Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

(Main results of the first phase from a targeted social research, conducted by the Agency for social Analyses in 1999)

Prof. Dr. Lilia Dimova

Table of contents

1. PASSPORT OF THE RESEARCH

2. GENERAL CONTEXT

3. IMPRESSIONS OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE SYSTEM

4. INFORMATIONAL CHANNELS AND FORMS

5. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AND AMONG THE TARGET GROUPS

6. SOCIAL WORKERS ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR CLIENTS

7. THE “OPINION LEADERS” EVALUATIONS

8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Under the IDF grant for strengthening policy making and analyses, the Agency for Social Analyses (ASA) has realised the first phase of the social marketing research program - the qualitative research on social issues. The global purpose of the whole research component is through a two-phase research program (qualitative and quantitative) to analyse public awareness about social assistance system in Bulgaria in order to develop and implement a comprehensive two-way communicational strategy for improving public information about the programs and services of the National Social Assistance Service.

The research was designed and developed by an international team including the following names who are mainly responsible for its completion:

• Ms. Varshava Maximova - Head of the Presscentre of the MLSP
• Ms. Sharon Felzer - international research consultant
• Prof., Dr. Lilia Dimova - Bulgarian research consultant

All steps and details of the research development were discussed and approved by a broad team of experts, including Ms. Ann Walsh and Ms. Dena Ringold (World Bank), Dr. Tatyana Vasileva (Deputy Minister of the Bulgarian MLSP), Prof., Dr. Atanas Atanasov, Dr. Nikolay Tilkidjiev (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), and Dr. Mihail Mirchev (University of National and World Economy).

The preliminary defined objectives of the social research component are the following:

1. To determinate public perceptions of the changes in social policy in terms of their expectations and concerns about the pending reforms;
2. To assess the perceptions of the consequent risk of the implementation of the new legislation on social assistance and the law of family allowances;
3. To ascertain issues that may provoke social tension and the most vulnerable groups in this regard and what might mitigate these concerns;
4. To determinate why many households eligible for benefits do not receive them;
5. To test possible solutions to the concerns raised.

The following target audiences were surveyed at the first phase of the research:

• Pensioners;
• Disabled people;
• Romanies;
• People who have been refused assistance;
• Unemployed;
• “Ordinary people” ( who receive benefits only for their children);

• Policy makers;
• Journalists;
• Experts/Academicians;
• NGO representatives;
• Local government officials.
 

Three different research methods were used:

• Focus group interviews with social workers and beneficiaries;
• In-depth individual interviews with opinion leaders;
• Self-completion questionnaire for social workers.

Geographically the focus group research was located in Sofia, two towns (Bourgaz and Yambol), two villages (Enina and Zverino). The self-completion survey with social workers was carried out in 200 municipalities from all over the country, selected by random representative sample.

The total number of respondents covering by the three research methods are the following:

• 21 focus group interviews with about 200 participants in total:
• 10 in-depth interviews with 10 opinion leaders from Sofia,

• self-completion survey with 558 randomly selected social

workers from 200 municipalities from all over the country.

Several methods were used in data processing:

• SPSS for the self-completion survey with social workers;
• content-analyses for in-depth individual and group interviews;
• comparative analyses by target audiences, geographical

location and socio-demographic indicators.

Here are presented the main facts and conclusions based on the three different types social studies. The presentation intentionally focuses on the social issues and problems raised by the surveyed people from all target categories in order to inform the design and preparation of the communicational strategy developing by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy.

On the basis of the first phase of research results, the local and international social marketing/research experts

shared by different social groups in Bulgarian society. The quantitative survey will also test specific messages developed by the communication team and the survey will determinate which vehicles of communication work most effectively with the different audiences. It will also be able to test whether audiences have different levels of understanding of social assistance issues. The forthcoming quantitative study will be the second phase of the research component and its results will contribute a lot to the success of the communicational strategy, and to the effective changes in social area.

Research indicates that there are not strong attitude divisions among different target groups about the general situation in Bulgaria. Usually and most often the evaluations are negative and mirror the hard socio-economic problems face the country during the years of transformations. Surveyed people evaluate the current situation in a comparative context - they compare Bulgaria and other countries in Europe - especially Germany - and conclude that outside Bulgaria people live better. At the same time they compare the current and the previous life conditions and security. Survey indicates symptoms of social depression because of the current hardships.

