The present research found that there are less than 10 NGO resource centers in Ro-mania that correspond to the chosen definition: an independent structure that seeks to strengthen the nonprofit community and offers a range of services covering the main institutional capacity building needs for both grassroots and stronger organizations. Two main models have guided the setup and functioning of Romania’s resource centers: the Phare model, which sought to establish centers as projects of stronger organizations,
and the Mott model, which sought to establish independent NGOs. The first model did not result in sustainable resource centers, as only very few centers set up through the Phare model still exist in some form today. The second, more recent, model led to a set of regional resource centers that managed to have a better survival rate, even as foreign support decreased. In some cases, these resource centers were able to secure funding from other sources.
The research shows that the main reasons for failure of the project resource centers were: insufficient funding; a poor fit between the mission of the center and that of the hosting organization; lack of local constituencies and locally adapted services; and lack of strategic planning and leadership. In the case of independent NGO centers, with a better track record of achievements and survival, causes for their unstable financial situation and short life expectancy include: the lack of locally raised resources; insuf-ficient cooperation and communication among centers; unsatisfactory performance in recruiting and retaining highly qualified and motivated staff; insufficient diversification and innovation; and a limited capacity to recover some costs via paid services, such as training, consulting, and research.
This research takes into consideration that: resource centers are still necessary for the nonprofit sector; consolidation of existing centers is needed; financial and non-financial aspects of sustainability are equally important; and donors should continue supporting centers only if there is a real demand for their services and these services are of high quality. Based on these considerations, the chapter offers a set of recommendations, both to resource centers and to their existing and potential donors. These two groups are the main audience of this study, because they are key stakeholders and they have the incentives and the resources to implement some of these suggestions.
For resource centers, recommendations include:
• Thinking and acting strategically: Instead of simply seeking means for survival, resource centers should plan for the long term, by: activating and involving boards in strategy-making, finding and retaining strong leaders, involving beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the strategy process, and diversifying the donor portfolio.
• Building real constituencies: This will help resource centers avoid the excessive donor-driven behavior that has had a bad effect so far. One possible action is building monitoring and evaluation components into all projects, and using the evaluations in future programs and activities. It is also important to encourage learning behavior among employees.
• Improving cooperation and communication: Where practical, suggestions encompass: initiating joint projects, approaching donors together, creating complementary services, and pooling resources.
• Looking for ways to achieve sustainable diversification: Avenues to explore include diversification of clients—such as rural NGOs, small- and medium-sized
enterprises, universities, and public institutions—and diversification of services, which means giving up outdated services and adding new ones, like facilitation or event management. While diversifying, it is important that the centers are careful to stay within their mission and not over-stretch their resources.
• Enhancing staff qualifications and motivation: This is achieved through:
attracting and, especially, retaining highly qualified staff, to mitigate “brain drain”; working with a larger pool of collaborators and service providers, to increase flexibility; finding and using suitable non-financial incentives; and building a strong volunteer base.
• Attempting to recover costs by providing services for fees: This involves:
assessing the market potential; building or acquiring business management knowledge; performing cost-benefit analyses; marketing and selling resource centers’ services to direct clients and indirect clients, such as donors wishing to build the capacity of grassroots NGOs.
• Promoting transparency and best practices: Resource centers can do this by writing and publicizing annual reports and by developing and implementing codes of best practices.
• Improving partnerships with public administration, especially local govern-ments: Specific recommendations include: providing training and consulting for public institutions, preparing and submitting joint projects for donors, and gaining a voice among local stakeholders.
• Promoting social corporate responsibility and philanthropy: This can be done by becoming more active in presenting companies and taxpayers with the fiscal facilities offered by the new Tax Code.
• Working with donors to influence their strategies: This is done by offering information proactively, rather than on request; working towards support of operational costs, in addition to project costs; and trying to be more involved in the EU accession process.
For donors, the paper recommends actions such as:
• continuing support for the existing resource centers, instead of ceasing funding or supporting new organizations with the same mission;
• covering operational costs besides project costs;
• focusing on long-term results, as the specificity of resource centers makes it less relevant to look for immediate transformation of their clients;
• encouraging mobilization of local resources, such as companies, individual donors, community foundations etc.;
• contracting resource centers to provide services, such as training and technical assistance for NGOs;
• considering more local input in their strategic decision-making processes, which could be provided successfully via resource centers;
• maintaining consistency between strategy and actions/budget structures;
• achieving better coordination among donors working in complementary fields of activity.
