Social Service Delivery Reforms 1) Service Delivery Reform and Its Implications

As the questions have been raised on the social service delivery, the government began to reorganize it from the early 1990s. The reforms has started from the overall public service delivery and then focused on the service from the lower level local government or city [si] · county [gun] · borough [gu] (town [eup] · township [myeon] · precinct [dong] at the lowest), and two pilot projects have been conducted. In 2006, the new organization structure and realignment was promoted to strengthen the welfare service function across the board. The computer and data system was reorganized and 7,000 additional personnel were placed for public social service at the low level local government.

To understand the scope of change in the social service delivery, the public welfare administration has been reviewed for what has been changed and led to changes in different times.

First, the government had made no efforts to establish a policy regarding the social service delivery until it introduced the Social Welfare Professionals Program in 1988. The Program initially hired 800 professionals. The introduction of the Program meant that the government acknowledged the professionalism of the public welfare administration.

Second, during the 1990s, the number of Social Welfare Professionals grew and their status in the government became regular from the officials in special local government service, a more secured status. Although a provision to establish an independent organization was inserted into the Social Welfare Services Act, what have been tried are only the pilot projects of Health & Welfare Service Office from 1995 to 1999 and the feedback was not made to the following policies. In 1999, the Social Welfare Professionals went under the local government social welfare service department from the special service department. Since then, the implementation of the welfare service has been continuously conducted by the local government social welfare service department. The local government social welfare service department has strengthened its status in the public social service delivery system.

<Table 1> Changes in Public Welfare Administration Based on Delivery System

Periods Major Events Changes in Delivery System Major Policy Changes

Germinating 1960~1987

Before the introduction of the Social Welfare Professionals Program

•No policy trial regarding delivery system

•The welfare service was based on the Livelihood Protection Assistance and relocation to the welfare institutions.

•The status of the Social Welfare Professionals changed to the regular government officials in 1999 and the local government became the main activator of the public welfare service delivery.

•Cash allowance, relocation to the welfare institutions, and connections of other amenity services to the elderly and the physically challenged. The recipient of livelihood program also mainly supported.

Third, during the five years after the introduction of the National Basic Livelihood Security System in 2000, the welfare administration needed the qualitative changes. The introduction of supplement allowances for the livelihood program strengthened the means test. Conditional aid programs were established to drive the recipient work more and become self-support. At the center of the growing child care service, the child care aid program became the major part of the public welfare administration. As a trial for the independent welfare organization in the local governments, the pilot projects of the Social Welfare Service Office ware run from 2004 to 2006. The tested integrated survey-service connection models were reflected on the reorganization of the national public welfare administration.

Fourth, as the localization and decentralization of the welfare service is pushed forward, the request for the local government-centered public welfare service delivery has grown. Since 2005, the transfer of social welfare business to the local government through the introduction of the local allocation tax, the establishment of the community welfare plans by each local government, and the establishment and management of Community Association of Social Welfare as the official mechanism for public-private coordination are the chances to lay the foundation stone of community welfare service implementation based on the city·county·borough structure and draw attention to the community delivery system. In particular, the Reform to strengthen the local government's Support for Residents Livelihood was the outcome of the cooperation with the related central government department, which reassigns the organization, duties and personnel in order to strengthen the role of the local welfare department undertaking the welfare policy implementation from the social policy ministries and the residents livelihood support as a welfare service in a broad sense.

Fifth, in this period, various changes were intensively made to remind the necessity of welfare administration reform. In 2010, the Social Welfare Information Management System was established at the city·county·borough level and the organization of the related welfare service department was reformed. Case Management on Family at Crisis was conducted by the local government's service connection department. In 2011, it was decided 7,000-strong welfare public officials would be additionally deployed for the following 3 years, a foundation to divert the

Leapfrogging

•Reorganization of delivery system with Social Welfare Service Office. Testing for the professionalized integrated survey·service connection (2004~06)

•Introduction of supplement allowances for livelihood program and strengthening of means test.

•Localization of welfare services (since 2005)

•Establishment of community-based welfare services such as Community Welfare Planning and Community Association of Social Welfare (since 2005)

•Task-force team to improve the welfare service delivery system in the public, private and IT sectors in the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs (2008)

•Magnified as major social policies and growth of policy scope

•Institutionalization of various services (Voucher programs, Long-term care for the elderly, Child care etc.) Information Management System draw attention to the delivery system for welfare service.

•Case Management on Family at Crisis conducted by the local government’s Service connection department.

direction of the public welfare administration. The expansion of complex demand increases the necessity of the integrated service. In particular, the growing number of the working poor due to the economic crisis demands the job-related service and support. All are the result of changes of social peril and desires and show the necessity of a new framework of welfare delivery system to be sought for. It seems that the policy makers have detected this necessity and begun the change of policy direction.