It is important to point out, that the majority of surveyed people belong to the marginal part of the society - they are either real or potential beneficiaries of social assistance. They live in poverty and share the culture model of poverty with all its elements. That is why, the estimations given by surveyed people to the current situation varied from “a big tragedy” and “everything is very bad and deteriorate for all” to “the things are improving, even slowly”. However, dominate estimations that the things are not going in better track. Further, there are syndromes of nostalgia for the past security, full employment, social benefits and guaranteed income. It is also discovered a public explanatory scheme that “today is worse from yesterday and better than tomorrow”. The registration of such criticism about the concrete changes undoubtedly raise a necessity of measurement its social scope and social basis what will be achieve through the forthcoming targeting quantitative research. That also arguments the need of educational campaign on economic and social reforms.

Target audiences argument their critic views with the serious problems faced the country and them personally. Surveyed people focus on unemployment and job insecurity, low income and standard of living, criminality, deprivations, marginalisation. They also give lots of concrete examples about their individual and family problems what make them feel non-secure and not comfortable. Most of the shared difficulties are consequences from the economic situation and from the limited opportunities for coping with the crisis.

Unemployment is the most often mention reason for mass impoverishment of the population and for the deterioration the life style. Unemployment itself is linked with the collapse of Bulgarian economy and with “suspicious privatisation”.

Further, the unemployment and the narrow labour market are seen as a prerequisite and core for the hard situation. The most common statement among people in economically active age (including disabled people), is: “we want job, not social assistance - we would rather work that receive support and it will be better both for the government and for us and our families”. Public perceptions strongly connect unemployment with social assistance system and the dominant preferences are for job creations (but not symbolically paid) instead to increase sources for assistance. “Now it is extremely difficult to find job and that is the main reason for the poverty and for increasing criminality in Bulgaria” - that is an often met and widespread view.

It is very important that jobs are becoming the criteria by which people judge the social assistance programs. They sort of think they are being “free market” oriented because they want to work...but they do not see that in a reformed system the government can not just create jobs.

What appears as a focal point in public perceptions, is the shortage and even the lack of perspectives for improving life among all target groups. For themselves and for their children. Surveyed people indicate difficulties with education, health care, finding job, pension insurance. The pessimism related to the future is widespread, even among some opinion leaders. Surveyed people’s explanation is that “ pessimism predominates because the greatest is the problem of survival”. On the basis of qualitative results could be assumed that pessimists in Bulgaria are more than optimists, but whether it is valid for the whole population and in what proportions - it will show the quantitative survey.

Target audiences blame first of all the government and politicians about people’s hard and non-perspective life. The arguments for that are related in a large extend with social policy changes and social benefits restrictions. People’s views could be summarising with the statement: “I realise we are in a very bad economic situation, but we should not give away what we have already won in social policy”.

In sum, surveyed people are not satisfied of the reforms. They feel non-secure and do not see good opportunities for improving their standard of living. Possibilities for finding well paid jobs are becoming the criteria by which people estimate the changes and the social assistance programs. One of the most serious reasons for their disappointment is that they are not well informed about the vision of the transformations, about the philosophy of changes, and about the necessary social cost they ought to pay. They have little knowledge about the new governmental responsibilities in a free market environment. The most significant, however, is that people do not know where Bulgaria is going to, why in this and not in other direction, and what they have to expect from the current days and from the future. The registered lack of sufficient and reliable information keeps very serious risk for the success of the reforms and that is why a comprehensive communicational strategy is so crucial.

They are not different from the evaluations about the general situation. Surveyed people’s words discover that they feel unfavourable, give some explanations where such a feeling comes from, but they do not measure their extend and their socio-demographic range, what will be done later on.

Estimating the social assistance system people see it in both positive and negative aspects. Even beneficiaries account that social assistance should be directed mostly to people who do not have any other chances and choice to guarantee decent life for hem and their families - old pensioners, sick and disabled people, single parents. And here the survey discovers a challenging paradox what could be presented like this:

Research indicates that the reasons for such a paradox are rather broad. The people do not understand economic reform, they do not understand the implications of reform. In addition, they do not have real concrete details about social assistance so they create the story from their personal experience.

