During the Project Coordinators' visits to the target countries, the government representatives expressed interest in having an organization similar to a Model One, National Organization or a Model Two, Centralized Organization established in their countries. The concept of the Model Three, International Organization was not formulated until after the Project Coordinators' field work.
The National Organizations would have up to five people in an office during the initial period. Over time, as a National Organization's capacity grew and the demand for its services increased, the office could hire more staff. Nevertheless, there could be a cap on how large an office would grow. Instead of an office growing ever larger, new offices should be established in other areas of the country so as to respond to local needs. Additional offices, however, would only be opened in the largest countries. Such a strategy would ensure decentralization.
National Organizations would be demand driven and respond to national and local needs. The principal disadvantage is that they could fail to foster cooperation among countries. Furthermore, this model could lead to animosity among National Organizations as they compete for funds and the donor community sees several organizations providing the same services.
One advantage to a Centralized Organization is that it would be less complex from a purely legal perspective than the other models. Only one organization needs to be registered, as opposed to registering three or four organizations for the other models. This model, however, has several disadvantages. Many potential constituents would resent that the Centralized Organization was not established in their country. The Centralized Organization could be perceived as serving the interests of the country in which it was established. Furthermore, the Centralized Organization could have trouble working at the local level and building capacity at this level. These problems could hinder achieving the goal of fostering regional cooperation.
The Head Office would serve as a conduit for donor funds to the National Offices. The Head Office would engage in fund-raising activities and assist the National Offices with their own fund-raising. Since the Head Office would limit the services it delivers, the National Offices would not view the Head Office as a competitor for funds or turf. An Information Exchange would constitute the Head Office's primary service. This service would support the Head Office's role of tying the National Offices together.
The Head Office would resemble a Model Two, Centralized Organization, in that it would have an international staff. The Head Office would differ from a Model Two, Central Organization in one critical aspect. The Head Office would limit the services it provides and thus not have as large a staff as a Centralized Organization. In this regard, it would also differ from the REC-Budapest model, in that the International Organization model is more decentralized.
The Head Office would coordinate the various international services that the National Offices would deliver. In this regard, it would take the lead role in preparing a master strategic plan for the network of National Offices. This master strategic plan would be based on local strategic plans prepared by each of the National Offices. The Coordination and Information Center would thus determine which National Offices would deliver which services and provide the funds to deliver these services. International services could be accessed by individuals and organizations anywhere in the CIS, and not limited to the citizens of the country of the National Office delivering the service.
As many services as possible would be delivered by the National Offices. A decision as to which National Office has the responsibility for delivering a particular service would be based on several factors. The experience and expertise of the people and organization in delivering the service would prove critical. Costs must be considered; it would cost more to deliver services in some cities of the CIS than in others. Another cost factor would be whether the National Office, through its own fund-raising efforts, contributes resources. Thus, this model differs from REC-Budapest in that the proposed model envisions a more decentralized organization.
The International Organization model has the disadvantage of being a complex model, since several offices would need to be established simultaneously. On the other hand, this model would likely deliver the services more effectively than the other models and thus foster regional cooperation and build capacity.