Място за Бъдеще RSS Feed
 
 
 
 

Успехи

[lang_bg]

Ново!: Делото на МЯСТО ЗА БЪДЕЩЕ в защита на Иракли беше СПЕЧЕЛЕНО!!!

от адв. Александър Кодажбашев, след като беше инициирано

чрез ресурсния фонд на МЯСТО ЗА БЪДЕЩЕ

Evaluation

Of the Organizational Development and the Project Implementation of the Shtastlivetsa Sofia Civil Association

Conducted in August, 2009

By Hermina Emiryan

A. Evaluation report

This evaluation was conducted with the purpose to provide the provide CEE Trust with an external opinion on the implementation and impact of the “A Place for Future”, a CEE Trust funded project including financial expenditures and organizational assessment. Its purpose was also to provide the CEE Trust with recommendations on what could be improved in the future in order to maximize the impact of the grant scheme in Bulgaria.

The operational tools used to build the methodology for this assessment included:

  • Review of all project related documentation (proposals, reports, monitoring reports, memos etc)
  • Review of all financial documentation related to the projects
  • Review of all periodicals – newsletters, reports, reviews and handbooks created within the project as well as films
  • Review of all websites and forums related to the projects
  • Review of media exposure materials
  • A set of interviews with project teams, organization boards, beneficiaries, partner organizations.

Shtastlivetsa is a non for profit entity registered in June 2006 and governed by a Managing Board and a Head of the Managing Board. It has been created as a spontaneous civic initiative to offer solutions to some of the problems in the capital. The Managing Board consists of three people one of which also serves as the Executive Director (Petar Kanev).

The Association performs activities in public benefit targeted towards increase of civic control on the work and decision making process of government (national and local); participation in forming and implementing decisions. According to the organization bylaws to achieve their goals the Association can: establish contacts with governmental and non-governmental organizations; produce publications, organize and participate in meetings, marches, protests and other authorized by the law events; organize seminars, conferences, round tables; organizing performances, art shows, literature reading, happenings etc. The main idea behind the creation of the organization is to bring together citizens from different professional and social backgrounds to jointly act on issues of importance to society. It shares the values and practices of civic participation as well as the awareness for the need for civic education and environmental protection.

The Association has approached the CEE Trust for support in late 2006, when the initiative has been discussed as an idea and continued through the year until the project was contracted. The initial idea has been for a three year time frame and has had a different larger scale budget. In the process of discussion the project was decreased in terms of longitude (one year) and budget with the suggestion that the organization tries to gain some experience through its project activities and then think about its further institutional and program development.

The project under review is BG_X 2007_45- “A Place for Future” implemented by Shtastlivetsa Sofia Civil Association. The period of implementation is September 1, 2008September 1, 2009 (upon approval from CEE Trust the project will be prolonged until September 30, 2009). CEE Trust granted the total amount of USD 74,154 for the purposes of this project. In brief the goals and objectives of the project are:

ü Informing the academic milieu of the existing civil initiatives for environmental conservation and sustainable development

ü Students’ and professors’ commitment to support these civil initiatives

ü Creating an academic space for ideas and experience sharing and exchange

ü Encouraging and stimulating the network of already existing active university and inter-university student groups or initiatives tackling with various current environmental protection and sustainable development issues

ü Improving civil initiatives’ capacity via sharing effective practices and expert support by professors and NGO experts.

ü Integration of the core Project’s sustainable development concepts and practices into the students’ curricula and professors’ schedules as internships and traineeships

3. Findings on the implementation and impact of projects

The project in itself is unique – the combination of the activities and the aim to bring together institutions that have a very different approach and background, putting together a team of diverse professionals etc. This uniqueness has proved to be a challenge but also the added value of this project. The initiative has developed and widened a network of NGOs, academia and students who work on environmental issues and share the sustainable development values and philosophy;

Goals and objectives - The success of this project lies in the shared vision and goals – everyone involved in the project no matter of their background has a mutual understanding of the problems, the goals and the priorities. This joint understanding is the main solution to all of the challenges the team faced during the project.

Project team and partnerships - A strong element of the project is the team. These are professionals in different fields (ecologist, architect, philosopher, political scientist, cultural scientist etc.) and the different points of view and experiences enrich the communication and the implementation of the project. There are a few strong points that I would like to put the attention to. First, it’s a new organization and the energy of a newly established entity is very much there. Secondly, being a new organization the team has a new vision, fresh take on the issues, different approach. They experiment, try new things and get less discouraged compared to their colleagues who are in the field for the past decade (this was also recognized by their slightly more experienced fellow NGO colleagues). Third – there is a very strong transfer of skills component in the team. The core team is open to learn new things and consult with older organizations on one side. On the other side the team manages to attract new people into the organization and train them in a way that at the end of the day they can delegate activities and responsibilities to these new team members. Only within the one year of the project there are several new members of the Association and several new team members. Not only that – the organization is very transparent and open – they share theirs experience with the fellow NGO colleagues. Of course as a new team with such diverse backgrounds there has been a period of adaptation and team building for the people working on the project. The shortness of the project hasn’t allowed the team to actually build its capacity and so there have been situations where tension was observed between different team members. That has been overcome in time and the team now works well. One of the things that was shared several times was that after the recapitulation of the project within the team there has to be a discussion opened about how the organization continues and what each person’s role would be.