There are opinions that social assistance system risks to increase the culture of dependency - i.e. “people who received social support for years (it depends of course on the concrete case) become passive and constantly dependent from the government”. And also: “it is shame an young and healthy person to receive money from the Social Centres but what to do if s/he does not find a job - the government should give him/her job, not assistance”. Again, people keep their manner of thinking that the government should be responsible for creating jobs and guaranteeing decent life for every person.

There are several key addresses and focuses of public criticism related to social assistance:

• no clear criteria for assistance;
• criteria are not believed to be followed;
• the criteria are considered unfair;
• financial sources are not sufficient for all eligible people;
• assistance is not enough for a decent life.

Survey show that there is a little concrete knowledge and understanding of the specific programs. There is not consensus in public attitudes towards them either. Once again, myths exist that are not grounded in fact.

Concerning the family benefits, surveyed people are convinced that they are necessary, but are not enough for the children needs. Most of them believe such a support must cover the whole (or the main part) of the costs for growing children. Only a few of them understand, that this a supplementary support and the government should not be responsible to guarantee the whole amount of money what are necessary for a child or children. People misunderstand the goal of family support and that should be one of the key directions of the communicational strategy.

The majority of surveyed people think, “in-kind benefits are not the best form to meet their needs”. Some of them sharply react to the “food/tins” support saying that “it is not a good way to assist poor people with tins in a country, where almost every family makes its own”. However, in general in-kind benefits provoke contradiction reactions and are not totally rejected as a form of social assistance, but people wish to have choice what to get. They prefer a variety of different foods - rice, flower, oil, etc. and of course - to have choice what to take. Again, they can not understand the goal of in-kind benefits and do not make any connection between that way of assistance and the decreasing unemployment. In particular, they do not understand that in-kind benefits are both forms for assisting needy and for supporting Bulgarian economy.

The program of energy support (heating, electricity) is popular and comparatively well known by the surveyed people. There are people in the countryside (mostly pensioners) that prefer receiving heating materials instead of money.

In sum, in surveyed people’s impressions “social assistance” is very close and even equal to “social adoption” by the government. Social programs are accepted as “payment for the poor” and from the government are expected to be responsible for giving sufficient support to all that do not have regular income. Obviously, there is a bad need for improving public knowledge and awareness about the purposes of social assistance programs, changes in social policy, and governmental responses in free market conditions.

On the basis of qualitative research phase could be said, that people are not familiar with the general goal and objectives of new social policy philosophy, within the context of, and driven by economic reform. Their information is rather contradiction, sometimes even strange.

Usually people are interested most of all in whether they could receive support from the government. The social groups are not well informed neither for their rights, nor for their duties. Especially those from the villages or small municipalities. There are significant differences in the informational level of urban versus rural people.

The basic informational channels are media, networks of information and social workers. For the different target audiences they are different. Romanies for example, rely mostly on their “inter-community connections”. They have a perfect organised informational system among themselves and are one of the best informed group. They use also Romanies NGOs and regularly visit social centres.

Networks of information (personal contacts) are very important way for getting information for all groups. The changes and eligibility conditions are explained from person to person in a broad social network - friends, neighbourhood, family, relatives. The information is spread from the capital and big cities to the smaller, and to the villages goes only a bit. However, such a way of disseminating information is not a reliable one and it is out of a necessary communicational structure. It could be neither credible, nor productive. Of course, personal contacts will continue but they could be use as supplementary, additional channels. What is more important from a communicational strategy standpoint is to develop reliable communicational programs oriented to all needy people in order to assist them in better understanding of their eligibility.

Another often-used channel is media. Again - different media for different regions and targets. The local radio is one of the most popular and the easiest source of the necessity information. Especially for people from the villages and those who live far from big cities. Local TV is quite popular together with the national one in the countryside, but not all people have enough time, or what is more important – money, to watch TV programs. In addition, TV could give a brief information what people need to understand and to find their own eligibility. That is why, TV should not play a basic role in the strategy. People need more time to understand what does and what does not concern them.

Newspapers are comparatively less used way of information mostly because for the marginal and vulnerable groups they are too expensive. There are practices in some villages, when a group of people take turns at buying a newspaper ones a week with the weekly TV program. Some pensioners buy “Third age” newspaper and trust the information giving in it, what sometimes is not correct and ever wrong according to social workers. That rises the significant question about the targeted knowledge of the “social journalists”. Obviously there is need for improving it and the communicational strategy will contribute a lot to the successfully developed PR strategy of the MLSP.

