title: Analysis of the Needs for Social Services by Citizens of the Žilina Self-Governing Region type: Research papers language: English published: 13 Jun 2021 updated: 13 Jun 2021 category: Sociálna práca author: Doc. PhDr. Irena Kamanová, PhD

INTRODUCTION

Social service planning is a topical issue in the conditions of the Slovak Republic, both at national and local levels. In the Social Services Act, in its sixth part, community development and the community plan in the field of social service provision are elaborated, where section 83 states that the municipality prepares a community plan with other providers and recipients, and the self-governing region prepares a concept for the development of social services. Community plans respond to the needs of their residents within their community, self-governing regions are based on these needs, and together they are guided by national priorities for the development of social services. In this paper we present a part of the research conducted for processing the strategic document Concept of Social Service Development for 2019–2023.

RESEARCH

As an information source in the preparation of every plan, especially in the preparation of a concept for the development of social services, valid results from research are essential. In this paper we process partial research findings in which we identified citizens' use of and satisfaction with social services, and analyzed expected demand for social services in the next 5 years.

Because of the primary aim we formulated sub-goals and a research question.

Research question RQ: Which demographic characteristics of respondents are predictors that a respondent plans to use one of the social services in the near future (5 years)? Sub-goals* C1: to find out which social services (services for seniors, services for citizens with disabilities, crisis intervention services) citizens use and how satisfied they are with them. C2: to find out which social services (services for seniors, services for citizens with disabilities and crisis intervention services) citizens would be interested in using in the next 5 years.*

Sample characteristics – citizens

In the Žilina self-governing region in 2019 there were 691 023 citizens, number of districts: 11, number of towns: 19, number of municipalities: 296. Our research included a total of 1 840 respondents, of whom 544 (29,6 %) were men and 1 238 (67,30 %) were women. The average age of the sample was 60.33 years (± 18.29), the youngest respondent was 18 years old, the oldest 95 years old. 3.2 % of respondents did not answer this question. Economic status: employee 446 (24,2 %), student 14 (0,8 %), pensioner 1 102 (59,9 %), unemployed 49 (2,7 %), entrepreneur 4 (0,2 %), self-employed 23 (1,3 %), on sick/retirement leave 55 (3 %), other category 147 (8 %) respondents. Respondents lived: in an apartment in private ownership 842 (45,8 %), in a rented apartment 14 (6,2 %), in municipal/city housing 33 (1,8 %), in another form of housing 257 (14 %), in social service facilities 594 (32,3 %) respondents. We asked about their income range, where most frequently 425 (23,1 %) respondents reported 201 € to 400 €.

Sub-goal no. 1

C1: to find out which social services (services for seniors, services for citizens with disabilities and crisis intervention services) citizens use and how satisfied they are with them.

The first sub-goal was to determine which social services citizens use and their level of satisfaction. We asked whether respondents use counselling (social, legal, psychological, etc.). Of the whole sample, 625 (34 %) respondents do not use counselling. Conversely, counselling is used by 585 (31,8 %), of which very dissatisfied respondents were 17 (9 %), dissatisfied 55 (3 %), undecided 115 (6,3 %), satisfied 132 (7,2 %), very satisfied 266 (14,5 %). In a further question we investigated whether respondents expect that in the near future (within 5 years) someone in their family would use specialized social counselling, where: 271 (14,7 %) would use specialized counselling, 219 (11,9 %) would not. A total of 1 350 (73,4 %) respondents did not answer this question.

We examined which types and forms of social services respondents use, such as: meal service for pensioners is used by 466 (25,3 %) respondents; day care facility 225 (12,2 %) respondents; day centre 197 (10,7 %), home care service 312 (17 %) respondents; transport service 265 (14,4 %); help-need signaling service used by 197 (10,7 %) respondents; lending of (assistive) aids 221 (12 %) respondents; short-stay care home 179 (9,6 %) respondents; senior facility 456 (24,8 %) respondents; specialized facility 379 (20,6 %) respondents; 503 (27,3 %) respondents use none of the social services offered to us. Most satisfied are with services: facilities for seniors, meal services for seniors and day centre. By contrast, those least satisfied are with care facilities, day care facilities and help-need signalling.

Next, we examined the use of social services for citizens with disabilities and their possible satisfaction with these services. Services of a social service home – year-round stay are used by 282 respondents (15,3 %), ambulatory form by 193 (10,5 %), weekly stay by 142 (7,8 %) respondents, early intervention service by 105 (5,7 %) respondents, day care centre by 125 (6,8 %) respondents, transport service by 126 (6,8 %) respondents, rehabilitation centre 122 (6,6 %) respondents, supported housing 103 (5,6 %) respondents, support for independent living 102 (5,5 %) respondents, escort/reader or interpreting service 100 (5,4 %) respondents, lending of aids 110 (6,0 %) respondents, specialized facility 128 (7,0 %) respondents, living with family using respite and services provided in an ambulatory form 128 (7,0 %) respondents.

