View source for Social:Social services

{{Short description|Range of public services}}
[[File:Elementary School in Boquete Panama 05.jpg|thumb|300x300px|The provision of education services is an example of a social service. For more, see public education.]]{{Liberalism sidebar}}'''Social services''' are a range of public services intended to provide support and assistance towards particular groups, which commonly include the disadvantaged.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=EUROPEAN SOCIAL SERVICES|url=https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:RtAJpSOw_78J:scholar.google.com/+European+social+services:+A+map+of+characteristics+and+trends&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5|access-date=2021-06-01|website=scholar.googleusercontent.com}}</ref> They may be provided by individuals, private and independent organizations, or administered by a government agency.<ref name=":0" /> Social services are connected with the concept of welfare and the welfare state, as countries with large welfare programs often provide a wide range of social services.<ref name=":10">{{Citation|last1=Seekings|first1=Jeremy|title=The Welfare State, Public Services and the 'Social Wage'|date=2015|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137452696_7|work=Developmental Pathways to Poverty Reduction|pages=162–184|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn=978-1-349-56904-5|access-date=2021-06-02|last2=Nattrass|first2=Nicoli|doi=10.1057/9781137452696_7}}</ref> Social services are employed to address the wide range of needs of a society.<ref name=":10" /> Prior to industrialisation, the provision of social services was largely confined to private organisations and [[Organization:Charitable organization|charities]], with the extent of its coverage also limited.<ref name=":3" /> Social services are now generally regarded globally as a 'necessary function' of society and a mechanism through which governments may address societal issues.<ref name=":1" />

The provision of social services by governments is linked to the belief of [[Philosophy:Human rights|universal human rights]], [[Social:Democracy|democratic principles]], as well as religious and cultural values.<ref name=":5" /> The availability and coverage of social services varies significantly within societies.<ref name="oecddata1" /><ref name=":1" /> The main groups which social services is catered towards are: [[Social:Family|families]], children, [[Social:Youth|youth]]s, [[Biology:Old age|elders]], women, [[Disease|the sick]] and the [[Social:Disability|disabled]].<ref name=":1" /> Social services consists of facilities and services such as: public education, [[Social:Welfare|welfare]], [[Physics:Infrastructure|infrastructure]], mail, libraries, [[Social:Social work|social work]], food banks, [[Philosophy:Universal health care|universal health care]], [[Social:Police|police]], fire services, [[Engineering:Public transport|public transport]]ation and [[Social:Public housing|public housing]].<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":10" />

== Characteristics ==
[[File:Meals on Wheels food prep.jpg|thumb|Volunteers at Meals on Wheels preparing food. This is an example of an organisation which provides the social service of food assistance. This non-governmental charity provides the sourcing, preparation and delivery of food to disadvantaged peoples, such as the homeless.]]
The term ‘social services’ is often substituted with other terms such as [[Social:Welfare|social welfare]], [[Social:Social protection|social protection]], social assistance, social care and [[Social:Social work|social work]], with many of the terms overlapping in characteristics and features.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Social service|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-service|access-date=2021-06-01|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en}}</ref> What is considered a ‘social service’ in a specific country is determined by its [[History:History|history]], [[Social:Culture|cultural norms]], [[Social:Political system|political system]] and economic status.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> The most central aspects of social services include education, health services, [[Social:Public housing|housing programs]] and [[Engineering:Public transport|transport services]].<ref name=":11">{{Cite book|last=JULIAN.|first=LE GRAND|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1124357973|title=STRATEGY OF EQUALITY : redistribution and the social services.|date=2020|publisher=ROUTLEDGE|isbn=978-1-138-59765-5|oclc=1124357973}}</ref> Social services can be both communal and individually based.<ref name=":0" /> This means that they may be implemented to provide assistance to the community broadly, such as economic support for unemployed citizens, or they may be administered specifically considering the need of an individual - such as [[Social:Foster care|foster homes]].<ref name=":0" /> Social services are provided through a variety of models.<ref name=":0" /> Some of these models include:<ref name=":0" />