Elaborating on what was said above about the new approach and the energy of the new organization it is crucial to point out that there is really a lot of enthusiasm and energy. This is of course something positive, but perhaps at times that energy and the huge amount of ideas that people have and brainstorm in the organization are pulling the small resources into too many different directions (ecological, architectural, community development, cultural, political views), so it is very important that the organization has well established priorities for the next few years and concentrates on those as well as the building of its institutional capacity, in order to avoid a moment when people would loose interest and motivation. The momentum and energy has to be kept alive and in order to do that, there has to be some sort of a framework developed to help the organization mainstream its energy and resources into the right direction.

Outreach - The outreach component of the project is strong. The organization is transparent, open and searching for feedback. The website created and maintained within the project is informative and contains a lot of information (perhaps sometimes you need to look for what you are looking for in depth, because there is so much different information available). All the media appearances are available for people to read and see (with the exception of the TV shows); there is a comprehensive calendar with events that will take place as well as an archive of the events that have taken place already. Through the website there are several students who signed to participate in the project without being students in one of the two partner universities – one from another town of Bulgaria and one from outside Bulgaria. There are mailing lists which help the communication between all participants in the project (students, Universities and Departments) and the “For the Nature” network (Open Society Institute, Sofia implemented and CEE Trust funded initiative), so everyone is well informed about the developments and the activities. In an effort to improve its outreach and PR component the organization assigned the students from the Mass Communication Department in New Bulgarian University to assess their outreach work. According to the assessment, the organization uses the “inexpensive”, conventional means of promotion and communication – the website, posters and brochures and mailing lists are all good, but the students suggested more outreach in the printed media as well as paid PR instruments. In this line of thought the media interest has been high according to what can be read on the website. There has been good communication with VTV and the Bulgarian National Radio as well as a few publications in Dnevnik daily. The challenge here is that this communication style is basically closed within the network and the danger might be that it stays there informing only limited groups of people leaving out people who might potentially be interested and involved. Given that this is such a unique organization and team of experts from different fields and backgrounds a suggestion here might be the development of a communication strategy that might be implemented by intern students from the universities who are in the mass communication and public relations fields.

Strengths and weaknesses of the project implementation - The fact that the project aimed (and succeeded) to bring the students out of the classrooms and show them the issues first hand, put them on the field is a precious aspect of the project. All three sides – students, NGOs and academia pointed this out. In general more than 80 people have participated in the travel seminars and over 10 people had the chance to do internships in several NGOs.

Most of the activities planned within the project have taken place. Some aspects of the project did not turn out as originally anticipated, but others have worked out beyond the planned activities (number of lectures and seminars is way over the planned amount). In any case the fact that some of the planned things did not occur didn’t affect the impact and the results of the project. An example of something that didn’t happen is the partnership with the University of Architecture, due to very heavy and bureaucratic discussions and lack of interest on the side of the academic institution. Other partnerships have been initiated though and will be further developed in the future – the Veliko Turnovo University and the University of National and World Economy in Sofia. Partnership with the University in Blagoevgrad did not occur as planned, but very good relations and partnerships were developed with the Municipality of Chprotvsi, where part of the travel seminars took place. The big results of the project besides the established network of people and organizations are the Masters program started in the NBU as well as the free chosen course at the Sofia University and the field practices approved by the academic management boards of these academic institutions. This means that the project is sustainable and will go beyond the CEE Trust funding. In fact not one person from the interviewed did talk about an “end” of the project – the general consensus is that the project will continue one way or another and building on the achievements so far will offer new developments, activities and partnerships. However so far the team has not had any discussions as to what exactly they plan to do and what are the next steps.

One thing that kept coming out as an obstacle for the team has been the lack of physical space where the Association team members can meet and works from. To my understanding that has challenged their self identification as a team and organization in one way or another. It has also been a challenge given that there isn’t just one place where all of the institutional and project memory is, all the documentation and the technology – these were spread and that has caused some uncomfortable situations. What made and interesting finding is that the people who worked in the project team did not identify themselves as the team of the Shtastlivetsa Associations, rather that the project team for Place for Future. That perhaps has to do with the lack of office, but also because of the fact that it is a new organization which has not yet fully established its institutional capacity.