The average satisfaction rating with individual services for citizens with disabilities indicates that respondents are most satisfied with services of a social service home – year-round, day and weekly stay. By contrast, they are least satisfied with services supporting independent living, the rehabilitation centre, and escort/reader or interpreting service. 712 (38,7 %) respondents do not use these social services.

Further, we were interested in which crisis intervention services respondents use and their satisfaction with them. Based on the results, we can state that the emergency housing facility is used by 132 (7,2 %) respondents, services for mothers with children 81 (4,4 %) respondents, shelter/ night shelter 124 (6,7 %) respondents, community centre 111 (6,0 %) respondents, low-threshold day centre 92 (5,0 %) respondents, low-threshold services for children and families 99 (5,4 %) respondents, mobile crisis intervention 95 (5,2 %) respondents and specialized facility 94 (5,1 %). 822 (44,7 %) respondents said they do not use these services. Based on average values, we can conclude that respondents are most satisfied with services in shelters and emergency housing facilities. By contrast, they are least satisfied with services in specialized facilities and community centres.

Sub-goal no. 2

C2: to find out which social services (services for seniors, services for citizens with disabilities, and crisis intervention services) citizens would be interested in in the next 5 years.

For planning social services, it is important to know citizens' opinions about the need for social services for themselves or for someone close to them. We were interested over a five-year period, therefore we asked questions by each type and form of social service (respondents could choose more than one type) for different target groups – seniors, citizens with disabilities and crisis intervention services.

The largest number of respondents (456) consider that in the near future (within 5 years) they would use the meal service for pensioners, followed by facilities for seniors and home-care services. By contrast, the fewest respondents consider that in the near future they would use a day centre or a transport service.

Responses regarding social services for people with disabilities: the largest number of respondents 225 (11,1 %) consider that in the near future (within 5 years) they would use a social service home, tool lending service and transport service. By contrast, the fewest respondents consider the social service home – weekly stay and specialized facility.

Responses regarding crisis intervention social services: the largest number of respondents, 130 (18,8 %), consider that in the near future (within 5 years) they would use an emergency housing facility, community centre and mobile crisis intervention. By contrast, the fewest respondents consider that they would use low-threshold day centre services.

We evaluate the need for (missing) social services emphasized by respondents – citizens. Individual types of social services are listed in descending order of importance by district. District Bytča: social service home – year-round stay, meal service for pensioners, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), specialized facility, transport service, emergency housing facility. District Čadca: facility for seniors (care home for seniors), meal service for pensioners, day care centre, meal service for pensioners, social service home – year-round stay, transport service, rehabilitation facility, mobile crisis intervention, emergency housing facility. District Kysucké Nové Mesto: specialized facility, day centre, social service home – ambulatory form, mobile crisis intervention, emergency housing facility, mobile crisis intervention. District Liptovský Mikuláš: social service home – year-round stay, supported housing facility, specialized facility, lending aids, shelter/ night shelter, emergency housing facility. District Dolný Kubín: social service home – year-round stay, social service home – ambulatory form, rehabilitation facility, respite service, emergency housing facility, community centre, specialized facility. District Martin: support for independent living, respite service, transport service, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), home-care service, mobile crisis intervention, emergency housing facility, community centre, shelter/ night shelter. District Námestovo: emergency housing facility, rehabilitation facility, social service home – year-round stay, social service home – ambulatory form, mobile crisis intervention, low-threshold services for children and families, day care centre, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), short-stay residential care facility, lending aids. District Ružomberok: facility for seniors, short-stay residential care facility, specialized facility, transport service, home-care meal service, help-need signalling, rehabilitation centre, early intervention service, lending aids, social service home – year-round stay, social service home – ambulatory form, emergency housing facility, low-threshold services for children and families, mobile crisis intervention. District Turčianske Teplice: social service home – year-round stay, social service home – ambulatory form, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), specialized facility, transport service, meal service. District Turčianske Teplice: meal service for pensioners, home-care service, lending aids, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), social service home – year-round stay, social service home – ambulatory form, respite service, escort/reader or interpreting service, transport service, meal service for pensioners, rehabilitation centre, lending aids. District Tvrdošín: social service home – year-round stay, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), specialized facility, short-stay home-care facility, meal service for pensioners, day care centre, transport service, lending (assistive) aids, support for independent living, rehabilitation centre, social service home – ambulatory form, early intervention service. District Žilina: social service home – year-round stay, facility for seniors (care home for seniors), specialized facility, short-stay home-care facility, home-care service, meal service for pensioners, day care centre, transport service, early intervention service, supported living, respite service, emergency housing facility, community centre.

EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION – CITIZENS

RQ: Which demographic characteristics of respondents are predictors that a respondent plans to use one of the social services in the near future (5 years)? RQ1a: Which demographic characteristics of respondents are predictors that a respondent in the near future (5 years) plans to use one of the social services for seniors?

The solution of research question RQ1a consisted of two steps:

  1. First step1: to identify from all citizens the group of those who plan to use social services for seniors. Two groups were identified, in the first group, comprising 654 respondents (55,7 %), no one plans to use any of the social services for seniors in the near future. We named this group "do not plan to use". The second group, by contrast, consists of respondents who plan to use at least one of the social services for seniors. In total, 514 respondents (44,3 %) were in this group. Among them, 54,1 % plan to use meal services for pensioners, 45,3 % facility for seniors, 44,4 % home-care service, 33,7 % transport service, 33,1 % day care centre, 28,6 % lending aids, 23,9 % day centre, 23 % home-care facility – short stay, 22,6 % signalling of need for help, and 21,8 % specialized facility.
  2. Second step2: to identify which predictors have the strongest effect on whether a citizen plans to use the specified service. We included as predictors demographic characteristics: sex, age, economic status, district, income, number of people in shared household and household composition. Among the predictors, household composition has the strongest influence, followed by age, district and economic status. The predictor household composition divided the sample into three main subcategories: both parents with child(ren) and single person – this group includes 384 respondents, of whom 53,4 % do not plan to use a social service in the near future and 46,6 % plan to use one. Of those who plan to use a social service for seniors, 56,3 % are over 62 years old. Couples living in a household without children (or whose children are adults and live elsewhere) and multigenerational households – these categories together include 296 respondents and among them 72 % plan to use a social service for seniors. Of these, 87,3 % of those who plan to use a social service for seniors are over 67 years old and 63,9 % are under 67 years old. A single person with child(ren) – this group includes 477 respondents, of whom the majority, 74,4 %, do not plan to use social services for seniors. This category is further divided by district, and respondents from Kysucké Nové Mesto and Námestovo in this group plan not to use social services in 93,1 % of cases, from Ružomberok, Dolný Kubín, Liptovský Mikuláš, Čadca, Tvrdošín and Bytča 77 % do not plan to use, and the largest share of respondents in this group planning to use social services (44,7 %) live in Turčianske Teplice, Martin and Žilina.

From this it follows that the strongest influence on whether a respondent plans or does not plan to use a social service for seniors is household composition, age, and even district. This service is planned mainly by couples living in households without children and at older age (over 67 years). In the group of parents with child(ren) or single persons, they plan to use social services, but mainly those at higher ages. In the group of single respondents with child(ren), it is mainly those living in Turčianske Teplice, Martin and Žilina.

RQ1b: Which demographic characteristics of respondents are predictors that a respondent in the near future (5 years) plans to use one of the social services for people with disabilities? The solution of research question RQ1b consisted of two steps:

  1. First step3: to identify from all citizens the group that plans to use social services for citizens with disabilities. We identified two groups, the first group comprises 976 respondents (84,2 %) who do not plan to use any social service for people with disabilities in the near future. We named this group "do not plan to use". The second group, on the other hand, consists of respondents who plan to use at least one social service for people with disabilities. In total, 183 respondents (15,8 %) were in this group. Of them, in the near future 58,5 % plan to use a day care centre, 60,7 % rehabilitation centre, 61,2 % transport service, 54,1 % lending of aids, 44,3 % living with family using respite services, 37,2 % early intervention service, 24,6 % escort, reading or interpreting service, 34,4 % social service home – ambulatory form, 31,1 % supported housing, 28,4 % specialized facility, 31,1 % support for independent living, 25,1 % social service home – weekly stay and 41,5 % social service home – year-round stay.
  2. Second step4: to identify which predictors have the strongest impact on whether a citizen plans to use the specified service. We included as predictors demographic characteristics: sex, age, economic status, district, income, number of people in shared household and household composition. Among these predictors, household composition and net monthly income have the strongest impact. The household composition predictor split the sample into two main subcategories5: both parents with child(ren), single person, single person with child(ren), couples living in a household without children (or children are adults and live elsewhere) and multigenerational households – this group includes 625 respondents, of whom 80,8 % do not plan to use services for citizens with disabilities in the near future. The remaining 19,2 % plan to use the mentioned service, mainly those whose monthly income is lower than 801 €–1000 €. Couples living in a household without children (or children are adults and live elsewhere) – this group includes 139 respondents and 29,5 % of them plan to use a social service for citizens with disabilities.

From this it follows that the strongest influence on whether a respondent plans or does not plan to use a social service for people with disabilities is, among the characteristics studied, only household composition and income. This service is planned mainly by couples living in households without children. In the second group with a different household composition, mainly households with lower income.