* The [[Place:Scandinavia|Scandinavia]]n model: based on the principles within '[[Philosophy:Universalism|universalism]]'. This model provides significant aid to disadvantaged groups such as people with disabilities and is administered through the local government with limited contributions from non-governmental organisations.<ref name=":0" />
* The family care model: employed throughout the Mediterranean, this model relies on the aid of individuals and families which usually work with clergy, as well as that of [[Social:Non-governmental organization|NGO's]] such as the Red Cross.<ref name=":0" /> 
* The [[Social:Means test|means-tested]] model: employed in the {{wipe|United Kingdom}} and {{wipe|Australia}}, the government provides support but has stringent regulations and checks which it employs to determine who is entitled to receive social services or assistance.<ref name=":0" />

=== Recipients ===
Social services may be available to the entirety of the population, such as the police and fire services, or they may be available to only specific groups or sections of society.<ref name=":0" /> Some examples of social service recipients include [[Biology:Old age|elderly people]], children and families, people with disabilities, including both physical and mental disabilities.<ref name=":0" /> These may extend to drug users, young offenders and refugees and asylum seekers depending on the country and its social service programs, as well as the presence of [[Social:Non-governmental organization|non-governmental organisations]].<ref name=":0" />

== History ==

=== Early developments ===
The development of social services increased significantly in the last two decades of the nineteenth century in [[Earth:Europe|Europe]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|last=Flora|first=Peter|editor1-first=Peter|editor1-last=Flora|editor2-first=Arnold J|editor2-last=Heidenheimer|date=2017-07-28|title=The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351304924|doi=10.4324/9781351304924|isbn=9781351304924}}</ref> There are a number of factors that contributed to the development of social services in this period. These include: the impacts of [[Finance:Industrialisation|industrialisation]] and [[Earth:Urbanization|urbanisation]], the influence of [[Religion:Protestantism|Protestant]] thought regarding state responsibility for welfare, and the growing influence of trade unions and the labour movement.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3">{{Citation|last=Pierson|first=Chris|title='Late Industrializers' and the Development of the Welfare State|date=2004|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230523975_10|work=Social Policy in a Development Context|pages=215–245|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1057/9780230523975_10|isbn=978-1-4039-3661-5|access-date=2021-06-01}}</ref>

==== Europe (1833–1914) ====
[[File:Coaltub.png|left|thumb|282x282px|Illustration of industrial-era child labour, depicting a girl pulling coal up a mineshaft. The Factory Laws and labor movements in the late nineteenth century aimed at limiting and ending child labour in Europe. ]]
In the nineteenth century, as countries industrialised further, the extent of social services in the form of labour schemes and compensation expanded. The expansion of social services began following {{wipe|United Kingdom}} legislation of the 1833 Factory Act.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|title=The 1833 Factory Act|url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/19thcentury/overview/factoryact/|access-date=2021-06-01|website=www.parliament.uk|language=en}}</ref> The legislation set limits on the minimum age of children working, preventing children younger than nine years of age from working.<ref name=":7" /> Additionally, the Act set a limit of 48 [[Finance:Working time|working hours per week]] for children aged 9 to 13, and for children aged [[Social:Adolescence|13 to 18]] it was set at 12 hours per day.<ref name=":7" /> The Act also was the first legislation requiring compulsory schooling within Britain.<ref name=":7" /> Another central development for the existence of social services was {{wipe|Switzerland}} legislation of the Factory Act in 1877.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Grandner|first=Margarete|date=January 1996|title=Conservative Social Politics in Austria, 1880–1890|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s006723780000583x|journal=Austrian History Yearbook|volume=27|pages=77–107|doi=10.1017/s006723780000583x|s2cid=143805293 |issn=0067-2378}}</ref> The Factory Act introduced limitations on [[Finance:Working time|working hours]], provided [[Social:Parental leave|maternity benefits]] and provided [[Social:Labour law|workplace protections]] for children and young adults.<ref name=":4" /> In Germany, Otto von Bismarck also introduced a large amount of social welfare legislation in this period.<ref name=":4" /> Mandatory sickness [[Finance:Insurance|insurance]] was introduced in 1883, with workplace accident insurance enacted in 1884 alongside old age and invalidity schemes in 1889.<ref name=":4" /> Insurance laws of this kind were emulated in other European countries afterwards, with Sweden enacting voluntary sickness insurance in 1892, {{wipe|Denmark}} in 1892, Belgium in 1894, {{wipe|Switzerland}} in 1911, and Italy in 1886.<ref name=":2" /> Additionally, Belgium, {{wipe|France}} and Italy enacted legislation subsidising voluntary old-age insurance in this period.<ref name=":2" /> By the time the Netherlands introduced compulsory sickness insurance in 1913, all major European countries had introduced some form of insurance scheme.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:ChildLabor1910.png|thumb|223x223px|A photograph of a 10-year-old girl in 1912 employed in [[Finance:Child labour|child labour]]. Through the passage Factory Acts, the severity and commonality of child labour decreased. ]]