One of the challenges the team faced during the project was related to the elections and was mentioned by almost every single interviewee. It had to do with the fact that the Green party participated in the national elections in the summer of 2009 and many of the activists of the project and the network were involved with it. At some point the debate within the organization was the project vs. the party and that debate has brought some of the tensions in the project team. Upon many discussions and an internal agreement (see organizational assessment chapter of this evaluation) however the project and the organization did not support officially the party and stayed behind during the election concentrating on the project work. What makes an interesting observation is that despite the heated discussions and the important moment for the organization, it managed to keep the main vision and goal into mind and this has not affected people’s motivation and the positive results of the project.

Risk management – As mentioned above, some of the activities planned in the project have not happened the way they were planned. When consulted in the project proposal, some of the risks have been predicted and identified prior. In general there hasn’t been a specific plan on how to overcome the risks and deal with them. The strategies have been communicated at the time and appropriate strategies have been planned to deal with the problems. Generally the team has done a good job dealing with the situations that have occurred and the project impact has not been affected in any way.

CEE Trust communication - Last but not least the work and communication with the CEE Trust is assessed to be good and productive. The flexibility of the procedures and the willingness and openness for consultations is appreciated highly. The only thing that was mentioned was that the organization expects more visible support from the Trust, namely more presence at the events organized by the Association as well as written confirmations to the questions and requests filed to the CEE Trust office (permission to prolong the project, permission to use the Resource Fund to pay some of the interns etc.). The grantee needs the CEE Trust to be more visible in their work. Other than that, the CEE Trust is mentioned in all documents and the donor logo is present on every material, publication, brochure or poster created through the project including the website.

What’s next - A few words on what is next in terms of how the project will continue and what are the possible directions according to the interviewees. As mentioned above no one talks about an end of the project and there are several ideas on what to do next and how to build on the experience gained here and promote new ideas as well. One idea is to diversify the network going to new universities and perhaps also schools. Keeping the traineeships and internships is something that is considered success and a definite must in the future. Expanding the themes and issues looked through the philosophy of sustainable development is something considered too – adding cultural heritage into the picture not only framing the project in the environmental field. Work more in the municipality of Sofia, also expanding to the national level. These and other things are to be discussed after the end of this project.

4. Conclusions of the evaluation

One of the main conclusions of this evaluation is that the project has been a success. It has managed to bring NGOs, academia and students together and bridge them so that exchange of knowledge and experience happens in the most productive way and the principles and philosophy of sustainable development are distributed, discussed and implemented.

The fact that the CEE Trust suggested for the project to be shorter and smaller scale (from 3 to 1 years) was a good decision both financially and in terms of the time frame. This has been very healthy for the organization and is also being recognized by the team members, although it has been somewhat of a disappointment for them in the beginning. It has given the opportunity to the team to spread their imagination and energy to putting the basics together and achieving results that they could build on in the future in order to create bigger and better things.

5. Lessons to be learned by the CEE Trust/recommendations for further projects in Bulgaria

As a result of this evaluation I strongly suggest that the CEE Trust considers the Shtastlivetsa Association for further funding, given that they provide with a well structured strategic and operational plans, show efforts for diversification of their funding sources and build on the well established base and contacts they have so far to widen their activities and approach. The fact that the project has been one instead of three years has been a positive experience for the organization and my believe is that this practice should be continued, because it give the opportunity for the Association to evenly distribute their energy and resources within the planned activities and to self assess their development and plan further making sure they are diverse in regard to their institutional development and financial independence. CEE Trust could provide help and support to the Association in their efforts to develop institutionally and strategically as well as consider supporting the Association in their effort to find a small office space.


B. Financial checking

The overall cost of the A Place for Future project is USD 94,664. USD 20,510 is own contribution and the sum of USD 74,154 is provided by the CEE Trust. According to the documentation the sum is given to the grantee in two tranches – one initial (USD 40,000) in September, 2008 and the second one (USD 34,154) in February, 2009 after a financial report submitted to the CEE Trust. The reviewed documents in this chapter included copies of all expenses filed per budget item with the according documents attached (contracts, invoices etc.), copies of bank statements, statements from the National Revenue Agency and the National Insurance Agency.

Findings

The budget of the project was prepared in a team effort and was a first for the majority of the people. According to the interviewees it was not planned perfectly and some adjustments had to be made in order to meet the needs and costs of the activities within the project. All of these fall within the 20% allowed by the CEE Trust. Every change in budget items and spending was communicated with the CEE Trust office in Sofia.

The team has one person who has been designated the role of the financial manager – working with the bank accounts, financial institutions, collecting the financial documents in files and working with the accountant.