The following is to review the newly implemented policies regarding the welfare delivery system under the new welfare administration in both quantitative and qualitative senses to adapt to the changes of systems and circumstances and to find out their implications.

The reform of delivery system began in 1995 and was based on restructuring of the organization to establish an independent welfare delivery system apart from the existing general public service under the consideration of the professionalism of the social welfare service. The new model aimed at the local government and was considered to be established at the city·county·borough level. No trial has ever made to introduce a special agency under the central government.¹⁾

1) The Social Welfare Service Office is an independent welfare service system according to Article 15 of Social Welfare Service Act and was to be introduced directly under the city·county·borough governments according to Article 104 of Local Autonomy Law.

The pilot projects of Health & Welfare Service Office (1995-1999) was to establish a welfare service department, called Division of Welfare Undertaking, under the Community Health Center Organization and let it run the pilot projects. Through the introduction and management of the visiting care team in the Division of Welfare Undertaking, the Social Welfare Professionals at the town·township·precinct level were to work in the Community Health Center. In this way, the welfare service at the city·county·borough level is different from that at the town·township·precinct level, which is a dual welfare system. However, through the overall service process, the lack of pervious coordination with the Health Center led to only a spatial integration where one division was introduced to the Health Center Organization. The dual system divided the general welfare service at the city·county·borough level and the welfare service for the underprivileged at the Health & Welfare Service Office. The lack of the Social Welfare Professionals at the town·township·precinct level gave birth to the undelivered service and limited response to the residents at the town·township·precinct level

The pilot projects of Social Welfare Service Office (2004-2006) was to reorganize the city·county·borough government as the front line of welfare administration and the welfare service-related positions were intensely placed in the city·county·borough government. The integrated survey and service connection teams were introduced and took over part of the welfare administration core work (selection of the recipients, allowances management) that had been concentrated on welfare professionals of the town·township·precinct governments.

The shared system for the work process aimed to enhance the consistency of survey and professionalism. The management of service connection team was meaningful since it laid the foundation for service support in the process of welfare administration. However, unlike the model of Health & Welfare Service Office, the absence of welfare professionals at the town·township·precinct governments undermined the accessibility to the service in the practical sense and led to the residents complaints. Except the integrated survey, service connection work and change of professionals for the town·township·precinct governments, the Service Divisions for the elderly and physically challenged were not included into the practical scope of the pilot project, which is pointed out as a limit.

The administrative reform for residents livelihood support at the city·county·borough level (2006-2007) reorganized the Department for Residents Livelihood Support in 8 Major Categories ²⁾ , had the integrated survey and service

2) The social welfare service is newly classified into 8 categories such as welfare, health care, child care, jobs, housing, education, culture and fitness.

connection teams and newly introduced the Residents Livelihood Support Team (under the administrative official sixth class) in order to strengthen the local government's welfare service for its residents' better living.

The introduction of the integrated survey team, which was tested in the pilot project of Social Welfare Service Office, lessened the heavy workload of asset survey from the front line officials. The duty of asset survey was most burdensome for the social welfare officials at the town·township·precinct level on whom all of the welfare service was concentrated. Plus, the city·county·borough governments installed a consistent standard for the asset survey. However, in the reform process, 90% of the newly created administrative official in the sixth class at the town·township·precinct level were placed in the general administrative positions. Some criticized that the reform was only for the sixth-class officials with no specific positions. The officials in the general administrative positions were reluctant to conduct the welfare service to the residents. Though the Residents Livelihood Support Team was created to manage the different cases and serve the public before it was called, its purpose was not fully achieved.

With no practical programs and connected foundations, the catch phrase of 8 Major Categories such as welfare, health care, jobs was blamed for the reform had no contents. The upgrading of the computing system was also criticized since the integrated management of recipients and work involvement was not accomplished in the earlier stage. The effects of the reform were not visible and failed to put the criticism to calm. Thus, the necessity of better delivery system in the public sector remained.

The reform of the public welfare delivery system by the government tried to reorganize the local governments' organization and reassignment of personnel with no additional officials to be deployed. The much increased demand for various welfare services offset the reduced workload effects on the welfare officials’ side that the reform achieved. The positive effects of the reform were not tangible. Most importantly, under the circumstances that the local government covered all the public services, there was no consensus throughout the local government that the social welfare is very important and needs professionalism. For the successful reform, the officials in the general administrative positions were required to be willing when it comes to the implementation of welfare service to the public. However, that did not happen in a short time frame. The officials in the general administrative positions avoided the social welfare service more and more, which fueled the argument that the social welfare service has to be conducted by the social welfare officials as the social welfare service becomes more complex and various.

The field and academia continuously asks the public delivery system dedicated to social welfare service, either exclusively or mainly. This should lessen the heavy workload of the welfare administration officials otherwise the scope of duty grows infinitely, and creates the working environment where the social welfare professionals can display their ability. The government can manage the welfare budget and allowances in a more efficient way.