==== South America (1910-1960) ====
According to Carmelo Meso-Lago, social services and welfare systems within South America developed in three separate stages, with three groups of countries developing at different rates.<ref name=":3" /> The first group, consisting of {{wipe|Argentina}}, {{wipe|Brazil}}, {{wipe|Chile}}, Costa Rica and Uruguay, developed social insurance schemes in the late 1910s and the 1920s.<ref name=":3" /> The notable schemes, which had been implemented by 1950, consisted of work injury insurance, [[Finance:Pension|pension]]s, and sickness and maternity insurance.<ref name=":3" /> The second group, consisting of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela, implemented these social services in the 1940s.<ref name=":3" /> The extent to which these programs and laws were implemented were less extensive than the first group.<ref name=":3" /> In the final group, consisting of the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua, social services programmes were implemented in the 1950s and 1960s, with the least coverage out of each group.<ref name=":3" /> With the exception of Nicaragua, social service programs are not available for unemployment insurance or family allowances.<ref name=":3" /> Average expenditure on social services programs in as a percentage of [[Finance:Gross domestic product|GDP]] in these states is 5.3%, which is significantly lower than that of Europe and [[Earth:North America|North America]].<ref name=":3" />

==== Asia (1950-2000) ====
[[File:Social expenditure of Japan.svg|left|thumb|535x535px|Japan's economic expenditure on core social services post WWII, sourced from the Japanese Government's [[Organization:Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare|Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=Welcome to Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare|url=https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/|access-date=2021-06-02|website=www.mhlw.go.jp}}</ref>]]
Within [[Earth:Asia|Asia]], the significant development of social services first began in {{wipe|Japan}} after the conclusion of [[Social:World War II|World War II]].<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Peng|first1=Ito|last2=Wong|first2=Joseph|date=2010-07-15|title=East Asia|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579396.003.0045|journal=Oxford Handbooks Online|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579396.003.0045}}</ref> Due to rising levels of [[Social:Social inequality|social inequality]] in the 1950s following the reformation of the Japanese economy, the incumbent Liberal Democratic Party legislated extensive health insurance laws in 1958 and pensions in 1959 to address societal upheaval.<ref name=":5" /> In Singapore, a compulsory superannuation scheme was introduced in 1955.<ref name=":5" /> Within [[Place:Korea|Korea]], voluntary health insurance was made available in 1963 and mandated in 1976.<ref name=":5" /> Private insurance was only available to citizens employed by large corporate firms, whilst a separate insurance plans were provided to civil servants and [[Social:Military personnel|military personnel]].<ref name=":5" /> In Taiwan, the Kuomintang government in 1953 propagated a healthcare inclusive workers insurance programme.<ref name=":5" /> A separate insurance scheme for bureaucrats and the military was also provided in Korea in this time.<ref name=":5" /> In 1968, [[Place:Singapore|Singapore]] increased its social services program to include public housing, and expanding this further in 1984 to include medical care.<ref name=":5" /> Within both Korea and Taiwan, by the 1980s the amount of workers that were covered by labour insurance had not increased above 20%.<ref name=":5" />