RQ1c: Which demographic characteristics of respondents are predictors that a respondent in the near future (5 years) plans to use one of the social services of crisis intervention? The solution of research question RQ1c consisted of two steps:

  1. First step6: to identify from all citizens the group that plans to use social services for citizens with disabilities. Two groups were identified; the first group comprised 1 028 respondents (88,7 %) who plan not to use any social services for crisis intervention in the near future. We named this group "do not plan to use". The second group consisted of respondents who plan to use at least one social service for crisis intervention. In total, 131 respondents (11,3 %) were in this group. Of them, in the near future 52,7 % plan to use an emergency housing facility, 40,5 % community centre, 39,7 % mobile crisis intervention, 38,9 % service for mother with children, 36,6 % shelter/night shelter, 35,1 % low-threshold services for children and families and 32,8 % low-threshold day centre.
  2. Second step7: to identify which predictors have the strongest influence on whether a citizen plans to use the specified service. Predictors included were demographic characteristics: sex, age, economic status, district, income, number of people in shared household and household composition. Among these predictors, net monthly income and age have the strongest influence. The household composition predictor split the sample into two main subcategories8: respondents with net monthly income in the household of less than 401–600 €; 17,2 % of them plan to use crisis intervention services. This group further splits by age, where up to 29,3 % of those who plan to use crisis intervention services are in the 67–77 age range. Respondents with net monthly household income greater than 401–600 €—only 8,2 % of them plan to use crisis intervention services.

From the analysis above it follows that the strongest influence on whether a respondent plans or does not plan to use crisis intervention social services, among the characteristics studied, is only household income and age. This service is mainly planned to be used by respondents in lower-income households and older citizens.

Based on the analysis we can conclude that the highest demand is expected in services for seniors, followed by services for people with disabilities, and relatively the lowest demand among the studied services will be for crisis intervention services. Help from social services for seniors and for people with disabilities will be mainly needed for older respondents who live in marriage (but their children no longer live with them in the same household). Households with lower incomes will use crisis intervention services to a greater extent. Higher demand for social services for seniors can be expected in Žilina district, Turčianske Teplice and Martin. We note that vulnerable groups in the Žilina self-governing region are mainly older citizens with lower incomes who need increased social care.

We asked an open question about missing social services, where respondents mentioned: year-round social service home, social service home – ambulatory form (for specific illnesses), Specialized facility for people with Alzheimer’s disease, specialized facility for people with psychiatric disorders, early intervention service, specialized social counselling, introduction of emergency housing, shelter... In a further open question we asked about the need to improve provision of social services; we categorized responses as follows: a) need to establish: create community services that would help people at risk of exclusion towards inclusion (supportive housing, protected workplaces, independent living support service, social rehabilitation, community centres, etc.); create new social service facilities – low-capacity facilities – increase the number of professional staff – create protected workshops – ensure in social service facilities systems for calling for help, including emergency bracelets – community-based supported housing; ensure care in new facilities specializing in a specific type of social service, establish day care facilities, including for young people with disabilities (also increasing their income levels); establish residential form for children with Autism; create a network between public and non-public providers of social services. b) need to improve: improve health care for seniors; introduce modern technologies – medical, support, communication, safety ...; improve accessibility of services that are missing in the region, better coordination and availability of information about individual regional services. c) cooperation: multidisciplinary collaboration of institutions with which clients come into contact when solving their life situation; coordination with other institutions, linkage of services, continuity of social services (respite service, outreach service...); networking, collaboration, communication, setting goals for social services and evaluating them. d) risks in providing social services: reconsider placing aggressive and maladjusted clients in facilities; simplify the registration process for a new social service; ensure legal counselling and methodological guidance in applying laws within social service delivery.

CONCLUSION

Planning social services is important for every community, must be based on current community needs, and must have a plan prepared according to adopted strategic and planning documents. The results of our research were processed in the strategic plan for social service development, for example in Priority No. 1 to increase the quality, safety, effectiveness and accessibility of provided social services with a focus on long-term sustainability.

Author: Doc. PhDr. Irena Kamanová, PhD. Katedra sociálnej práce PF KU v Ružomberku*

List of bibliographical references

Act of the Slovak Republic No. 448/2008 Z.z. on social services and on the amendment of Act No. 455/1991 Coll. on self-employed trade (Trade Licensing Act) as amended.

Concept of social services development, available at: https://www.zilinskazupa.sk /files/bd061c63d76db4382b31b980d4ceba64 2019_2023.pdf

1 The first step was carried out using a statistical operation – cluster analysis. 2 The second step by analysis of classification trees. 3 The first step was carried out using a statistical operation – cluster analysis. 4 The second step by analysis of classification trees. 5 A third subcategory consisted of respondents who did not report household composition. 6 The first step was carried out using a statistical operation – cluster analysis. 7 The second step by analysis of classification trees. 8 A third subcategory consisted of respondents who did not report household income.