children tenants of the buildings; organization of the FLOWER MARKET, etc. This action is an example of a successful participation of a big number of participants from the local community and a very good example of a possible interaction among the citizens (the beneficiaries, Host Families, CSW, entrepreneurs, NGO and associations, a big number of children from local schools, volunteers, clubs, plant nurseries, media, citizens, ) in order to build up the awareness of the environment and make positive changes. The action was financially supported by local entrepreneurs, NGOs, CSW, the President of the municipality and other individuals. Exceptional Host Miroslav Ristić, Niš: He advocates the interests of the most vulnerable tenants informs CSW on regular basis about financial problems of the families who do not knock on the doors of CSW to receive the one-time financial assistance He establishes cooperation with CRS (Catholic Relief Service) and NGO «Božur» concerning a donation for income generating activities. All the tenants, except the pensioners, responded to an invitation to take part in preparation of a project proposal. Mirosalv explained to them the conditions, arouse their interest in participation, held a training concerning the business plan preparation and they have all got an assistance, i.e., the equipment they asked for someone a furniture cleaning device, someone furniture and carpet cleaning device, someone sewing or knitting machine and such like. He got in touch with NGO «Happy family» and together with them organized in the common living room a literary competition for children with the topic «Kosovo is my home». All the children from the building who attend schools participated and wrote their compositions. A boy of Rroma nationality won and got a computer as a prize. In this moment the compositions are being translated into English and all the children s works will be published in Serbian, English and Albanian. He enabled the beneficiaries with low income to become beneficiaries of the soup kitchen, i.e., he informed them and made a contact between them and the organization that provides this service. He has established communication with the humanitarian organization «Sigma» from Niš that provided trainers for all the children in the building. He initiated installing of cable TV in the buildings he organized meetings with the tenants and their agreement and subsequently he arranged with the cable TV provider that the beneficiaries, considering their vulnerability, get it installed free of charge. He initiated joint cleaning of the yard, planting of the greenery and plants. On regular basis and continually he takes care of the building maintenance and rectifies the failures. Programmes of training and psycho-sociological support for beneficiaries, Kragujevac In this moment in Kragujevac special programmes of different types are ongoing for the beneficiaries, funded by UNDP, organized in the common living rooms of all three projects, such as follows: Psycho-sociological support to the beneficiaries Assistance in learning and computer courses for children Assistance in finding a job mediation and trainings intended for the beneficiaries with working ability but out of work and those who are engaged in a job but without employment registration. The response is excellent. After a series of psycho-sociological support the first results are visible. Computer training courses are delivered by Boban Stepić (21), a graduate in Information Technology, internally displaced person and tenant in a building, unemployed, engaged by the Center for Social Work as per a service contract. Assistance in learning and mastering the curriculum for the children is provided by Anka (24), a graduate in Chemistry, and Natalija, both beneficiaries of SHSE. Boško Janjić, an internally displaced person, a teacher for junior classes, also tenant in one The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 45

46 of the buildings, long time out of work, has been engaged by the Center for Social Work to organize daycare for the children in one of the buildings. For a few hours every day, which are organized by Boško, the children are taught about good manners, have drawing or singing lessons, and such like. The children participate in all these workshops. Beneficiaries initiative, Loznica: Beneficiaries themselves have to obtain garbage containers. CSW, the town and the Refugee Trustee had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain the containers from the Public Utility Company. After having waited for a long time the beneficiaries themselves, through their acquaintances in the Public Utility Company, arranged for two containers to be delivered for all three buildings. The tenants jointly decided on where to put the containers and it is functioning well now. It proves to everybody in the town how much the beneficiaries are integrated into the community and how much they take an active part in its life. TERRA Project, Paraćin: A project proposed by a group of enthusiasts from CSW and funded by SIF a textile workshop. Five sewing machines and five looms were obtained from the project. Knitwear St.George funded the material, a designer worked with the women, all the products were sold in advance and it was great! Women from the building and the neighbourhood were engaged in this project together. When the project was finished financing terminated as well and everything died out. People from the CSW went to work on other positions. Then an association was formed in order to continue the work but nothing has happened ever since then. Now the machines are locked in the common premises and nobody is using either them or the common rooms in the buildings. Successful integration of refugees coming from the collective centers in other municipalities, Valjevo: When the beneficiaries were being selected for this building the collective centers in Valjevo did not host sufficient number of refugees who met the required criteria and the beneficiaries from collective centers in other municipalities were brought two families from the collective center Кasarna in Petrovac na Mlavi (1 two-member family and 1 four-member family). Although they came to completely unknown environment, leaving behind their relatives and friends in the collective center, both families say that they have never regretted coming to Valjevo. Our conclusion is that this is a result of, among other things, work of CSW that significantly influenced their integration in the first days of their residence in Valjevo. Beneficiaries solidarity, Kraljevo The beneficiaries jointly agreed that a family with six members and a small flat keeps their things in a cupboard in the common living room, as the family has a lot of members and not enough space in their flat. Champion from Crna Trava Marko Simjanović, a fifteen-year old boy from Crna Trava is a champion from Serbia in the category of cadets in mountain cycling. He lives in one of the buildings of SHSE with his mother and four siblings as socially vulnerable domicile family of a single parent. The Minster for Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Rasim Ljajić, during his visit to Crna Trava visited the family in its flat and gave Marko a bicycle for training and new victories. Work engagement as basis for one-time assistance, Niš CSW provides support to the unemployed with working ability through work engagement in public works, which is a condition for obtaining one-time assistance. All those with working ability can obtain the right to 600 hours of voluntary work for which they will get 100 RSD per hour, i.e., up to maximum RSD a year. That is the assistance that is given as one-time assistance by CSW. 46 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