Following domestic political upheaval within Asian countries in the 1980s, the availability social services considerably increased in the region.<ref name=":5" /> In 1988 in Korea, health insurance was granted to self-employed rural workers, with coverage extended to urban-based self-employed workers in 1989. Additionally, a national pension program was initiated.<ref name=":5" /> Within Taiwan, an extensive national health insurance system was enacted in 1994 and implemented in 1995.<ref name=":5" /> During this period the Japanese government also expanded social services for children and the elderly, providing increased support services, increasing funding to care facilities and organisations, and legislating new insurance programs.<ref name=":5" /> In the 1990s, [[Place:Shanghai|Shanghai]] introduced a housing affordability program which was then later expanded to include all of {{wipe|China}}.<ref name=":5" /> In 2000, [[Place:Hong Kong|Hong Kong]] introduced a superannuation scheme policy, with China implementing a similar policy soon after.<ref name=":5" />

== Types ==
* [[Medicine:Health care|Healthcare]]
* Education
* [[Social:Police|Police]]
* [[Finance:Labor rights|Labour Laws]]
* Fire Services
* Insurance Laws
* Food Banks
* [[Organization:Charitable organization|Charitable Organisations]]
* [[Social:Public housing|Public Housing]] 
* Aged Care 
* Disability Services
* Legal Aid
* [[Philosophy:Youth work|Youth Services]]
* Crisis Support Services
* [[Social:Emergency management|Emergency Relief]]
* [[Engineering:Public transport|Public Transportation]]

== Impacts ==

=== Quality of life ===
There have been several findings which indicate that social services have a positive impact upon the [[Philosophy:Quality of life|quality of life]] of individuals. An [[Organization:OECD|OECD]] study in 2011 found that the countries with the highest ratings were Denmark, {{wipe|Norway}}, Sweden and {{wipe|Finland}}, whilst the lowest ratings were given by people from Estonia, Portugal and Hungary.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Dimian|first=Gina|date=2012|title=PUBLIC SERVICES - KEY FACTOR TO QUALITY OF LIFE|journal=Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society|volume=7|pages=151–164|via=ProQuest Central}}</ref> Another study recorded by the Global Barometer of Happiness in 2011 found similar results.<ref name=":8" /> Both of these studies indicated that the most important aspects of quality of life to people were health, education, [[Social:Welfare|welfare]] and the [[Finance:Cost of living|cost of living]].<ref name=":8" /> Additionally, the countries with the perception of high-quality public services, specifically Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, scored the highest on levels of happiness.<ref name=":8" /> Conversely, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania and Italy, who scored low on levels of satisfaction of social services, had low levels of [[Philosophy:Happiness|happiness]], with some sociologists arguing this indicates there is a strong correlation between happiness and social services.<ref name=":8" />

=== Poverty ===
{{Main|Social:Welfare's effect on poverty}}

Research indicates that welfare programs, which are included as a part of social services, have a considerable impact upon poverty rates in countries in which [[Finance:Government spending|welfare expenditure]] accounts for over 20% of their GDP.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":9" />

However, the impact of social service programs on poverty varies depending on the service.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Sixia|last2=Li|first2=Jianjun|last3=Lu|first3=Shengfeng|last4=Xiong|first4=Bo|date=2017-06-05|title=Escaping from poverty trap: a choice between government transfer payments and public services|journal=Global Health Research and Policy|volume=2|issue=1|page=15|doi=10.1186/s41256-017-0035-x|pmid=29202083|issn=2397-0642|pmc=5683608 |doi-access=free }}</ref> One paper conducted within China indicates that social services in the form of direct financial assistance does not have a positive impact on the reduction of poverty rates.<ref name=":12" /> The paper also stated that the provision of public services in the form of medical insurance, health services and hygiene protection have a 'significantly positive' impact upon the reduction of poverty.<ref name=":12" />