Social workers and social centres are another often used way for obtaining information about the social assistance, but people give signals of difficulties they face. For example, there are some social workers that refuse or have formal attitudes to people requests for information.

So far posters, stickers and other written materials are not very popular, but they could be if are disseminate to the right places - shops, post-office stations, held care institutions. Research indicates that the written materials could be one of the most useful channels of information. Especially if they are prepared with “human face”, and written in understandable language.

In sum, informational channels for the vulnerable groups are different from those for the “ordinary people”. Usually and most often vulnerable groups rely on their informal networks of information, but also on media and social workers. They need however more time to understand the requirements and conditions for social assistance, as well as whether they are eligible. People in rural area are much less informed that those in urban.

Qualitative results indicate that there are many similarities, but at the same time some significant differences between and among the groups who are social assistance real or potential beneficiaries. Eight target audiences from three types of municipalities have been qualitative surveyed and the findings show that their views are similar mostly in their negative attitudes towards situation in the country. They are also similar in the feeling of poverty and pessimist prognoses for the future.

Survey discovered that nearly everyone feels discriminated against the system. The above mentioned paradox is more or less valid for all target groups. “It just seems that whoever screams the loudest gets the most”. Having regards the hard situation in the country, such a feeling is not surprising just because so many people from all social groups need social assistance. At the same time, people understand that the material sources for meeting all needs are not enough and from here they comment their distribution.

The specific features of each group could be thus characterised:

• Romanies – seemingly well informed group about social policy changes and their individual and family eligibility to receive social assistance. Their awareness is related to the fact that the majority of Romanies have been beneficiaries for years. They rely mostly on social assistance because of the narrow labour market and high unemployment. The limited chances for getting jobs make them being “on time” with changes and new programs in the area of social assistance. In addition, Romanies are one of the social groups what is comparatively broadest and for a longest period embraced from social assistance services. Surveyed Romanies mentioned however, that it makes them dependent from the governmental assistance and such a culture of dependency could be reproduced in next generations. Similar to other groups, most of them rather have jobs than social assistance.
• Pensioners - one of the largest vulnerable groups, who do not have many alternatives for decent life, especially single old pensioners. They are interested mostly in heating support during the winter season, but also in all kind of assistance they could get in order to improve their living standard. There are serious differences within the group based on their place of living. Pensioners in Sofia know much more about social assistance programs than those from the countryside and especially from the villages. They need different approaches to getting them with information and services.
• Disabled people – one of the most optimistic groups compare to the others, even with their strong feeling of socially disintegration and isolation. They are comparatively well informed about specific social assistance programs but need to know more about forms and opportunities for social and professional realization. For them it is of huge importance to have more and better chances to work and feel socially integrated than to rely totally on governmental assistance. How it was already mentioned the survey discovers similar positions in all target groups.
• Unemployed - they rather have jobs than being social assistance’s clients and blame the government about their unfavourable life situation. There are huge differences in chances for getting jobs in Sofia and smaller towns and villages. The largest risk for them and especially for those who live in small towns and in villages is the resignation with their status “out of the labour market” and the design a culture of poverty. A better co-ordination and co-operation between the social assistance system and the employment system should be very helpful for them and for the success of the reforms.
• “Ordinary people” - they are the surprising “alarm signal”. Even those who have double family income and receive support for their children have feeling of marginalisation and show syndromes of a culture of poverty. Surveyed are pessimists about the future and do not support social policy restrictions. It might be expected social tensions coming from that group, especially with the forthcoming changes in the legislation of family support, health and pension insurance.

In sum, the differences in informational level within and among the target groups are result more from their place of living than from their ethnic and socio-demographic status. Differences of urban versus rural people are rather significant and it should be one of the key points in the communicational strategy development. Further, “ordinary people” appear to be frustrated as those who are far more dependent on social assistance for their income. That is why, it would be worth over-sampling ordinary people to measure their exact level of frustration, and exact understanding if their attitudes and perceptions. Results from the planning quantitative research would be rather important to prevent potential social tension and to identify effective ways to communicate with this audience.