All documentation is present, filed, tabled and footnotes explain the changes made in each budget item throughout the project.

Conclusions

The financial documents show that all funds contributed towards this project by the CEE Trust are spent accordingly. The expenditures are well justified and accounted for.

Lessons to be learned by the CEE Trust/recommendations for further projects in Bulgaria

The flexibility of the CEE Trust policy is definitely something that should be kept.

The fact that the CEE Trust performs such financial checks is something healthy for the organizations (especially the new ones) and they file their documentation in a proper manner. Perhaps in the future the CEE Trust should also ask of their grantees an official, signed financial audit report at the end of each project to ensure that there has been a financial check done by professionals.

C. Organizational assessment report

Mission and goals - The mission of the organization is formulated simply and is relevant. All of the team members and board have an understanding of the purposes of the organization and share the same values. The beneficiaries are partners in the process of development, implementation and assessment of the projects of the Association. The communication of the mission and goals is open and organization’s partners and beneficiaries are also involved in its formulation and share it. The management board and the executive power of the organization encourage the rest of the team and the beneficiaries to participate in the decision making process and the work itself.

Structure and decision making – The structure of the organization as per the bylaws is very simple and easy to grasp. There is a Board consisting of three people. All three are engaged in the work of the organization in one way or another one of them serving as the Executive Director and another as the Financial Manager. In reality the decision making process is not formalized. There is an internal agreement to have a somewhat informal structure where there is a spirit of shared leadership and the decisions are made as a result of a consensus between team members. However in case there can’t be a consensus reached the decision is made through a vote, where the ED has two votes. Such a case has not emerged yet. The structure and bylaws are serving the organization well so far. If the Association decides to concentrate on its institutional development, then perhaps it will need some reorganization and restructuring to better reflect the changes.

Leadership - The concept of leadership is very interestingly placed in the organization. There is a feeling of shared leadership – everyone is given the chance to bring something unique and different than the other, and at the same time the two people who are considered the driving force are the two creators of the organization and respectively the two Board members. What is unique and worth mentioning is that within the organization there is an agreement between the team members and volunteers/interns that if there is no consensus on important issues, there will not be an official position from the organization. This agreement has helped the organization through the debate project vs. party, which was elaborated on earlier. Everyone has the freedom to express themselves and voice their ideas or concerns and be heard.

Human resources - The team meets regularly (especially during the project implementation – so far the only one of the organization) and there is a record of these meeting showing clearly the distribution of roles and tasks as well as the decisions made within those team meetings. The communication in the team is open and good given that this is a new organization and they practically haven’t had the chance to build a well working team prior to starting the organization. Most of the people in the organization have known each other of friends or work basis, but they haven’t worked together up to this point. They need time to adjust to their differences, but the curiosity and the determination to make this diverse team work has done a great job. Despite the good results and the team work however it might be good to consider strategies to develop the team, to spend more quality time together in and out of the project context and do purely team building activities.

It is amazing to see a value driven organization that has not yet been professionalized, but determined to achieve results in partnership with the rest of the community. There is no sense of competition, but sense of togetherness. Perhaps part of the success of the organization is that all of the team members have other primary assignments and the work in the Association is a secondary project for them. That keeps part of their personal and professional freedom and gives them a chance to concentrate of what is important for the organization.

Although during the project implementation the roles have been distributed well, the team members don’t have a system of profiling and terms of reference for all team members. The coordination and work is good on the project basis, but it would be good to have clear roles and responsibilities assigned in the organization as such, beyond the projects that the organization has. That would help the different team members to find their place, identify better with the team/organization and would also give the chance for the management to have a strategy for the development of its team.

The team of the organization has grown in number and in capacity in the past year or so. The very valuable thing in the human resource management of the organization however is the fact that there is a constant transfer of skills going on – the older and more experienced team members delegate and train the younger team members and volunteers so that they can perform specific tasks and supervise their work. Same goes for the management - they seek professional help where they find the need. The team shares their experience and learning between each other and out of the organization (the For the Nature network). The tradition which made a very strong impression is that there is a team effort to learn, which is why during the project once a month the team underwent a certain training (as per their needs), which is also open for students who are interested to attend.

Only one or two members of the team have had experience with grants planning and management before the current project, the so the experience had a training component to it for the majority of team members. This experience is recognized by all of the team members new or old. The attitude towards new learning is very much impressionable here in this team – constant search for new knowledge and experience make the organization successful and unique in itself.

The thing that makes it difficult for the team though is the lack of office space where the organization can identify its presence with, hold meetings, have open doors for students and interns to come and work.

The thing that hasn’t been done yet is a team building exercise which is planned but not yet implemented. It is very important for the team to have a culture of celebrating their successes.