47 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 47

48 Conclusions: This form of providing for vulnerable individuals and families without proper housing, internally displaced persons and refugees, deprived domicile population, gives such opportunities that we can rightly say that these conditions provide dignified livelihood...we believe and suggest at the same time that this is how housing should be provided for deprived citizens as well as that the percentage of domicile population should be 50%... A disbalance appeared in the domicile community, and domicile citizens believe that they have equal rights to dignified living as each individual and family with the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia. (The Center for Social Work, Zaječar, quotation from the questionnaire SHSE is a form of protection for 15 beneficiaries who this form of providing for is most adequate for after accommodation in a collective center. (the Center for Social Work, Bajina Bašta, from the questionnaire). Beneficiaries of the project of Social Housing in Supportive Environment are extremely vulnerable groups of population in Serbia. They need support in the process of social integration which includes, in addition to formal obtaining of the citizenship, creation of the conditions for solving the basic existential issues (housing, provision of livelihood subsistence, health care, education, and such like) and equality in participation in all forms of social life, exactly through the support that is provided within the project of SHSE. The right to being provided for that is determined by the municipal Decisions provides the support for basic living conditions (housing, financial support and other necessary services). Differences in the Decisions referring to the type and scope of the support and the conditions for exercising the right are conditioned by the specificities of each local community in regards to the degree and type of social vulnerability of the population and available resources for meeting the needs. This form of protection with its contents and the way it is organized enables a comprehensive and continuous meeting of the beneficiaries social and protective needs, with activation of their potentials, in accordance with the conditions in each local community. The support to be provided to its beneficiaries is versatile, very often individual, while taking care to strengthen the beneficiaries and activate their potentials. It requires full cooperation of the Centers for Social Work, local selfgovernments and other subjects in the local environment (health care, education, employment, NGOs...). Efficient functioning of this form of protection using the resources of the local community requires continuous work and engagement of the Centers for Social Work. However, although these are not big funds, these activities are not financed by all local self-governments in the right manner and up to the adequate level, which significantly affects the quality and diversity of the service. The research has confirmed, like the research in 2005, that the beneficiaries relation to the idea of integration is different. For some of them, it was related to the ownership of a house or a flat, for others it was employment. For some third ones it was the matter of citizenship. Both times during the research it was noticed that the feeling of social integration is deeply intimate one for each individual. Successful integration means connection between all measures and activities relevant for its subjects (in the fields of health care, education, employment, housing, social welfare, economy...) in both public and private sector, both in defining the policy in strategic documents, laws and other regulations, and their implementation. Services of social protection through SHSE have provided an adequate response to the needs of extremely vulnerable refugees, internally displaced persons and domicile population, providing them adequate housing and support through the services of the Centers for Social Work and Host Families. This form of social protection has provided a high level of beneficiaries social inclusion and has significantly influenced improvement of their living conditions. Recommendations: During the research almost all representatives of the local self-governments stated their interest in increasing the capacity and further development of this form of protection, not just for refugees and internally displaced persons but for domicile population as well. Further development is justified also by the intention of the European Commission to invest signifi- 48 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