Social workers were surveyed in two ways - both qualitative (through focus groups interviews) and quantitative (through national representative random sample). Since it was the first research in the country among that category, social workers demonstrated a huge interest in expressing their views and recommendations. The response rate of the quantitative study (N=558) was 99,6 % - a serious indicator for their attitudes towards the survey.

Survey results show that the profession “social worker” is a hard and stressful one, but the majority of social workers are pleased to do it. The most attractive its aspect is related to “the possibilities for help people”. At the same time exactly that element makes social workers feel dissatisfied when say there are serious obstacles to help all people who need social assistance by reasons outside their efforts - financial, normative, informational.

Social worker’s job satisfaction comes mostly from the contents of their work and from the relationships with their colleagues. It could be seen from the following figure.

Data indicate that many things bother social workers in fulfilment their professional responsibilities - not enough time to acknowledge with the new changes in norms, the changes themselves do not always fully correspond to the real situation and to people needs, public image of social worker is not enough high, people are not educated what social services and assistance are, and many others. However, the biggest problems social workers face in their work come from the contradiction reality - people’s needs for assistance are higher than existing opportunities to meet them.

The greatest concerns of social workers are linked mostly with the financial sources. Every second share that “they are not sufficient to assist all needy people” and “money does not come rhythmically”. There are estimations that “we do not have good equipment in our offices in order to fulfill effectively our work”. “Clients’ discontent” also provoke tension at the work place of 22 per cent of social workers.

Another group of social workers’ concerns is related to their work place and work organization. Many of social workers are not satisfied of the opportunities for professional advancement (37%), and of their working conditions (30%). The majority of them however (67%) are dissatisfied of the low payment of their work, mostly because “there is not a significant difference between our income and the income of our clients”.

Being “between the devil and the deep see” social workers believe that it is of great importance for their work efficiency if they are under a constant improving of their knowledge, skills and professional approach. During the focus group discussions they shared that “you cannot work in the sphere of social assistance and services without changing your approach, because people change, the system change, you change”. To achieve these social workers need specialised courses and seminars (88 %) organised several times in the year (49 %). After each change in the normative documents they want to be carefully acknowledge with the philosophy of the change and the ways how to apply the new norms in their work. Their preferences are shown in the graph.

Where their information comes from? Research with social workers shows that 70 per cent of them get information about changes in social legislation (rules and regulations that affect their work) mostly from the Official Gazette, materials from the ministry, and from their menages. Their preferences are in general the same, but there are some additional suggestion - for establishment an information system, for exchange experience and good practice among colleagues, for more regular contacts between different levels of the social assistance system. Every second of them thinks that one-week course, organized once or several times a year is the best form for improving their knowledge and skill.

Nearly two third (64 %) of social workers consider they need more training to do their job more effectively, and to meet their clients’ needs. Survey indicates that those needs are concentrated mostly around cash or in-kind support. Most often people visit their offices for social benefits, and much rarely - for social services and information. According to social workers’ evaluations, 87 per cent of the clients ask for social benefits against only 8 per cent who go the centers for social services. Such a situation inevitable raises a question about the level of information beneficiaries have about their eligibility for social assistance and services, and from here – what social workers could do for their clients in order to improve their awareness about social assistance programs. Dominate social workers’ views that most of the people are “somewhat familiar” with social assistance programs and their own eligibility. Data about clients’ information (based on social workers’ opinion) could be seen in the following figure.

Heaving regards their professional experience, social workers believe that the most useful information about social assistance programs people could get from posters, brochures and media (both national and local), especially from local radio and TV. They also see the need of increasing the role of NGOs at that matter.

In summary, Bulgarian social workers derive much of their job satisfaction from the substance of their work and accomplishments rather than from financial reward. They like their work, even face difficulties, but are not satisfied of their payment and work conditions. Social workers want to make a difference with their work, and they want to feel valued. Over 90 per cent of surveyed social workers insist they “should have more opportunity to express their opinion to the new ideas for social policy reforms”.

They get support from the Ministry in terms of information and appreciate that, but at the same time they need more training to improve their informational and professional knowledge, and actual skills. They also need better working conditions in their offices, in particular - computer equipment with access to all institutions involved in social assistance. According to them an computer system, covering the whole country, as well as consistent dialogue between them and the higher levels of social assistance system definitely will be very helpful for decision-makers, for social workers and for their clients.