Outreach and Communication - The Association is pretty open minded and visible. Their website has been created within the project and contains easy to access and full information about the project, the organization as well as the partners, documents and initiatives. It has been translated by volunteers into English and French and there is a plan to translate it to German at some point in the near future. It has been accessed by young people from other towns in Bulgaria as well as from other countries, who signed in to participate in the activities within the project and join the travel seminars.

One thing that is considered positive is that the Association is constantly searching for ways to be more open and visible, which is why they work with the Mass Communication Department at the New Bulgarian University, where student teams consulted the website and the general outreach strategy of the organization as well as given advice on how to work with the media. In general however in such a diverse organization with people with so many different backgrounds and color, there is a need for a strong communication strategy in order to keep things into perspective and get the message in a constructive organized way, which would help policy changes, attraction of new supporters etc. The Mass Communication Department of the New Bulgarian University has expressed their willingness to work further on such a strategy professionally in developing it and offering internships for their students in the Shtastlivetsa Association, where the students can implement the strategy and be of use in the best possible way.

Partnerships - The Association is well connected with the environmental community. They are part of the network “For the Nature” (the Eco Family within the CEE Trust funded Open Society project). Through the evaluated project the Association has established good working relations with other organizations and groups some of which Balkan Assist and Bulgarian Center for Non-Profit Law. The connections with the media are also good. In terms of outreach the organization is visible – the website contains copies of the print media as well as some of the radio appearances of the team members. The TV appearances are not yet archived, but to my understanding it is within the plans of team to have such an archive as well.

Sustainability - As of now, the organization doesn’t have a strategic plan and planned budget for its activities in the next three to five years. Their funding source is just the CEE Trust funded project as well as small income from membership fees. There is a discussion about how to best approach new funding and build on the achievements so far and how to diversify the funding sources so that there is no dependency on just one.


C. Recommendations

ü As a result of this assessment there are two options of Shtastlivetsa Association in terms of the future – concentrate on the institutional development or the organization (formalizing, structure, procedures, framing the organization etc) or continue the project work building on what has been achieved during this past year. The discussion in the team should be where do we want to be, are we ready for more or we are good doing what we do as we are set up now with minor changes?

ü At the current time there is no discussion as to what is next for the organization as such. There is no strategic plan and no strategy on the financial sustainability of the organization. Such process should be launched as soon as possible so that the priorities and vision of the organization for the next three to five years are established, ideas discussed and given some sort of a financial framework.

ü A serious discussion should be also made about how to straighten the institution as such – the team, its roles and personal and professional development. If the organization is going to go in the institutionalization direction there should be a “face” assigned – the decision maker, the representative of the organization in the public, the coordinator of the projects and contacts. If on the other hand the project concept is preferred a facilitator should be appointed who would coordinate the communication between the different parties and partners.

ü The diversification of the financial sources should also be planned and discussed – depending on the priorities and the project ideas some attention and research should be done for other means of financial support.

ü An office should be opened where all the documentation, technical support should be, that will provide also some sort of identification of the people towards the organization. Perhaps one person should be hired to facilitate and coordinate the communication between the different team members who are scattered all around the city and to collect and file all documentation, take phone calls and oversee the work with the students at the office.

ü Whatever the decision about the future three to five years, based on the diverse team and the big number of ideas that the organization deals with a communication/PR strategy should be developed and implemented as part of the operational plans of the organization.


D. Annexes

I. List of people interviewed:

  1. Petar Kanev – Shtastlivetsa
  2. Radosveta Krustanova – Shtastlivetsa
  3. Martin Mikush – Shtastlivetsa
  4. Georgi Stefanov – Shtastlivetsa, WWF
  5. Dimitar Dimov – student, intern
  6. Gergana Kosturkova – student, intern
  7. Juliana Naskova – Shtastlivetsa volunteer, Red House employee
  8. Ludmila Grekova - Shtastlivetsa Financial Manager
  9. Anna Krusteva – NBU
  10. Rossen Stoyanov – NBU
  11. Toma Belev – Vitosha park
  12. Ivan Popov – student, intern

II. Time table of activities

Desk research – 1st to 15th August, 2009

Interviews – 3rd to 22nd August, 2009

Report – 10th-30th August, 2009


III. Questionnaires

1. Въпросник за оценка на организационното развитие

Organizational Assessment Questionnaire

  1. До каква степен вашата организация адресира истинските нужди на целевата група с която работи?/ To what extend do the organization reflects the real needs of the community it serves?

  1. Споделени и разбрани ли са целите и мисията на организацията от хората в нея? / Do people in the organization understand and share the mission and goals?

  1. Имало ли е голяма промяна в организацията в последните две години? Каква и до какво е довела? Как я оценявате? /

  1. Коя група или човек са движещата сила в организацията? / What group or person constitutes leadership in the organization?