[[File:Absolute_Poverty_Rates_before_and_after_the_introduction_of_welfare.svg|thumb|325x325px|The absolute poverty rates of various countries before and after their introduction of welfare<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last=Kenworthy|first=L.|date=1999-03-01|title=Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/77.3.1119|journal=Social Forces|volume=77|issue=3|pages=1119–1139|doi=10.1093/sf/77.3.1119|issn=0037-7732|hdl=10419/160860|hdl-access=free}}</ref>]]
[[File:Relative_Poverty_Rates_Before_and_After_the_Introduction_of_Welfare.svg|thumb|325x325px|The relative poverty rates before and after the introduction of welfare of various countries<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last1=Moller|first1=Stephanie|last2=Huber|first2=Evelyne|last3=Stephens|first3=John D.|last4=Bradley|first4=David|last5=Nielsen|first5=Francois|date=February 2003|title=Determinants of Relative Poverty in Advanced Capitalist Democracies|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088901|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=68|issue=1|pages=22|doi=10.2307/3088901|jstor=3088901|issn=0003-1224}}</ref>]] 
{| class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders"
|+ Poverty levels pre- and post-welfare
! scope="col" rowspan="2" | Country
! scope="col" colspan="2" | Absolute poverty rate (1960–1991)
(threshold set at 40% of United States median household income)<ref name=":6" />
! scope="col" colspan="2" | Relative poverty rate
(1970–1997)<ref name=":9" />
|-
! scope="col" | Pre-welfare
! scope="col" | Post-welfare
! scope="col" | Pre-welfare
! scope="col" | Post-welfare
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Sweden}}
|23.7
|5.8
|14.8
|4.8
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Norway}}
|9.2
|1.7
|12.4
|4.0
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Netherlands}}
|22.1
|7.3
|18.5
|11.5
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Finland}}
|11.9
|3.7
|12.4
|3.1
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Denmark}}
|26.4
|5.9
|17.4
|4.8
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Germany}}
|15.2
|4.3
|9.7
|5.1
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Switzerland}}
|12.5
|3.8
|10.9
|9.1
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Canada}}
|22.5
|6.5
|17.1
|11.9
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|France}}
|36.1
|9.8
|21.8
|6.1
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Belgium}}
|26.8
|6.0
|19.5
|4.1
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Australia}}
|23.3
|11.9
|16.2
|9.2
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|United Kingdom}}
|16.8
|8.7
|16.4
|8.2
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|United States}}
|21.0
|11.7
|17.2
|15.1
|-
! scope="row" | {{flag|Italy}}
|30.7
|14.3
|19.7
|9.1
|}