The chapter has looked at the situation from a very pragmatic perspective, with a sense of urgency derived from the very short time span that the centers have until their current funding expires. As one leader of a resource center said on January 20, 2004, sustainability is a constant consideration and concern. The definition and conditions of sustainability vary with environmental factors, and with internal strengths and weak-nesses of an organization. Thus, it cannot be always said that elements that characterized a sustainable organization at one time and one place will necessarily be the same in different conditions. Acknowledging this relativity, this study has tried to suggest ac-tions that can be taken here and now, and it has sought to justify these suggesac-tions through a broader strategic analysis. If at least some centers are to survive, they should be able to understand the essential strategic factors determining their sustainability, to improve the quality of their services and to capitalize quickly on existing strengths and opportunities. Likewise, if donors want their resources to be used effectively, they should avoid institutional inertia and make an effort to leverage their funding via coherent and strong actions.
As one important Romanian donor noted: “There is a gap between theory and prac-tice as well as between identified needs, available resources and the interest of NGOs to access these resources. Needs are identified but often no, or too little, action is taken.”
Indeed, awareness about the issues presented in this study is not sufficient. If some-thing is to change, then all stakeholders need to recognize that investment is needed to close the gap between theory and practice. The recommended actions require consid-eration, debate, and effort, from both resource centers and donors, but it is absolutely necessary that at least some of these recommendations are followed if the resource centers are to survive and grow.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association for Community Relations. 2005. A Small Guidebook for NGO Fundrais-ing. Online: www.arcromania.ro.
Atitudini. 2002. “Yesterday in Timisoara, Today in the Whole Western Region.”
Atitudini. Nos. 5–6.
CENTRAS. 2000. Proposal to Mott Foundation. Internal document.
Dakova, Vera, Bianca Dreossi, Jenny Hyatt, and Anca Socolovschi. 2002. A Review of the Romanian NGO Sector: Consolidation of Donor Strategies. Bucharest: Editura FDSC.
Lambru, Mihaela. 1998. Local and Sectorial Fora 1998, National NGO Forum 1998.
Bucharest: CENTRAS.
Porumb, Alina, Catalin Gheorghe, Cristia Lazar, and Dana Pirtoc. 2001. Review of Donor Support for the NGO Sector. Bucharest.
Siegel, Dan, Jenny Yancey, and Caroline Hartnell. 2004. “Funding Civil Society Infra-structure—Paying Your Dues?” @lliance. Vol 9, No. 3. pp. 29–32.
Society Development Foundation. 1997. Annual Report 1996–1997. Bucharest: Society Development Foundation.
United States Agency for International Development. 2003. The 2002 NGO Sustain-ability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Office for Democracy, Governance and Social Transition.
APPENDIX 1
List of resource centers interviewed for this study
CENRES (Regional NGO Resource Center Foundation) Suceava, Strada Universitatii nr. 48, cam. 7, 720228
Telephone/Fax: +4-0230-524128 E-mail: cenres@home.ro Web: http://cenres.home.ro
Contact: Cezar Grozavu, Executive Director Civil Society Development Foundation (CSDF)
Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei nr. 202K, 4th floor, sector 3 Telephone: +40-21-3100177
Fax: +40-21-3100380
E-mail: access@fdsc.ro Web: www.fdsc.ro
Contact: Carmen Epure, Executive Director CENTRAS (Assistance Center for NGOs)
Bucharest, Strada Arcului nr. 16, sector 2 Telephone: +40-21-2114815
Fax: +40-21-2116040 E-mail: office@centras.ro Web: www.centras.ro
Contact: Viorel Micescu, Executive Director Ioana Olteanu, Program Director AID-ONG
(Agency for Information and Development of Nongovernmental Organizations) Timisoara, Calea Aradului nr. 12, apt. 12
Telephone: +40-256-433943 Fax: +40-256-492352 E-mail: aidong@xnet.ro
Web: www.aid-ong.ro
Contact: Mihai Lisetchi, Executive Director
CRR (Regional Resource Center for NGOs) Cluj Napoca, strada Ion Creanga nr. 2 Telephone/Fax: +40-264-591539 E-mail: crrcluj@go.ro Web: www.resurse-ong.ro
Contact: Ionut Raita, Executive Director Centrul de Resurse CREST
Satu Mare, P-ţa Libertăţii nr. 14, cod 440014
Telephone: +40-(0)261-706736, 706737, 714580, Fax: +40-(0)261-714580 E-mail: office@crest.ro
Web: www.crest.ro, www.telecentru.ro
Contact: Kazamer Andrea, Program Coordinator CERAS (Regional Resource Center for NGOs)
Ramnicu Valcea, Bd. Tineretului nr. 1B, Casa Tineretului, et. 8, cam. 305 Telephone: +40-250-711440
Fax: +40-250-711440
E-mail: ceras@onix.ro
Web: www.resurse-ong.ro/ceras/index.htm Contact: Daniela Venter, Executive Director
Ovidiu Samson, Program Coordinator CENTRAS Constanta
Constanta, Strada 1907 nr. 17, Ap. 8 Telephone/Fax: +40-241-522012 E-mail: centras-ct@rdsct.ro
Web: http://www.sitex.ro/centras_cta/
Contact: Ionica Bucur, Executive Director
APPENDIX 2