  1. Как е организирано събирането, анализирането и разпространението на информация в организацията? / How are the collection, analysis and dissemination of information organized in the organization?

  1. Как организацията използва събраната информация от наблюдение, оценка и отчети?/ How does the organization use the generated information by the monitoring, evaluation and reporting system?

  1. Как организацията планира, оценява и отчита дейността си? / How does the organization plan, evaluate and report on its program activities?

  1. Имат ли служителите в организацията длъжностни характеристики?/ Do the organization employees have job descriptions?

  1. Съобразени ли са длъжностните характеристики с мисията на организацията и уменията на хората от екипа? / Are the job tasks and descriptions consistent with mission of the organization and skills of the staff?

  1. По какъв начин е постигнато разнообразие в организацията от гледна точка на състав на екипа (целевата група, външни експерти, представители на малцинствени групи или групи в неравностойно положение)? / In what ways is the diversity of the organizations target group reflected in the composition of the staff?

  1. Колко често се провеждат срещи на екипа, събиране на екипа за стратегически дискусии? / Are there staff meetings held and how often?

  1. Има ли в организацията редовен процес по планиране на бюджета? А за стратегическо и оперативно планиране? / Does the organization have a regular budget planning process?

  1. Какви са настоящите източници на финансиране на организацията?/ What are the existing sources of the organization’s financial resources?

  1. Има ли организацията достъп до технически специализиран опит, когато има потребност от това? / Does the organization have access to technical sectorial experience when required?

  1. Как организацията измерва резултатите, които постига? / How does the organization measure achievements of results and impact?

  1. Какви са отношенията на организацията с : целевата група; местна власт; НПО; местен бизнес; медии; донори? / What is the relationship of the organization with: Stakeholders; Local government; NGOs working in the area, or other NGOs; Local businesses; Media; Funders

  1. Демонстрира ли организацията дух на сътрудничество с други организации, както частни, така и публични? Ако да, с кого и в каква област? / Does the organization promote collaborative efforts (what and how) with other sectors of the community, both private and public?

  1. Как организацията демонстрира, че общността за която работи участва активно в програмите и дейностите й?/ How can the organization demonstrate that the community it serves are active participants in programs and activities?

  1. Част ли е организацията от някакви мрежи или коалиции? Какви? / Is the organization member of any coalitions or networks?

  1. Какво бихте искали да постигнете организационно отношение и какви са параметрите на промяна, които искате да постигнете? / What would you like to achieve as an organization?

  1. От какво има нужда организацията според вас, за да постигне набелязаните цели? / What organizational development needs does the organization have?

2. Въпросник за партньори и бенефициенти

Questionnaire for partners and beneficiaries

  1. От кога познавате организацията? / How long have you known the organization?

  1. Виждате ли промяна в организацията в последните две години и ако да, то в каква посока? / Do you see change in the organization in the last two years and if yes, what kind of change?

  1. Как по-точно бяхте въвлечени в този проект? / How were you involved in this project?

  1. Кое вървеше добре във взаимната ви работа и пред какви предизвикателства се изправяхте? Как се справихте с тях? / What went well in your joint work and what were the challenges that you faced? How did you deal with them?

  1. Смятате ли, че организацията има правилен подход към институциите ангажирани с решаването на проблемите които са поставени от проекта/организацията? Какво може да се подобри в този респект? / Do you think the organization has the right approach towards the institutions involved with the solution of the problems addressed in the project/or by the organization? What can be improved in this respect?

  1. Как оценявате работата и отношенията между организацията и големите институции въвлечени в работата (например: съд, университет, министерство, парламент, НПО и др)? / How do you assess the work and the relationships between the organization and the big institutions involved in the project (court, ministry, university, NGOs etc)?

  1. Какво би следвало да промени в работата си организацията в следващите две години? / What would you say needs to be changed in the work the organization does in the next two years?

  1. Колко често се виждахте, общувахте, чувахте в рамките на проекта? / How often did you meet within the project?

  1. Удовлетворени ли сте от работата и участието си в този проект? / Are you satisfied with the work and participation in this project?

3. Въпросник за оценка на проект – към екипи и борд

Questionnaire for project assessment (teams and boards)

  1. Разкажете за основната идея и цели на проекта?/ Could you talk about the main idea and goals of this project?

  1. Кое проработи добре и както беше предварително планирано и кое не се получи по план? Защо? / What went well and as initially planned and what didn’t work out? Why?

  1. Имаше ли непредвидени събития и аспекти, които наложиха промяна в проекта? / Were there any unplanned events or aspects that made it necessary to change the project?

  1. Колко голям беше екипа по проекта? Остана ли той в същия състав? Как вървеше комуникацията и работата в екипа по проекта? / How big was the project team? Did it stay in its original number? How was the communication and team work within this project?