49 cant funds from the European funds into new capacities for Social Housing in Supportive Environment. Results of the research indicate that development of this form of protection and improvement of its beneficiaries living conditions can contribute to: 1. Better definition of the social rights The municipal Decisions and other relevant documents should clearly define the conditions for exercising this right and its termination, as well as the rights and obligations of the beneficiaries and the Host Family. However, it is very important to keep the flexibility in regards to different needs in each local community, available resources and funds, with special regards to the conditions for exercising the right (needs for providing for certain vulnerable categories of beneficiaries, vulnerability degree and such like). An individual approach should be applied in regards to termination of the right, as to avoid bringing the beneficiaries into the same condition of need. The Law on Financing of Local Self-Governments and Budgetary System provides significant conditions for defining the services. In future, the support that would be a continuation of this project and prevention of social exclusion of the SHSE project beneficiaries strengthened in this way could be a form of social housing in compliance with the Law on Social Housing. 2. Evaluation of the results and improvement of SHSE concept Monitoring of the results and improving of the concept, with participation of The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, responsible representatives of the local self-governments, Centers for Social Work, Host Families, beneficiaries and other interested parties are a precondition for further development of the beneficiaries life quality and their successful social integration. 3. Preparation of a guide book for future participants in the development of this project Considering its innovative character and rapid development of this type of protection that is expected in next few years, as well as the number of local self-governments and Centers for Social Work that would participate in its development, and do not have enough knowledge and experience in applying this form of protection, preparation of a guide book would contribute to better informing of all interested parties and organizing of an efficient service in the beneficiaries best interest. 4. Continuous exchange of experiences among the Centers for Social Work, local self-governments and Hosts Experiences exchange from earlier times, which used to be a very important tool in strengthening the Centers for Social Work, local self-governments and Host Families, has been interrupted. 5. Education of Host Families Quality of Host Family s work is one of very important elements that affects the quality of the life in the buildings and achieved level of beneficiaries social inclusion. A delicate role of the Host Family requires its education and strengthening as to enable it to provide the required form of support. 6. Programmes and work with the beneficiaries Services that would contribute to the beneficiaries strengthening and activation of their potentials are needed on a larger scale and in almost all the municipalities (Programmes of psychological and sociological support, connecting and mediating with other services in regards to exercising different rights, organizing different activities adequate for the structure and needs not only of the tenants but the local environment as well: for children, adults, elderly, through health care, entertainment and recreational workshops, enabling them to use their own working potentials, etc.). 7. Using the local community resources in providing the support While organizing the activities the local community resources should be taken into consideration, i.e., the activities should be organized in cooperation with the medical institutions, schools, Red Cross organizations, local community, NGOs, different associations and other parties, including the beneficiaries in the programmes and projects, through joint organizing of the activities using (and developing) the volunteers resources. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 49

50 8. Payments for professionals of CSW for their engagement in SHSE project Funds should be provided for the Centers for Social Work for performing their tasks (funds for the staff and implementation of the necessary programmes) in the respective budgets of all local selfgovernments as it is a precondition for an efficient implementation of this form of protection that requires a continuous work and engagement of the Center for Social Work. 9. Payments for the work of Host Families from the municipal budgets Funds should be provided for the work of Host Families in respective budgets of all local selfgovernment in all municipalities (without beneficiaries participation) as to avoid conflicts and tensions between the beneficiaries and the Host Families. 50 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

51 The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 51

52 52 Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

53 Social Housing in Supportive Environment SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTED AND ONGOING PROJECTS The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 53

54

55 HOUSING CENTER Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups Housing Center Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups is a non-profit, non-governmental organization gathered around the idea of improving the housing conditions of vulnerable groups. Housing Center advocates the interests of the socially vulnerable, by providing the adequate space for their life and work and by facilitating their social integration and selfreliance. Housing Center started its activities in October, 2004, during the closure period of Swiss Development and Cooperation (SDC) Housing Office, the experience and activities of which it was based on. SDC Housing Office (former SDR Shelter Office) was the main implementing partner of UNHCR for Shelter Program in Serbia since its opening in 1995, until the termination of SDC Humanitarian Aid Program at the end of Members of HOUSING CENTER were employed in SDC Housing Office and developed, together with UNHCR and other partners, numerous projects referring to integration, especially projects intended for the most vulnerable groups. Since the very beginning, the objectives and strategy of Housing Center have been to assist in providing decent accommodation, especially to the most vulnerable groups of refugees and IDPs. Housing Center has 18 founders and a network of partners and associates - mainly architects, engineers of different profiles and social workers. Housing Center has a role of a consultant and implementer in its projects. PROJECTS : 1. Program: Closure of the collective center Jabuka in Prijepolje Donor: Humanitarian organization Divac (HOD) & UNHCR Project: Social Housing in Supportive Environment Duration: Activities: Construction of 13 apartments in Prijepolje 2. Program: Support to Refugees and IDPs in Serbia Donor: Delegation of the European Commission in Serbia Project: Social Housing in Supportive Environment Duration: Activities: Construction of 80 apartments In Towns of Vranje, Leskovac, Smederevo and Negotin 3. Program: Durable Solutions for Refugees in the collect. center»kasarna«in Petrovac Donor: UNHCR/BPRM Project: Social Housing in Supportive Environment Duration: Activities: Construction of 20 apartments in Petrovac 4. Program: Dignified Solutions for Refugees and IDPs in Serbia Donor: UNHCR Project: Social Housing in Supportive Environment Duration: Activities: Construction of 16 apartments in Zajecar The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 55