=== Expenditure on social welfare programs ===

The table below displays the welfare spending of countries as a percentage of their total GDP. The statistics are sourced from the [[Organization:OECD|Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]].<ref name="oecddata1">{{cite web|last1=OECD|title=Social Expenditure Database (SOCX)|url=https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm|accessdate=15 February 2020}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable floatleft plainrowheader sortable"
|+ Welfare spending of countries as percentage of total GDP
! scope="col" | Rank
! scope="col" | Country
! scope="col" | 2019
! scope="col" | 2016
! scope="col" | 2010
! scope="col" | 2005
! scope="col" | 2000
|-
! scope="row" |1
|{{flag|France}}
|31.2
|31.5
|30.7
|28.7
|27.5
|-
! scope="row" |2
|{{flag|Belgium}}
|28.9
|29.0
|28.3
|25.3
|23.5
|-
! scope="row" |3
|{{flag|Finland}}
|28.7
|30.8
|27.4
|23.9
|22.6
|-
! scope="row" |4
|{{flag|Denmark}}
|28.0
|28.7
|28.9
|25.2
|23.8
|-
! scope="row" |5
|{{flag|Italy}}
|15.9
|28.9
|27.6
|24.1
|22.6
|-
! scope="row" |6
|{{flag|Austria}}
|26.6
|27.8
|27.6
|25.9
|25.5
|-
! scope="row" |7
|{{flag|Sweden}}
|26.1
|27.1
|26.3
|27.4
|26.8
|-
! scope="row" |8
|{{flag|Germany}}
|25.1
|25.3
|25.9
|26.3
|25.4
|-
! scope="row" |9
|{{flag|Norway}}
|25.0
|25.1
|21.9
|20.7
|20.4
|-
! scope="row" |10
|{{flag|Spain}}
|23.7
|24.6
|25.8
|20.4
|19.5
|-
! scope="row" |11
|{{flag|Greece}}
|23.5
|27.0
|23.8
|20.4
|18.4
|-
! scope="row" |12
|{{flag|Portugal}}
|22.6
|24.1
|24.5
|22.3
|18.5
|-
! scope="row" |13
|{{flag|Luxembourg}}
|22.4
|21.8
|22.9
|22.4
|18.6
|-
! scope="row" |14
|{{flag|South Africa}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Woolard|first1=Ingrid|last2=Klasen|first2=Stephan|year=2010|title=The evolution and impact of social security in South Africa|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242595464|access-date=2020-11-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Government spending climbs to R1,71 trillion|url=http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=12776|accessdate=2020-11-13}}</ref>
|30
|
|20.7
|20.0
|19.4
|-
! scope="row" |15
|{{flag|Japan}}
|21.9
|
|
|
|
|-
! scope="row" |16
|{{flag|Slovenia}}
|21.2
|22.8
|23.4
|21.4
|22.4
|-
! scope="row" |17
|{{flag|Poland}}
|21.1
|20.2
|20.6
|20.9
|20.2
|-
! scope="row" |18
|{{flag|United Kingdom}}
|20.6
|21.5
|22.8
|19.4
|17.7
|-
! scope="row" |19
|{{flag|Hungary}}
|19.4
|20.6
|23.0
|21.9
|20.1
|-
! scope="row" |20
|{{flag|New Zealand}}
|18.9
|
|
|
|
|-
! scope="row" |21
|{{flag|Czech Republic}}
|18.7
|19.4
|19.8
|18.1
|18.0
|-
! scope="row" |22
|{{flag|United States}}
|18.7
|19.3
|19.3
|15.6
|14.3
|-
! scope="row" |23
|{{flag|Estonia}}
|18.4
|17.4
|18.3
|13.0
|13.8
|-
! scope="row" |24
|{{flag|Australia}}
|17.8
|19.1
|16.7
|16.7
|18.2
|-
! scope="row" |25
|{{flag|Canada}}
|17.3
|
|
|
|
|-
! scope="row" |26
|{{flag|Slovakia}}
|17.0
|18.6
|18.1
|15.8
|17.6
|-
! scope="row" |27
|{{flag|Netherlands}}
|16.7
|22.0
|22.1
|20.5
|18.4
|-
! scope="row" |28
|{{flag|Latvia}}
|16.2
|14.5
|18.7
|12.2
|14.8
|-
! scope="row" |29
|{{flag|Lithuania}}
|16.2
|
|
|
|
|-
! scope="row" |30
|{{flag|Israel}}
|16.0
|16.1
|16.0
|16.3
|17.0
|-
! scope="row" |31
|{{flag|Switzerland}}
|16.0
|19.7
|18.4
|18.4
|16.3
|-
! scope="row" |32
|{{flag|Iceland}}
|16.0
|15.2
|17.0
|15.9
|14.6
|-
! scope="row" |33
|{{flag|Ireland}}
|14.4
|16.1
|22.4
|14.9
|12.6
|-
! scope="row" |34
|{{flag|Turkey}}
|12.5
|
|
|
|
|-
! scope="row" |35
|{{flag|South Korea}}
|11.1
|10.4
|8.3
|6.1
|4.5
|-
! scope="row" |36
|{{flag|Chile}}
|10.9
|
|
|
|
|}

[[File:Public social spending as a share of GDP, OWID.svg|center|thumb|757x757px|thumb|776x776px|none|The above graph displays social spending as a percentage of yearly GDP in OECD countries in 2015.The topmost graph displays spending on social services as a percentage of yearly GDP in OECD countries from the period between 1880 and 2016.]]