  1. Успяхте ли да достигнете до широката публика с материалите и информацията, които произведохте и разпространявахте? Каква обратна връзка получихте? / Did you manage to reach out to the general public with the information and materials you have disseminated through the project? What was the feedback you got?

  1. Как ще продължи работата по този проект след края му? / How will you continue the work on the issue after the project end?

  1. Кои са големите постижения и резултати от този проект?/ What are the major results of the project according to you?

  1. От какво имате нужда, за да продължите работата по тази инициатива? Има ли нещо, с което искате да надградите работата и постигнатото? / What kind of resources and support do you need in order to continue working on the issues and build on the achieved?

  1. Удовлетворени ли сте от работата си по този проект? / Are you satisfied with the work you have done with this project?

  1. Как оценявате работата си с Тръста? / How do you assess your work with the CEE Trust?

IV. List of materials and documents received from grant beneficiaries

ü Project application

ü Project proposal

ü Financial proposal

ü Interim report narrative and financial

ü Copies of financial documents

ü Organizational structure and bylaws

ü Copies of memos from team meetings

ü Media appearances

ü Online publications and communication

ü Invitation and presentation of printed material published at the end of the project (end September)

Петър Канев (Из интервю, дадено за академично изследване): “Да спасим Иракли!” роди не само коалицията “За да остане природа в България“, не само въвеждането на пълния обхват на европейската мрежа от защитени територии НАТУРА 2000 в България, не само последвалите грандиозни природозащитни граждански акции и граждански мрежи, довели да спасяването на парк Странджа и до забраната на отглеждането на ГМО (генно-модифицирани организми) на територията на България. В “Да спасим Иракли!” се роди и израстна и нашата собствена гражданска общност, в “Да спасим Иракли!” ние станахме това, което сме днес. Както вероятно знаете, нашето гражданско сдружение “Щастливеца” се роди в борбата с безумието, свързано със софийските отпадъци, но едновременно с това с борбата за спасяване на любимото ни място на Черноморието - Иракли - тази любовна, бих казал, борба ни свърза и сплоти - Петър Канев, Ради Кръстанова, Люси Иванова, Виктория Сотирова, Мая Иванова, и в “Да спасим Иракли!” се запознахме и с Калин Ненов. Нашият скромен принос в кампанията беше изнасянето й в университетска среда, принос в медийните изяви - особено за предаването на нашите приятели разследващи журналисти Милена Илиева от “На чисто” на Промедия и Нова Телевизия и Румен Стоичков от БНР, и - това е по-важно - инициирането и провеждането на подписката в защита на българското Черноморие и внасянето й в европейския и в българския парламент. При внасянето на подписката в парламента, организирано от Радосвета Кръстанова и сдружение “Щастливеца” ние станахме членове на коалицията “За да остане природа в България”, още при самото й създаване (иначе никога нямаше да станем членове на коалицията, ако не беше тази наша акция). Заради Иракли участвахме в ежеседмичния хепънинг в защита на пълния обхват на мрежата НАТУРА 2000 за България, където се свързахме с Кристина Боянова и Генади Кондарев, и пак заради Иракли участвахме в протестите за Странджа, където се срещнахме с арх. Мартин Микуш и с адв. Свилен Овчаров. В търсене на подкрепта за Иракли се запознахме с Борислав Сандов и с Университеския клуб за екология и устойчиво развитие UNECO на Софийския университет и първи запознахме Боби с гражданските природозащитни протести и го поканихме в коалицията “За да остане природа в България”. Заради Иракли направихме университетските си курсове и първите публични академични събития на сдружение “Щастливеца” в Нов български университет - като грандиозното събитие в подкрепа на пълния обхват на мрежата НАТУРА 2000 например.

