IPP Presentation

1

• Improving policies with regards to persons with
  dissabilities in Romania
• Romania
• Bucharest, October 2008 -

2
The overal Goal of the Project developped by IPP
and Pentru Voi, in 2007
In 2007, IPP Romania and the Open Society
Institute Mental Health Initiative from
Budapest decided to work together towards raising
awareness of the policy makers that policies on
persons with mintal dissabilities are not
transparent and for that matter insufficiently
inclusive. OSI asked IPP to conduct a monitoring
project aiming to mainly asess transparency of
the process. IPP chose Pentru Voi as partner in
the project as it is one of the most efficient
NGOs in the field. The overall goal of the
project was a national implemented democratic
set of policies that are transparent, inclusive
and rightfully respecting the rights of persons
with mental dissabilities in Romania.
3
The implementing organisation and the partner
Institute for Public Policy (IPP) from Romania
was the implementing organization and Foundation
Pentru Voi was the partner. Institute for Public
Policy is a think tank based in Bucharest, whose
aim is to support a democratic policy process in
Romania compatible with European standards. The
NGO was registered in 2001 and is active on areas
such as fiscal decentralization, corruption and
conflict of interest, regional development, human
rights. Fundatia Pentru Voi is based in
Timisoara and is one of the most active
grassroots NGOs working for the rights of persons
with mental dissabilities.
4
Background
Although substantially financed by the State
Budget and by interntional authorities, policies
that relate to persons with mintal dissabilities
are not necessarily transparent and pro actively
engaging the beneficiaries. Civil society has
little access to financial data in support of the
related policies. There is no practice of
displaying financial information on the
investments and results.
5
Main Objectives

• To promote inclusive policies that are
  accountable and fully compatible with the needs
  of the beneficiaries and the EU standards
• To support transparency in the decision making
  process related to persons with mintal
  dissabilities.

6
The scope of the research

• To assess transparency with regards to public
  spendings and impact of the social inclusion
  policies
• To compare the management of data and the use of
  funds between counties (Directorates for Social
  Protection)

7
Evaluation Indicators

• Statistical data with regards to funds allocated
  for various activities in the sector of mental
  dissabilities at the counties level issued by
  County Authorities based on FOIA Requests.
• Number of strategic litigations based on
  incomplete or unexisting answer to FOIA
  inquiries.
• Number of participants in the debate organized at
  the end of the project where conclusions were
  debated.

8
Target group national level

• Main target group the 41 County Directorates for
  Social Protection in Romania
• Secondary target group the National Authority
  for Persons with Handicap

9
Examples of questions addressed to DGASPC

• The list of all subordinated structures at the
  county level
• Full list of services per each of these
  structures
• Number of beneficiaries at the level of each
• The origin of funds allocated for reabilitation
  of the institutions
• Monthly medium cost for each beneficiary and its
  components
• The list of projects financed by ANPH that the
  DGAPCs benefitted from
• The volume of investments at the level of DGASPC
  and the subordinated structures
• Copy of the investments budget per 2005 and 2006
• The overvall amount of grants awarded to each of
  DGASPC from international sources
• The overvall amount of funds allocated to each of
  DGASPC from Programs of National Interest

10
Review/Checking Process

• A significant number of Directorates sent
  information that was not reliable. IPP checked
  that information several times by calling the
  Directorates and speaking to various staff
  members.
• Also, IPP checked the information with the
  National Authority, in Bucharest.

11
DGASPC that have not provided IPP with public
information

• Arges Satu Mare
• Bistrita Nasaud Sibiu
• Botosani Timis
• Braila Vrancea
• Caras Severin
• Covasna
• Dolj Cluj incomplete answer
• Galati
• Giurgiu
• Gorj
• Iasi
• Ilfov
• Salaj
• All these Directorates were brought to Court by
  IPP

12

DGASPC that still not provided IPP with public
information
Dolj Giurgiu Iasi Ilfov Satu Mare Vâlcea Also,
DGASPC from Tulcea and Valcea invited IPP staff
to visit their office for documentation (which is
against the law)

13

Outputs

The first data base with financial and othere
relevant data with regards to the implementation
of the related policies in the field of persons
with mental dissabilities, at the counties
level, all around Romania.

14
Recommendations (I)

• Periodical evaluations of the efficiency of
  institutions in charge based on the objectives
  stipulated within the National Strategy and other
  documents regulating the field
• Developing a set of indicators (benchmarks) to
  evaluate the impact on beneficiaries of social
  services in the field of mental disabilities
• Performing continuous budget monitoring in the
  field of financial allocation/spendings for the
  mental disability field in Romania, in order to
  match priorities with financial resources and to
  hold responsible autorities accountable for
  rational and transparent budget allocation

15
Recommendations (II)

• Reassessing some of regulations regarding the
  budgeting process
• Current law regulations state that monthly medium
  cost for each beneficiary should be calculated
  based on salary expenditures and goods
  expenditures from operational budget we
  appreciate that a reconsideration of the law in
  that sense should be necessary
• Estimating the medium cost for each beneficiary
  based on the needs imposed by each type of
  disability and not considering all the types of
  expenditures from operational budget that could
  be irrelevant

16
Recommendations (III)

• Good correlation between the existing or
  forthcoming infrastructure and the needs
  estimated within a region
• A better implication from the National Authority
  (ANPH) in assessing the impact of international
  financing sources upon the development of the
  primary infrastructure/services in the mental
  disability fields

17

• Thank you!
• The Institute for Public Policy (IPP)
• ROMANIA
• 55 Sfintii Voievozi Street, 1st sector, Bucharest
• Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• E-mail office_at_ipp.ro
• www.ipp.ro  

17