56 5. Program: Housing and Income Generation Support for Refugees and IDPs in Serbia Donor: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) Project: Social Housing in Supportive Environment Duration: Activities: Construction of 38 apartments in Kragujevac and Nis 6. Program: Care and Maintenance of CCs in Serbia Donor: UNHCR Sub-Project: Repair of 28 Collective Centers with Poorest Living Conditions in Serbia Duration: Activities: Technical assessment and urgent repair works on 28 CCs in Serbia 7. Program: Rroma Education Donor: SDC Project: Pre-school institution for Rroma and Serb children in Bujanovac Duration: Activities: Construction of pre-school institution for 120 Rroma and Serb children 8. Program: Support to the National Strategy for Resolving the Problems of Ref. and IDPs Donor: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) Project: Social Housing in Supportive Environment /Social Housing Budget Year: 2005 Duration: Activities: Construction of 24 apartments in Nis and Loznica 9. Program: National Investment Plan of the Republic of Serbia Financed by: Government of Serbia Ministry for Work and Social Policy Project: Supportive Housing and Daily Centers for People with Disabilities Duration: Activities: - Technical preparation for construction of 30 apartments for supportive housing for people with disabilities in 5 municipalities in Serbia - Technical preparation for rehabilitation of 5 daily centers for people with dis abilities in 5 municipalities in Serbia 10. Program: Humanitarian support after the Floods Donor: Swiss Government Project: Reconstruction of the Hospital for Pulmonary Diseases, Jasa Tomic Duration: Activities: Total reconstruction of the kitchen pavilion; rehabilitation of the patients ward 11. Project: Monitoring and Follow-up of 40 SDC Humanitarian Aid projects in Serbia (Projects realized : Social Housing in Supportive Environment; Farm Houses; School Rehabilitation; Self Help Construction; Social Institutions) Swiss Development and Cooperation (SDC) Financed by: Duration: Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, Belgrade

57 12. Project: Completion of 8 non-finished SDC projects in Serbia Financed by: Swiss Development and Cooperation (SDC) Duration: OTHER PROJECTS (within SDC Housing Office team in Serbia ): Construction of housing units in supportive environment 271 apartment unit Construction of housing units under different program schemes units Rehabilitation of school buildings in Serbia 40 schools Rehabilitation of social institutions in Serbia homes for elderly, daily centers for children with disabilities, centers for out-family upbringing, parentless children s homes, homes for children hindered in their development, etc 20 institutions Rehabilitation of Institute for Comparative Law, Belgrade, Terazije 41 Rehabilitation of SDC office premises, Belgrade, Terazije 16 Rehabilitation of Pro Helvetia office, Belgrade, Simina 21 Reconstruction of Police Station, Pozega HOUSING CENTER IS: Consultant to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia in defining the standards and spatial requirements for Social Housing in Supportive Environment and Supportive Housing projects Consultant to SDC Social Housing in Supportive Environment program in South Caucasus Member of the UN Contingency Planning Team in Serbia Member of the cluster for IDPs for the implementation of the PRSP in Serbia Member of the cluster for elderly for the implementation of the PRSP in Serbia Member of International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) Focal organization in Serbia of the NGO Network of the Black Sea Region Member of the professional associations of architects of Belgrade and Serbia The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 57

58 CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Народна библиотека Србије, Београд 364.7(497.11) 2003/2009 VUJOŠEVIĆ, Marija, Social Housing in Supportive Environment (SHSE) : research concerning the achieved project results : / [authors of the research Marija Vujošević, Branislava Žarković ; associates : Milena Timotijević Et al.]. - Beograd : Housing Development Center for Socially Vulnerable Groups, 2010 (Beograd : Klik print ). 57 str. : ilustr. ; 27 cm Tiraž 200. Str. 3: Social Housing in Supportive Environment (SHSE) : research concerning the achieved project results / Ljiljana Lučić. ISBN Žarković, Branislava, [autor ] а) Социјална заштита - Србија COBISS. SR-ID

59

60