Mechanisms for Gradual Change ofSocial Services

and Inclusion of Non-governmental Service Providers

Sofia, July 2007

What did we need the mechanisms for? What did we want to achieve?

To gradually introduce new services and new service providers

To address some of the needs immediately, not waiting for the whole system to reform

To keep financing numerous and high-quality NGOs that emerged and were financed by humanitarian donor community during the period of sanctions

What did we need the mechanisms for? What did we want to achieve?

To involve the state institutions into the reforms not only NGOs, and to overcome antagonism between the state and NGO sector

To pilot services through one or two mechanisms instead of piloting through many different donors projects

To create tools for donor coordination

To disseminate reform ideas among the stakeholders at local level – involving them into the reform process at least by their engagement in applying to the funds

Introduced mechanisms:

DISABLED PERSONS ORGANIZATIONS FUND (DPOF)

SOCIAL INNOVATION FUND (SIF)

Both funds represent:

Mechanisms for reform / introduction of new services/service providers

Decentralization mechanisms

Mechanisms for covering transition costs

Mechanisms for good practices’ transmission and capacity building at local level

Both funds:

Finance projects/initiatives at local level Insist on sustainability and/ or co-financing from local

governments Give priority to partnerships between the GO and

NGO sector Have built in qualitative and financial auditing

At the latter stage - involvement of six NGOs as Units for M&E

Differences between DPOF and SIF

Disability Persons Organizations Fund (DPOF):

Only finances services related to persons with disabilities

Primarily supports DPOs (NGOs) Exclusively financed from the (state) budget Served as a pilot exercise for SIF projects

Differences between DPOF and SIF

Social Innovation Fund (SIF):

Has a wider scope, encompassing all social welfare services

Insists on partnership and provides equal status of all service providers (GO & NGO)

Financed from budget and donor funds Complements reform-oriented projects, esp.

transformation of institutions and foster care

DPOF

Typical projects targeting children and youth

Day care centers/Day care activities Education & training of children with disabilities Campaigns for awareness raising Inclusion Removing barriers Advocacy

SIF

Typical projects targeting children and youth

Safe houses for women and children victims of abuse and violence

Daycare Centers for children with disabilities Clubs for youth in conflict with the law Halfway houses Kindergartens on wheels for children with disabilities,

Roma children, children victims of violence

Calls for Proposals – number of projects

DPOF 2002-2006 5 Calls for Proposals Total 538 projects in the amount of 4.9 million Euro

SIF 2003-2006 3 Calls for Proposals Total 212 projects in the amount of 5.2 million Euro

Involvement of NGOs, partnerships & sustainability

DPOF All projects implemented by NGOs Partnership of GO and NGO almost not present No data on sustainability

SIF NGOs are the main implementing partners in approx.

35% of projects Partnership of GO and NGO is present in between 75%

and 100% of the projects Sustainability is a bigger problem for projects

implemented by NGOs

Next steps 

Regarding the regular financing of alternative services and inclusion of NGO and private sector as service providers:

  Analysis of experience generated by SIF and DPOF Defining standards for services Introducing licensing and accreditation Further development of M&E at national level Incentives for LSG to finance services in their mandate Spreading the concept among LSG of organizing calls

for proposals for financing services

Next steps 

Regarding the regular financing of alternative services and inclusion of NGO and private sector as service providers:

Defining and disseminating “ready made” models for different services, with suggested prices and procedures for selecting service providers

Establishing funds at national level for sustainable financing, particularly for:

Services in small and under capacitated municipalities Services considered as priority on the national level but not

necessarily on the local level Covering transition costs in establishing services