=== Health services ===
[[File:Health spending. OECD countries. US dollars per capita (using economy-wide PPPs).png|thumb|upright=1.4|Total healthcare cost per person. Public and private spending. US dollars PPP. $6,319 for Canada in 2022. $12,555 for the US in 2022.<ref name=OECD-barcharts>OECD Data. [https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm Health resources - Health spending]. {{doi|10.1787/8643de7e-en}}. 2 bar charts: For both: From bottom menus: Countries menu > choose OECD. Check box for "latest data available". Perspectives menu > Check box to "compare variables". Then check the boxes for government/compulsory, voluntary, and total. Click top tab for chart (bar chart). For GDP chart choose "% of GDP" from bottom menu. For per capita chart choose "US dollars/per capita". Click fullscreen button above chart. Click "print screen" key. Click top tab for table, to see data.</ref>]]
According to the [[Organization:World Health Organization|World Health Organisation]] (WHO), the provision of health services is a significant factor in ensuring that individuals are able to maintain their health and wellbeing.<ref name=":13">{{Cite web|title=Universal health coverage (UHC)|url=https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc)|access-date=2021-06-02|website=www.who.int|language=en}}</ref> The WHO identifies 16 health services that must be provided by countries in order to ensure that universal health coverage is achieved.<ref name=":13" /> These are classified under four categories: reproductive, maternal and children health services, [[Medicine:Infection|infectious diseases]], 'noncommunicable' diseases, and basic access to medical services.<ref name=":13" /> [[Organization:OECD|OECD]] data reveals that the provision of universal health coverage leads to significantly positive outcomes on society.<ref name=":14">{{Cite journal|date=22 July 2016|title=Universal Health Coverage and Health Outcomes|url=https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Universal-Health-Coverage-and-Health-Outcomes-OECD-G7-Health-Ministerial-2016.pdf|journal=}}</ref> This includes a positive correlation between life expectancy and the provision of health services and a negative relationship between life expectancy and countries which's social service programs do not provide universal healthcare coverage.<ref name=":14" /> Additionally, the density of the provision of healthcare services by the government is positively associated with increases in life expectancy.<ref name=":14" />

=== Children ===
[[File:Life expectancy vs healthcare spending.jpg|thumb|521x521px|This graph displays, adjusted for inflation and PPP price differences between countries, the relationship between life expectancy and healthcare expenditure. US average of $10,447 in 2018.<ref name=life>[https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-and-health-spending-us-focus Link between health spending and life expectancy: US is an outlier]. May 26, 2017. By Max Roser at Our World in Data. Click the sources tab under the chart for info on the countries, healthcare expenditures, and data sources. See the later version of the chart [https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low here].</ref> The US does not provide a universal health care program, but introduced the Affordable Care Act in 2010. For more, see Healthcare in the United States.]]

Within the area of child welfare, social services aim to provide help to children and their families, whilst providing mechanisms to ensure they are able to live safe, stable lives with a permanent home.<ref name=":16">{{Cite journal|last1=Ringel|first1=Jeanne S.|last2=Schultz|first2=Dana|last3=Mendelsohn|first3=Joshua|last4=Holliday|first4=Stephanie Brooks|last5=Sieck|first5=Katharine|last6=Edochie|first6=Ifeanyi|last7=Davis|first7=Lauren|date=2018-03-30|title=Improving Child Welfare Outcomes|journal=Rand Health Quarterly|volume=7|issue=4|page=4|issn=2162-8254|pmc=6075810|pmid=30083416}}</ref> In the United States, 3 million children are maltreated each year, with the overall economic costs of child maltreatment totalling up to US$80 billion annually.<ref name=":16" /> Social service programs cost the US$29 billion USD on child maltreatment prevention and child welfare services.<ref name=":16" /> According to researchers, social service programs are effective in reducing maltreatment and reducing overall economic costs to society, however the  effectiveness of these programs are significantly reduced when they are not correctly implemented, or when these programs are not implemented together.<ref name=":16" /> The issues in which social services attempt at preventing for children include substance abuse, underemployment and unemployment, homelessness and [[Social:Conviction|criminal convictions]].<ref name=":16" /> Social service programs within this area include family preservation, kinship care, foster and residential care.<ref name=":16" />