Ten in-depth individual interviews with opinion leaders were conducted in the first phase of the research. The list of the experts with their professional profiles was approved after serious preliminary investigation and discussions with the Ministry and the World Bank consultants. Finally ten names were selected – two top level authorities from the Ministry, two journalists, two academicians, two NGO representatives, two local government officials involved in social assistance at the regional levels. The general idea of that element of the research was to compare beneficiaries’ perceptions towards social assistance with the perceptions of “opinion leaders”. That approach turned out as rather successful and findings contribute a lot to the comprehensive picture of Bulgarian situation in the social assistance field.

Survey indicates that there is not a serious gap between views of the opinion leaders and beneficiaries. Similar to beneficiaries, opinion leaders estimate the general situation in the country as a hard and difficult one, with many social focal points what need to be solved. They add however, that “most of the social problems are connected with the lack of economic resources and because of that people wait for help - therefore, main policy against the poverty is access to production resources – land, job and etc. “.

Another common view among the opinion leaders is related to the link between the social assistance system and the employment system in the country. Again, similar to other surveyed people, they believe in the necessity of improving that link and to focus on economic improvement, creation of new jobs, broadening the labor market.

Further to that, opinion leaders consider that one of the problems in the social policy is its “reactive, passive character mostly because of impossibility to attack the reasons of poverty”. From here, they signal about a serious danger of increasing the “de-motivation function of social policy and the culture of dependency”. Academicians suggest as a possible solution that “social policy and the system of social assistance should include both rights and social obligations”. In particular, they think that will be for better if beneficiaries have some duties as a preliminary condition for receiving social support. They suggest “the benefits receiving should be connected with some public activity – economic or business – and active and passive measure’s compatibility must be looking for”. Opinion leaders estimate however, that it is linked again with the crucial issue of economic situation in the country, unemployment and narrow labor market.

In the same context opinion leaders treat the significant problem of material sources both at national and especially at local levels. “The social assistance system is in a very difficult state. At first there is almost no municipality that does not complain about the poorest of the subsidies and the financial funds provided, and that they do not relate to their social needs. Upon the requirements of the law they are obligated to provide social help for the people that are eligible to receive it, but the municipal budget does not allow the redemption of a bigger part of the funds provided. On the other hand, this limited budget makes practically impossible assistance of all the people in need”. That situation is closely linked with the social workers concerns about impossibilities to assist all needy people.

What are opinion leaders’ views about public interest and knowledge on social assistance programs and services in the country – that was another key direction of the survey. In-dept interviews indicate that according to the opinion leaders, people in the country are interested a lot in the changes in social policy, but not all of them are well informed about the different programs and not all eligible people apply for support. The reasons they see are related to the communications with the potential beneficiaries, but also to some psychological factors. For example, opinion leaders believe that intelligent people who are out of the labor market and have to rely on social assistance “do not want to be advertised like people in poverty”. At the same time, “now these cases decreasing because the family resources are less and there isn’t place for dignity”.

In spite of this, in general, people are interested in social policy reforms, especially for these their parts what affect them personally, think opinion leaders. For example, the pensioners are interested in the heating season and they get information by reading newspapers, by listening to radio, by watching TV, by their social networks. The Romanies get information mostly from each other. ”There are Romanies who have been clients of social assistance for almost 10 years, and these people are bigger specialists in comparison even with social workers” – share opinion leaders. According to national and local officers, to NGO leaders and to academicians, the “Romanies are completed social workers and many of them can consult us. The government budget gives them many supporting funds, but their standard of living is not increasing and the conditions are not changed”. That is why, opinion leaders think that “the government has to invest in Romanies children, and in the Bulgarians too, to go to school - otherwise the unemployed will be eternal clients to the social support system”.

Dominate opinions that the citizen should be better informed. Here the questions are how to be done that, who to be involved and how to keep constant dialogue between policy makers, “distributors of social services”, and recipients. Opinion leaders believe that “different subjects and joint actions between the institutions in the three sectors should be involved in social assistance”. For example, “more structures of the civil society like NGOs should be cooperating with social services”. Further, – “the media and the visual materials are very important, so such materials have to be put up in basic places – posts, pension services, the place where we pay our electricity bills and etc.” Also, “people have to receive first information from social workers” is a widespread opinion of social workers.