A new delivery system should have the public and private sectors cooperate and come up with a working service.

Looking into the latest policy changes on the delivery system, it is noted that the government began to prepare for a new reform based on the above criticism. The following is its details:

2) Latest Social Service Delivery Reform and Its Implications

As mentioned above, the establishment of Social Welfare Information Management System in 2010 was part of the Master Plan for Social Service Delivery Reform which was supervised by the Prime Minister's Office having the related ministries under its wing and initially announced in June 2009. The Master Plan was a road map to

reform the social service delivery, for instance eliminating overlapping scope of work ³⁾. Social Welfare Information Management System (Haengbok-e-eum) was a support system for the local government welfare administration.

The System laid the foundation for an efficient public management to conduct an integrated implementation of distributing the welfare allowances.

3) The major purpose of the Master Plan was to prevent the overlapped welfare benefits, to eliminate any blind area deprived from the social service, to stop the official from receiving the illegal welfare benefits and to close any budget leak. The major reforms were the following: under the Plan, 249 social service undertakings supervised by 9 different ministries reduced to 159 undertakings; Social Welfare Information Management System was established; the integrated management system was run by individuals and households for the recipients; the cash allowances was paid through a single account (Welfare Management Account); and, various private welfare service institutions were reorganized for their functions.

As the System stabilizes and matures, the welfare service administration would have a more efficient implementation system. The social service officials would not be tied to the asset survey and their core duty of work would be consultations and service delivery, which is more professional ⁴⁾. The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affaires announced its beginning-of-the-year activity report for Year 2010 that it would build a phased connection with other related ministries including the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, the local governments, and private welfare resources based on the Social Welfare Information Management System and try fro a integrated management by the central government for the distribution of welfare allowances, qualifications, and history 5). If the plan by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affaires goes well, the computerized Social Welfare Information Management System will play a substantial role in building the community-based welfare service system.

Case Management on Family at Crisis was pushed ahead as a major social welfare project to secure the responsibility of the public administration. On July 13, 2011 the Prime Minister's Office and the related ministries and public agencies announced the action plan for the case management along with the personnel increase in the social welfare service ⁶⁾.

4) In particular, the administration process of 15 major welfare undertakings including National Basic Livelihood Security system was reformed. The asset survey standard was standardized in a consistent fashion, and a single survey was enough. It was expected that the simplification of the process would contributed on the administration efficiency substantially. The scope of the needed official record expanded for the fairness and accuracy of the asset survey. With a more reliable computerized database system, the social welfare officials were less burdensome and able to more dedicate to welfare consultations, service connection, and case management which are more professional. Also expected was the tightened management of changes of allowances which had been largely neglected.

5) The number of undertakings under the integrated management was from 112 by 4 ministries in 2010 to 149 by 11 ministries for qualification management and 292 by 13 ministries for history management in 2011.

6) The local governments will replenish its social welfare personnel in stages, adding 7,000 officials by 2014 and 70% of them deployed at the town·township·precinct governments. Between 2012 and 2014, 70% will be taken by the newly recruited social welfare professionals and the rest 30% will be transferred from the general additional officials would be deployed in order to expand and reorganize the service connection teams at the city·county·borough level, install tentatively named Support Group for Shared Hope, and strengthen the general consultation for welfare and integrated case.

The plan includes that the additional officials would be deployed in order to expand and reorganize the service connection teams at the city·county·borough level, install tentatively named Support Group for Shared Hope, and strengthen the general consultation for welfare and integrated case.

The case management conducted by the public sector will play a role to reform the old practice of the local government's welfare administration departments which consists of the initial consultation at the town·township·precinct level, distribution of welfare allowances and follow-up management. It is in its early stage

and being discussed for a future direction about the scope of work compared to the private sectors, the personnel and structure issues inside the local governments.

Also noted is the policy approach to strengthen the community welfare. What has been reformed is mainly about the public delivery system on how to deliver the central government's policy to the recipients through a process and structure in a consistent and efficient fashion, and, as a result, the frontline of the welfare field was the object of interest and attention. However, it is now understood that the policy focuses on the community-centered service system based on the peculiarities and dynamics of each community.

The concept of the community-based welfare can be understood in various dimensions. As the social interest expands about localization, decentralization and social welfare, the community-based welfare is assuming vast proportions in the sense of policy and actual practice. It corresponds with the interest of the previous social service delivery system since it enhances the central government's attention to the community where a policy is implemented and the local governments which implement the policy. The local governments and the private

The concept of the community-based welfare can be understood in various dimensions. As the social interest expands about localization, decentralization and social welfare, the community-based welfare is assuming vast proportions in the sense of policy and actual practice. It corresponds with the interest of the previous social service delivery system since it enhances the central government's attention to the community where a policy is implemented and the local governments which implement the policy. The local governments and the private