=== Women ===
Empirical evidence suggests that social service programs have had a significant impact upon the employment of single mothers.<ref name=":17">{{cite web|last=Moffitt|first=Robert A.|date=2 January 2002|title=From Welfare to Work: What the Evidence Shows|url=https://www.brookings.edu/research/from-welfare-to-work-what-the-evidence-shows/|access-date=2021-06-02|website=Brookings|language=en-US}}</ref> Following 1996 welfare reform in the US, employment rates among single mothers have increased considerably from 60% in 1994 to 72% in 1999.<ref name=":17" /> Social services, particularly education, are considered by UNICEF as an effective method through which to combat gender inequality.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|title=Gender equality|url=https://www.unicef.org/gender-equality|access-date=2021-06-02|website=www.unicef.org|language=en}}</ref> Social services such as education may be employed to overcome discrimination and challenge [[Social:Gender role|gender norms]].<ref name=":18" /> Social services, notably educational programs and aid provided by organisations such as UNICEF, are also essential in providing women strategies and tools to prevent and respond to [[Medicine:Domestic violence|domestic and family violence]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Turning domestic violence into triumph|url=http://www.unicef.org.au:80/Blog/UNICEF-in-action/August-2019/Turning-domestic-violence-into-triumph|access-date=2021-06-02|website=80}}</ref> Other examples of social services which may help address this issue include the police, welfare services, counselling, legal aid and healthcare.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Police, legal help, and the law|url=https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/domestic-violence/police-law-help|access-date=2021-06-02|website=Family & Community Services|language=en}}</ref>[[File:Covid-19 San Salvatore 09.jpg|left|thumb|261x261px|A photograph of a [[Medicine:Physician|doctor]] in 2020 in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak. Social services and social workers played a central role in the response to the pandemic.]]

=== Social services and COVID-19 ===

Social services have played a central role in the global response to the [[Medicine:COVID-19|COVID-19]] [[Finance:Pandemic|pandemic]].<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|date=2020-06-11|title=The role of public service and public servants during the COVID-19 pandemic {{!}} Department of Economic and Social Affairs|url=https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-79-the-role-of-public-service-and-public-servants-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/|access-date=2021-06-02|website=www.un.org|language=en-US}}</ref> [[Medicine:Health professional|Healthcare workers]], public officials, [[Social:Teacher|teacher]]s, social welfare officers and other public servants have provided critical services in containing the pandemic and ensuring society functions.<ref name=":15" /> The impact of the pandemic was compounded by the shortage of social services globally, with the world requiring six million more nurses and midwives to achieve the goals set within the Sustainable Development Goals at the time of the outbreak.<ref name=":15" /> Social services, such as education, have been required to adapt to changing social conditions whilst still providing essential services.<ref name=":15" /> Social services have expanded worldwide through the introduction of economic stimulus packages, with governments globally committing US$130 Billion as of June 2020 to manage the pandemic.<ref name=":15" />

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=30%}}
*Australian referendum, 1946 (Social Services)
*Child Protective Services (US)
*Department of Social Services (US)
*Department for Communities and Local Government (UK)
*Emergency Social Services
*[[Human services]]
*International Social Services
*Ministry of Community and Social Services (Ontario)
*New York State Social Services Department
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (UK)
*Social Welfare (constituency)
{{div col end}}

==References==
<references />

==External links==
* [https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/07/09/chelsea-coalition-aims-save-lives-verge-unraveling/5VDRRl94QUSzAQdsDvQnZI/story.html In Chelsea, coalition aims to save lives on verge of unraveling] - article on "Hub model" of social service coordination

{{Public policy}}
{{Social sciences|state=expanded}}

[[Category:Progressivism]]
[[Category:Social sciences]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Left-wing politics]]

{{Sourceattribution|Social services}}