Related to different programs and social assistance problems, opinion leaders share their estimations with different focuses. For example, according to the national and regional officers, “in-kind benefits are good way for assisting the most needy people and to achieve the social assistance system’s goals and objectives.” In addition, “in-kind benefits support the Bulgarian economy what is crucial recently”. According to the academicians and NGOs leaders however, it should be “and – and”, not “or – or” distribution between in cash and in-kind benefits. People need to have choice corresponding to their real necessities.

Research discovers that there is not a common view among the opinion leaders related to the other key issue – NGOs role in social assistance. Some of the interviewed believe, that the NGOs should play more active role in it and that they have a big potential to assist the system and changes. There are however opinions, that “The NGOs sector in Bulgaria is a Bulgarian NGOs sector and it is in Bulgarian conditions. That is why it is not ready for work without calculating profit. The NGOs, which make something, are very little”. The conclusion is that obviously there is need not only to increase NGOs’ role in social assistance area, but also to improve public image of the third sector in Bulgaria.

In sum, opinion leaders think in the same direction as the other surveyed people. They insist for better informational system, for better connection between social assistance system and employment system, for finding ways to decrease “de-motivation function” of the social assistance mostly with good combination between social rights and social duties. It is important to be mentioned, that the national and local officers, and the journalists are optimist for the future. Academicians and NGO leaders however are not. One of them says the follows: “I am not an optimist. I think the most of people are not. Some essentially improvement of the situation cannot be expected soon. It is important for me to not go back.”

Qualitative outputs discover that in public perceptions dominate hope than optimism, strong expectation for more governmental social spending than look for active individual strategies for coping with the crisis and improving living standard.

The main findings could be thus summarize:

• Research indicates a high level of frustration and despondency about the continued lack of resources in Bulgaria. People are not well informed about the vision, the goals and the time of the ongoing general reforms in the country. They are not optimists about the future having regards the mass impoverishment, high level of unemployment and lack of perspectives about them and their children for improving their standard of living.
• Findings discover very little understanding about the objectives and direction of the social assistance system, as well as little understanding of details of social assistance. The paradox that emerges in the research is; “Social assistance is only for the most needy, but I need it and I need more of it”.

• There is high level of mass expectation about increasing the governmental spending in social area. People in economic active age from all target audiences want jobs, not social assistance and they believe that the government is responsible to create jobs. Survey finds out high and mass “culture of dependency”, what in large extend comes from the Bulgarian national culture.

• There is a general sense of discrimination among all audiences. Most respondents consider that someone else, somewhere, is getting undeserved benefits while they do not receive enough to survive.
• Research indicates that people are open to information about social assistance but they are not sure where to get it. So far they use their social networks, local and national media and social workers as basic informational channels. Their preferences are for written material put on the places they use most often.
• Survey results discover that social workers are respected and comparatively valued by the beneficiaries who recognized the hardship of their work. Their job satisfaction is related with the contents of their work and mostly with the opportunities to help needy people. They are frustrated by not being able to meet the needs of their clients. Social workers would like to have the knowledge they need to best perform their jobs. This would include more interactions with colleagues as well as shared best practice.
• Survey research ascertain that for increasing efficiency of their work social workers need higher payment, better working conditions and equipment, and better opportunities for advancement.
• Research shows that there is not a significant gap between the perspectives of the surveyed opinion leaders and of the other people with the exceptions of optimism. More (but not all) opinion leaders than beneficiaries are optimists. Both categories consider the difficult situation in the country, and are convinced that the key solution is in the reviving of the Bulgarian economy.

In summary, people are dissatisfied of the reforms and of “lost from the won social positions”. Their expectations could be located within the spectrum of “there will be better life not very far from now”, trough “hopefully it will be better for the young people what is the most important think, but we will hardly be alive”, to “the things in Bulgaria will never improve”. That is why it is of great importance to survey what part of Bulgarian population belongs to one or another group. The conclusion is that there are needs to be organised an education campaign on economic reform, as well as communicational programs for increasing public optimism and support to the reforms, explaining to people the general strategy, the reasons for its choice and the social costs what need to be paid

In general, survey results illustrate that the success of the social reforms significantly depends on