institutions as the salaries of specialised employees would become almost equal to those of non-specialist staff. That in turn would result in low employee motivation and would make it difficult to fill vacancies, which is a precondition for lower quality of the social care services delivered at the institutions at issue. As regards the MLSP position that an increase in the number of staff would contravene the requirements of the Staffing Methodology for Specialised Institutions and Community-Based Social Services, the NPM points out its support for the 60:40 ratio between specialist and nonspecialist positions referred to by the MLSP. The recommendation of the Ombudsman, acting as NPM, concerns rather the overall number of staff at social institutions with a view to improving the quality of the services delivered there. It should be noted that the percentages provided for in the MLSP-approved Staffing Methodology are meant to be recommendations only. The legal basis section of the methodology at issue makes it clear that it was designed to set out minimum requirements for the staffing structure at specialised institutions and community-based social services. It is therefore inadmissible to rely on that document to justify the impossibility to increase the number of staff, as it provides the recommended minimum number of staff positions at specialised social institutions and community-based social services. In the light of the foregoing and also in the context of the growing need of an aging population for services providing high-quality support for the elderly and for persons with disabilities, an example of good practice is the Project ‘Development of the System for Planning and Provision of Social Services at the Regional Level’, implemented by the Social Assistance Agency (SAA) with financial support from the Human Resources Development Operational Programme 20072013. One of the activities under the Project was the analysis conducted in 2015 of the condition of the specialised institutions for elderly persons and for elderly persons with disabilities. The analysis was based on a comprehensive assessment of every institution, including the condition of the physical environment and equipment, administration and management, staffing, information on the service beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries’ involvement in the decision making process. The results are indicative of the quality level of the care provided in specialised institutions, as well as of the organisation and resource management, and the impact of the provision of services on the beneficiaries. Furthermore, the analysis shows also which institutions require taking urgent intervention measures, phased restructuring, or taking priority measures to ensure the specific needs of the resident beneficiaries. The main objectives of this project activity were to support the process of deinstitutionalisation of eldercare and care for persons with disabilities, to ensure the implementation of the goals and measures laid down in the National Long-term Care Strategy, and to support the drafting of provincial and municipal strategies for the development of social services over the next five-year period. It is important to note also that the legislative proposal submitted by the Council of Ministers to the National Assembly to amend the Social Assistance Act entails changes in the social services domain aimed at improving both the access to social services and their quality, assuring beneficiaries’ rights, including the right to free choice, ensuring individual approach and complex needs assessment. The amended legislation will refine the Social Assistance Agency’s functions related to the provision of methodological support to social service providers. It will regulate also the mayors’ responsivity for complying with criteria and standards for provision of state-delegated social services and local activities. The powers of the SAA Inspectorate tasked with exercising specialised oversight over the provision of social services will also be expanded. 77