“Място за бъдеще” възникна от “Да спасим Иракли!”, заради “Да спасим Иракли!” и за да спасим Иракли, с този принос, който само ние можем - с приноса ни в университетска среда. “Място за бъдеще” възникна от групата ни в защита на Иракли в университетите и първоначлно ние искахме това да бъде проект за Иракли, провеждан на Иракли и скромен наш принос в спасяването на Иракли - тогава в групата за създаването на проекта бяхме аз, Ради Кръстанова, Люси Иванова, Калин Ненов, Жоро Стефанов, който ни запозна и с Юлиана Наскова, Боби Сандов, Данчето Динева, Мартин Микуш и Кристина Боянова. Тогава обаче Андрей Ковачев от Сдружение за дива природа БАЛКАНИ успя да ни убеди да се захванем по-добре с място за студентски практики, което е все още девствено и неунищожено и все още има капицитет за истинско устойчиво развитие. Щеше да е добре и мястото да е по-близо до София. Боби Сандов настояваше за Земен. Жоро Стефанов предложи това да е неговото родно място Чипровци и така практиките на “Място за бъдеще”, вместо на Иракли, се реализираха в Западна Стара планина. Въпреки това ние продължихме да сме сърдечно свързани с Ираклийската кампания и сме изключително благодарни на Надя Максимова, Цвета Христова, Данчето Динева и Петър Шурулинков, че така горещо ни подкрепиха в гражданските природозащитни среди, когото бяха възникнали сериозни недоразумения, свързани с нашата инициатива. И винаги ще помним деня, в който цялата коалиция “За да остане природа в България” ни подкрепи пред донорите - това бяха Данчето Динева, Ендрю Ковачев, Цвета Христова, Галя Славова, Калин Ненов, Жоро Стефанов - без тях ние никога нямаше да получим нищо от донорите и “Място за бъдеще” нямаше да съществува. На Данчето Динева лично дължим и една от чудесните практики на проекта “Място за бъдеще” - тя отвоюва ресурсния фонд на проекта, с който подкрепихме не едно и две съдебни дела на природозащитници (впрочем всичките - спечелени!), регистрацията на локални граждански сдружения и природозащитни клубове (“Белият бряг” в Балчик и клуб в Софийския университет), протестите на 14 януари пред парламента, първата Планиниада на Витоша и различни нужди на коалицията “За да остане природа в България” и на Университеския клуб за екология и устойчиво развитие UNECO на Софийския университет. Но на първо място за нас си оставаше намерението да подкрепим Иракли и съвсем недостатъчно ни се виждаше, че подкрепихме Светльо Митев за сайта на ираклийците. Бяхме решили, че непременно трябва да заведем успешно съдебно дело за Иракли със средствата на ресурсния фонд. Отидохме при нашия адвокат от боклучената криза адв. Александър Коджабашев и многократно го убеждавахме да поеме делото, като му изложихме всички познати ни по случая факти. Страхотно работихме съвместно с Надя Максимова и Данчето Динева по този и по други казуси на проекта “Място за бъдеще” и получихме подкрепа и от СДП БАЛКАНИ и от WWF. Накрая успяхме да убедим адв. Коджабашев да поеме не едно, а цели две съдебни дела в защита на Иракли, разходите за които покрихме с ресурсния фонд на “Мястоза бъдеще”. И аз съм особено щастлив “Щастливец”, че тези дела завършиха успешно за нас и за Иракли! И благодаря на адв. Коджабашев, че единствен от цялата природозащитна общност се сети да ни благодари и да ни спомене като инициатори на тези дела. Е, ние все пак сме българи, живели в тоталитарен режим. Има още доста да се учим да се подкрепяме взаимно, да се признаваме едни други, да сме солидарни и да изграждаме добра култура на комуникация, в която не само да се оплакваме и да критикуваме, но и да сме в състояние да си кажем по една добра дума по между си, тогава, когато наистина това си заслужава. И аз сам се опитвам да се уча на това и в момента и искам сега да благодаря от сърце на всички ираклийци и на всички природозащитници и на човеците от коалицията, че благодарение на тяхната енергия, любов и всеотдайност аз станах това, което съм, ние станахме това, което сме днес и ни дадоха толкова много поводи и мигове за светло щастие и чиса радост. Благодаря!”

Делото на МЯСТО ЗА БЪДЕЩЕ в защита на Иракли, спечелено от адв. Александър Коджабашев

Делото на "МЯСТО ЗА БЪДЕЩЕ" в защита на Иракли, спечелено от адв. Александър Коджабашев

[/lang_bg]

Categories

Archives

Gallery

img_1343.jpg imgp7320.jpg imgp7299.jpg img_2424.jpg

 

July 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Tags

МАТЕРИАЛИ ЗА СТУДЕНТИ - ЗА ИЗТЕГЛЯНЕ

За СГС Щастливеца

  • Софийско гражданско сдружение “Щастливеца”

I. ТУК И СЕГА

  • -
  • За Витоша
  • Чиста България

II. БЪДЕЩЕ В МИНАЛОТО

III. УЧЕБНИ ДИСЦИПЛИНИ

IV. КУЛТУРА НА БЪДЕЩЕТО

V. УНИВЕРСИТЕТ НА ОТКРИТО

VI. МЯСТО НА АВТОРА

VII. ХРОНИКА НА КАМПАНИЯТА

VIII. МЯСТО ЗА ОБЩУВАНЕ

VIIII. КОИ СМЕ

X. МЯСТО ЗА СРЕЩИ - връзки

Y. Гражданско образование: УСТОЙЧИВО РАЗВИТИЕ и ГРАЖДАНСКО УЧАСТИЕ - Програмни документи

Meta