Institutionalization
Upon project completion, the LRP staff analyzed sustainability
related to all components and institutional partners, and the
use of advocacy towards these goals. Staff observed that they
had undertaken many activities of advocacy throughout project
implementation. Highlights of the main institutionalization
successes of the project include:
1. Policies in Labor Code for Prelayoff Services. The new
Labor Code stipulates the mandatory delivery of Prelayoff Services
(previously this only appeared within legislation or policy,
not the Labor Code). All procedures and materials that had
been developed and tested under the LRP were cited in this
official legislation.
2. Increased budget allocation of the unemployment fund for
financing active measures services. The budget for such active
measures services, previously allocated for passive measures
such as severance payments, increased from 3 to 27% from 2000
and is targeted at financing some active measures type services
for the unemployed.
3. New World Bank loan. The World Bank, Agency and Ministry
recognized the success of the LRP and agreed to continue funding
the program for a new four year loan of $20 million for the
same types of active measures for displaced workers. All LRP
manuals, approach and methods are stipulated in the loan agreement
as official project operational procedures.
4. Sustainable LED projects. In conducting Workshop F and
final visits to communities, staff confirmed that the majority
of LED projects are still operating. By facilitating these
final workshops, staff and communities worked together to ensure
that community LED plans were in place and/or operational,
and that existing LED projects had or were seeking new funding
opportunities to sustain their activities.
Staff NGO
Based on the recommendation from the MSI evaluation and the
requirements of WSI, the staff began to draft a sustainability
strategy in early 2001. An option was the creation of an NGO
that would bid for future contracts. At that time, there were
two viable projects that would come to fruition by the end
of fiscal year 2002. The first option was to bid as technical
assistance for the upcoming World Bank loan that would begin
in 2002, and the second option was to bid within a consortia
for a five year USAID project focusing on local government
and NGO capacity building. The staff weighed the options and
decided that creating the NGO was the most viable for long
term impact.
The new NGO, called MODEL, was registered in Spring 2002 and
is comprised of all staff and Project Director. The NGO bid
officially within a consortia for the new USAID project in
August 2002, to be announced by October 1, 2002.
By LRP closeout, however, changes in the
marketplace significantly reduced the NGO’s viability for contracts. The World
Bank officials negotiated with the Ministry for the technical
assistance component of the new loan, and concluded that rather
than contract the local technical assistance with an NGO or
Romanian entity, the contracting would be done on an individual
service or consultant basis. The USAID project was also announced
and the consortia within which the NGO bid did not win. These
disappointing events changed the viability and the marketplace
for the NGO’s chances to succeed.
Conclusions
At the close of the LRP, four staff members
have been contracted by the Agency under the World Bank SSD
loan, and six have been
employed by a different contractor for the USAID GRASP project.
While this will increase the NGO’s struggle to survive,
it may also be viewed as an extremely positive sign of sustainability
as staff and their experience, training and knowledge gained
during LRP implementation will be utilized in comparable sectors.
Their continued work in these sectors will build upon the past
successes of the LRP to continue supporting Romanian institutions
in workforce and community development during the transition
of government reform programs.
