Improving policies with regards to persons with dissabilities in Romania Romania –

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. Fundaţia 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 • Topromote inclusive policiesthat are accountableandfullycompatiblewiththeneeds of thebeneficiariesandthe EU standards • Tosupporttransparency in thedecisionmakingprocessrelatedtopersonswith 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 allsubordinatedstructures at thecountylevel • Full list of services per each of thesestructures • Number of beneficiaries at thelevel of each • The origin of fundsallocated for reabilitation of theinstitutions • Monthly medium cost for eachbeneficiaryanditscomponents • The list of projectsfinancedby ANPH thattheDGAPCsbenefittedfrom • The volume of investments at thelevel of DGASPC andthesubordinatedstructures • Copy of theinvestments’ 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 • Argeş Satu Mare • Bistriţa Năsăud Sibiu • Botoşani Timiş • Brăila Vrancea • Caraş Severin • Covasna • Dolj Cluj – incomplete answer • Galaţi • Giurgiu • Gorj • Iaşi • Ilfov • Sălaj • All these Directorates were brought to Court by IPP

12. DGASPC that still not provided IPP with public information Dolj Giurgiu Iaşi 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 withfinancialandothere relevant data withregardstotheimplementation of therelatedpolicies in thefield of personswith mental dissabilities, at thecounties’ 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 Sfinţii Voievozi Street, 1st sector, Bucharest • Phone: (+4) 021 212 3126 • Fax: (+4) 021 212 3108 • E-mail: office@ipp.ro • www.ipp.ro 17