1 / 14

MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE

MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE. International Models & Support Local Commitment & Perseverance. Content. Mission Programs International Partnerships Challenges Opportunities. Mission. To enhance the quality of life of people with disabilities Motivation Romania Foundation (MRF) - created in 1995

zena
Download Presentation

MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE International Models & SupportLocal Commitment & Perseverance

  2. Content • Mission • Programs • International Partnerships • Challenges • Opportunities

  3. Mission To enhance the quality of life of people with disabilities • Motivation Romania Foundation (MRF) - created in 1995 • “You can get everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want” ZigZiglar, "Secrets of Closing the Sale", 1984

  4. MRF - Programs • Wheelchairs adaptation, provision and fitting • Peer group training for user, family, care giver • Services for Children with Severe Disabilities • Residential • Educational • Vocational • Special Olympics • Employment • Counseling • Job placement

  5. Motivation Limited Liability Company • Social enterprise with MRF the sole shareholder • Sheltered unit certified by the Ro Government • > 30% of employees are people with disabilities • Double-bottom-line objectives • social impact: creating employment or job training opportunities for people with disabilities • financial impact: generating financial resources to support the social mission of MRF, complementing philanthropic donations and project funding

  6. Locations • 2008: Bucharest, Ilfov, Neamt, Bihor • 2009: Timisoara, Ploiesti, Galati, Pitesti, Iasi, Tg Mures • 2010: Sibiu, Mehedinti

  7. Outcomes 1993 - 2009 • Provided over 3,000 children and adults with personalized equipment and training • Deinstitutionalized 37 children with severe disabilities benefiting now from customized community services • Created model for social and professional integration of disadvantaged people • Started social enterprise generating income for charitable activities of the NGO

  8. International Partnerships • 1993 – Int’l Federation of Red Cross & Motivation Charitable Trust • Wheelchair Production • 1995 – START Poznan, Poland • Wheelchair users – Peer Group Training • 1997 – Kerpape Rehabilitation Centre, France • Center for Active Rehab and Social Integration, Bucharest • 2001 – IMPACT Alliance (NGOs from USA, Norway, Germany, UK) • Community Services for children with severe disabilities • 2003 – International Tennis Federation & Special Olympics • Adapted Sports • 2005 – COMBER, Ireland • Service Development for people with disabilities from institutions • 2007 – SHAW TRUST, UK • Employment services

  9. Opportunities for local partners (supported by examples from the list above) • Models to be locally replicated and adapted • Program initiation and development • Training resources • Strong allies in negotiations with local authorities • Fund raising, local and international • Financial support

  10. Opportunities for international partners • Still huge need for: • community services • structural change of state strategy and service provision in the field of disability • Cost-share from EU programs (ESF & others) • Local expertise after 20 years of diverse international support • Key people

  11. Challenges for both • Difficulties due to cultural differences • moral commitment versus seals/stamps • unacceptable high local bureaucracy • meeting deadlines • For many local decision makers “Foreign partners” = • “Give me the funds, I know better what to do with them” • high costs of service initiation • lack of local cost-share/long term commitment

  12. Challenges for both (continued) • Attitude of state institutions • Strong resistance to change • Low budgets • Lack of understanding of community services • Little interest of cooperation with private service providers – no subcontracting • Fear of media exposure

  13. Challenges for both (continued) • Low advocacy • Very few successful partnerships of local NGOs • Little entrepreneurial skills among NGOs • Reliance on external funding ONLY jeopardize sustainability • Key people

More Related