How has today's government set social policy in long-term care for seniors? Why am I asking? Because in fifteen years, not a single good concept has come out of Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny.
Are social packages a solution to social problems in Slovakia? Or are they only short-term measures with short-term results and impacts? Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny supposedly reports excellent results in its work regarding unemployment. There is nothing else we hear in the media every day than our unemployment percentages falling.
What might we find in the projects of Úrady práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny that are supported by structural funds? We would probably be very surprised if we did not find professionally sound, properly prepared strategic concepts based on real and truthful analyses. Very, or only slightly, would we be surprised if we did not find effective concepts of long-term sustainability in programmes of education, qualification, and retraining.
How has today's government set social policy in long-term care for seniors? Not at all? The concept of long-term care for seniors and long-term ill clients is such a "heavy" topic that our ministry has been preparing it for more than 20 years. And why not? If something is difficult, it needs time. But we no longer have time. Social services providers, who lack professional staff, do not have it most of all. The acute shortage of caregivers and nurses has created such a serious emergency situation that some directors do not know how to launch services. We need caregivers and nurses today and every single day. Ministerstvo zdravotníctva launched preparation for long-term care, but the former Minister of Health has left. How actively will this preparation continue? Which experts represent Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny in this working group?
I am asking for their names. I have the right to know who is preparing serious concepts for social policy in social services.
Why am I asking? Because in fifteen years, not one good concept has emerged from Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny. I will not burden you with analyses of these concepts, which have far-reaching consequences and already have negative impacts on quality, long-term sustainability, as well as on personnel and financial provision of social services.
Concepts built on poor-quality analyses or unverified evidence, based on ideological premises and empty or misleading arguments, or on foreign concepts copied inappropriately—sometimes even amateurishly—that are for us not only foreign but historically, socially, and culturally unfeasible... these claim that concepts at the level of local self-government should also be prepared according to them. If I believed that genuine experts were doing this, I would have to see it as a well-organized sabotage.
Since 2009, when the Social Services Act prepared by Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny came into force, the situation has gradually become worse, and for a layperson, almost imperceptibly so. A long series of professionally unsound or lobby-adjusted amendments can no longer be counted on two hands.
I ask how much funding Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny has redistributed to projects that would improve quality and long-term sustainability of social service provision for people who have ended up in an unfavorable social situation and to whom.
I ask what real results the national projects delivered: 1. National project of deinstitutionalization 2. National project of caregiver service 3. National project of community centers
Dear readers, find time and read the final reports from these national projects. And perhaps you will be surprised, as I am, that a report with good results can be written with goals and indicators already badly set. Yet who would actually read it, and perhaps that is what the authors of these strange documents rely on. Narrow topic, narrow circle of people, funds were spent in accordance with plans, unclear results obtained through unclear methodology were folded into unclear indicators, muted applause sounded from the final "conference," the curtain fell, the lights went out, guests from coffee and sandwiches left disciplinedly for home and their usual concerns. The reports will get buried among a pile of other reports; we can measure their thickness in meters. Who would not be satisfied? Who would still ask questions?
I ask what from these projects we can use in a multiplicative and long-term sustainable way when the Social Services Act itself, through its clauses, eliminates especially residential social services by way of absurd and still not professionally or economically justified so-called maximum capacities, which do not allow either its development or raising the quality of services.
Take your time and read the names of experts who led these projects methodologically, as consultants, lecturers, or evaluators. And try to think about where they obtained their expert, advisory, teaching, and evaluative knowledge, skills, and experience for this issue.
The third Pandora's box that is open in social services and has been open far too long is, unfortunately, our so-called experts. Who can claim to be an expert, or whom can we invite into a professional working group as an expert?
Maybe I am the outsider, but I have always pictured an expert as someone who devotes many, many years to the issue in which they appear as an expert, and more than that. They have successful academic, research, and practically applied outcomes behind them, or they are the author of a theory applicable and applied in practice. In this area, they publish, not only in Slovakia but also abroad. They produce truthful outputs and do not bend truth according to the size of the reward or threat. They are not afflicted by rubbery political correctness, and for them evidence is prior to ideological argument. When pointed out an error, they are glad, because they can improve and do not take it as an attack on their dignity. In short... Under an expert, I imagine a wise person.
Author: PhDr. Mária Kovaľová, PhD. MHA
The author is a theologian focused on diaconal social work and a master of public health focused on managed documentation and risk management. Since 1991, she has been involved in caregiving care focused on seniors. She is a quality consultant and auditor in social services. Since 2014, she has been president of Asociácia odborných pracovníkov v sociálnych službách and co-founder of OZ Planéta malého prínca. www.aopss.sk